Most of those are left unexplained. Except for the one with Shepard shooting Anderson. Leviathan answered this.
I would guess TIM was using some form of dominate power. Why? The link you provided has that character not remembering shooting Bryson whereas Shepard knows he/she shoots Anderson
The game files call the Illusive Man's power ReaperIndoc.
Honestly the whole evac scene made no sense, and how the rest of your squad who were left at the FOB got on the Normandy isn't explained either. From some of the cut content I've seen I've always gotten the expression that your squad was meant to die on Earth but then for some reason Bioware changed their mind, or ran out of time to properly implement it so your squad was just poofed back up on the Normandy and randomly showed up on Planet of Eden.
Honestly I'd like to know how the ending would have been like if Bioware had been given an extra 6 months, I think it would be fundamentally the same, but things like squadmates poofing up to the Normandy wouldn't have happened, Bioware would have probably given them emotional deaths, something would I would have been happy with since it would have made sense, because them randomly showing up on the Normand made no sense.
In the case of Steve his death scenario should have been kept as the only outcome, because his survival brings up many questions which probably have no logical answers.
It seems to me they had enough awareness that they were murdering Shep and burning the setting to the ground in an act of deliberate arson that they then decided to pick up squad and teleport them to Gilligan's island, so they could go to players look, all your squaddies are fine. I would love to think extra time would have changed things radically but that would only be the case if that time allowed others to challenge and then rip up the nonsense decided between Casey and Mac in private but i'm not wholly convinced.
Most of those are left unexplained. Except for the one with Shepard shooting Anderson. Leviathan answered this.
Yes most are left unexplained but it's just because of the point of view. The narration in Mass Effect 3 kept the same point of view till the end, that's the reason we don't have explicit answers in the game.
ME kept the same point of view?
Maybe you meant something different, but the point of view was consistently shifting in key moments.
(Most often just for a short scene, but still)
And this List is just from the top of my head.
I guess that applies to all the ME2 squadmates as well.
That whole holobye thing is funny. The qec yellow pages guy able to ring up those characters with no problem.
Kinda funny, since QEC decices are supposed to be hideously expensive.
Do they ever say it's a qec? I was under the impression that ti's just a normal comm terminal. All the characters are either in the sol system already or with the crucible (which I guess is one relay away and the fleet probably dropped a comm relay when they jumped in).
I just find that whole setup kind of weird as a player because it feels like you are ticking off all the old squad mates one by one as they are being delivered on a conveyor belt. 
Yes most are left unexplained but it's just because of the point of view. The narration in Mass Effect 3 kept the same point of view till the end, that's the reason we don't have explicit answers in the game.
So I guess the Extended Cut and all the content that follows it up to Citadel changed all that?
Hudson has a degree as a mechanical enginer, Muzyka, the CEO, who was named as a defender, has a degree in medicine. No idea about Walters bio.
Anyways a degree doesn´t make you immune to mistakes and people can screw up even with a lot of experience. Otherwise everything would work like clockwork. We wouldn´t need comittees after big accidents, courts or laws about compensations, when someone screws up or tries to screw you over.
So well sometimes the customer is a jerk, especially the ones who vent their frustration at the poor guy in CS, who´s probably not to blame for the problem with the thing that was bought. Sometimes fans are real jerks, who think they know everything better.
And sometimes professionals or whole companies screw up.
A good point and an indicator sometimes that the modern game manufacturing process is flawed. It seems to me as a former mod contributor that any project that spends a greater proportion of it's budget on marketing rather than game content is basically looking at success from a "smash and grab" school of business enterprise . The emphasis is placed on mass audience appeal (lowering age participation to the lower teens dramatically increases that), rather than developing a loyal supporter's club. That sort of approach would explain why the writing quality and content is given a lower priority than historically has been the case for Bioware RPGs (BG, BG2, NWN1, DA0, and so on). Besides, how many in their early teens are going to be paying close attention to much else but what is "on screen"? Earlier Biogames where the age entry is higher is more vulnerable to critiques from perfectionist rpg afficionados. Should mention that ME1 though sucking in combat did have an excellent RPG element, and a plot that didn't look as though it had been attacked by machine gun Kelly (not the rapper)
Yes, a lot of games have things cut during pre-production or other places. Certain parts that were in the leaked script do not appear in the final game.
The time constraints come in because there's a certain window you can release the game. What with other games being released around the same time. More time doesn't always mean better though.
I'm taking your comments in reverse order
Agree with second para, as it depends on what you actually do with the extra time time you grab and how you view overall the game's objectives
However, the cutting room floor contains more or less axed game content depending on the perspective, insight, and overall objectivity of the editor. This "editing" process is an accepted standard industrial procedure for such productions. The issue here is whether the original unedited endings (and the lead up to them)were better, or worse as a result of the re- shaping. My comment is that you can't edit that which does not exist in the first place.
What we actually experienced here in playing the end game was someone(s) trying to make the best of what a lot of experienced gamers have referred to as a bad job, and actually making it worse! My guess is that the lack of original content made that an impossible task, without rewriting the whole last chapter which would in reality, have been a non starter anyway post launch
The only way into the citadel is via the beam? No commando style small unit team attacks? Stealthed infiltrators? That sets the scene for bloody house to house carnage which it has to be said is not too bad as combat goes, but it's visually akin to two rival ant colonies fighting over a large ear of unripe corn while a herd of armoured flying Anteaters, savage combatants indiscriminately! An unimaginative storyline which throws out all the cleverly built up Spectre stuff and leaves you with a straightforward head to head stronghold assault. Even this was spoiled by the incongruous appearance of the Normandy to rescue 2 casualties while everyone else gets the crispy critter treatment, or left for medical teams to pick up
Then it had the nerve to escape unscathed while the poor little boy in the stealthed shuttle got fried at the start of the game along with the entire crew and that was just a reaper destroyer not Harbinger
It's easy to look back and point out issues in any game but this particular one has a uniqueness about it which in recent times has been unmatched! I can't recall in over 20 years of gaming such a collective outcry about an RPG's ending, despite the efforts of the "impartial" gamer magazines to convince the gaming community otherwise
I think the "extended" ending was another knee jerk reaction by the originators in line with the hasty retreat they beat after the televised coverage in the US of "sexual content" for teens in ME1
My basic problem? I'm not a teenager
Why don't you ask for a scene to explain how Shepard got from the Prothean Beacon to the Normandy's med bay in the first game? If they didn't explain that, it must be a logical inconsistency, or a plot hole.
Seriously though, unexplained events aren't plot holes. How did character X get from some eastern country back to the US in the next scene? He took a plane. Fill in the blanks here.
Those two aren't even comparable. Not only does Ashley explain it, as mikefest points out, but there is nothing to question because the scene is over and the situation is calm. There are no questions raised by Shepard's appearance on the Normandy.
The squadmates being on the Normandy raises all sorts of questions.
How? They were with me when I started running at the beam. Harbinger was destroying everything. How did they get from Earth to the Normandy when the Normandy was in space fighting Reapers?
When? When did this happen? Did they not follow me to the beam? Did they fall back when I was blasted? Why wouldn't they continue on the mission?
Why? Why would they evac? Why wouldn't they continue the mission? Sure, they'd be sad if Shepard died but they know the stakes and would want to continue in his memory.
Unexplained things are not necessarily plot holes, but if they conflict with previously known information without explanation, they are.
@ImaginaryMatter.
You're over-analyzing everything.
By which you mean using his brain.
Plot holes? More like working as intended.
By which you mean using his brain.
But we still don't know if it's a good use or not.
But we still don't know if it's a good use or not.
That depends on what you mean by "good use." If you mean that he's done a smart analysis of the endings and identified the numerous, obvious flaws, then yes. If you mean thinking and talking about a game as opposed to say, curing cancer or creating real life FTL, then that's debatable.
How and why is the Mass Effect Twitter guy (responsible for hype and mostly marketing) the source of truth but when citing Mike Gambol (Producer), Stanley Woo (QA and community mod) or even looking into the material - seeing how it contradicts and disproves all of IT as developer intent - it is "our choice"?
rossler, you remind me a bit of this fellow, or this one, or even this one. And a few others now that i think about it.
Pointing out plotholes or narrative inconsistencies/implausibilities as proof of developer intent to IT or indoctrination (the ending being not real) is not rational nor is it the best approach. If that is what you want for your headcanon then I say go for it. But believing your interpretation (or even imagination) to be what the writers envisioned and intended is incorrect on a number of different levels.
rossler, you remind me a bit of this fellow, or this one, or even this one. And a few others now that i think about it.
Pointing out plotholes or narrative inconsistencies/implausibilities as proof of developer intent to IT or indoctrination (the ending being not real) is not rational nor is it the best approach. If that is what you want for your headcanon then I say go for it. But believing your interpretation (or even imagination) to be what the writers envisioned and intended is incorrect on a number of different levels.
Just because two people speak a similar language doesn't mean they are the same person. Lots of ITers speak a similar language.
Those images I posted don't say anything about IT. Other than the stuff in the ending is done that way on purpose.
Writer intent is meaningless here. It's one of those endings where they let the player use their imagination to decide how things end without the game forcing them down one path by the writer declaring their intentions. They've never fully told the player the ending was IT, nor did they say that the literal interpretation is correct either. None of them are.
You're just going to have to accept that.
Ohh salty
Just because two people speak a similar language doesn't mean they are the same person. Lots of ITers speak a similar language.
I never said these were the same person rossler...I just said that you reminded me of them...what are YOU thinking?
Those images I posted don't say anything about IT. Other than the stuff in the ending is done that way on purpose.
Writer intent is meaningless here. It's one of those endings where they let the player use their imagination to decide how things end without the game forcing them down one path by the writer declaring their intentions. They've never fully told the player the ending was IT, nor did they say that the literal interpretation is correct either. None of them are.
You're just going to have to accept that.
Really? Someone cites Plotholes and or contrivances and someone deflects it saying it was intentionally written to be "off"? Come now my dear boy...The only thing that was done on purpose for the ending was to keep it abstract (this is the High Level). This is ok to do, just don't have a crazy amount of contrivances or 'unexplained occurrences' that could break the reader/audience out of the illusion - this is bad.
There is a very substantial difference between our intrinsic/aesthetic interpretation or what we derive from the material and the material itself. Your interpretation does not eclipse another...nor does it remove the noticeable plotholes in the material itself. Again, there is the writing and then the person's interpretation of it. I do like how ITers label it as the "Face Value Interpretation". Someone's interpretation of writing does not supersede what is written lol. You silly nilly
Any ending, any writing, anything can and will be up to interpretation. I do like the idea of trying to make a noteworthy ending that is profound in theme and great for discussion. The issue is when you do so in a contrived and inconsistent way. Hell, I love the aesthetic ideas created in "The Room", however, I know the base product - the source material - is an awful movie and horribly written.
If you want to believe Shepard is on Earth after the tube is shot and it all was a dream = great!
If you actually believe that was what really happened in the material = not great. 
This is where the fallacies start and then the flame baiting and so on and so forth.
And yeah, they DID outright say IT was fanon (both by post and in the game files and even in the material itself - indoctrination doesn't work that way)...you are just going to have to accept that.
That depends on what you mean by "good use." If you mean that he's done a smart analysis of the endings and identified the numerous, obvious flaws, then yes. If you mean thinking and talking about a game as opposed to say, curing cancer or creating real life FTL, then that's debatable.
To be fair, I do agree with the former...however, in the face of the latter situation there really is no comparison lol!
All praise be to Act Utilitarinsim!! Ah Science!
Just because two people speak a similar language doesn't mean they are the same person. Lots of ITers speak a similar language.
Those images I posted don't say anything about IT. Other than the stuff in the ending is done that way on purpose.
Writer intent is meaningless here. It's one of those endings where they let the player use their imagination to decide how things end without the game forcing them down one path by the writer declaring their intentions. They've never fully told the player the ending was IT, nor did they say that the literal interpretation is correct either. None of them are.
You're just going to have to accept that.
Wait, wait, wait! If writer intent is meaningless, why did you go all incredulous over the idea that the fans know better than the writers about whatever? As Ithurael discussed, you can choose to view events in an alternative way for fun or because it feels better, but IT is simply not the story the writers told. They have to reinvent Indoctrination, the very core of the idea, in order to make it work.
To be fair, I do agree with the former...however, in the face of the latter situation there really is no comparison lol!
All praise be to Act Utilitarinsim!! Ah Science!
Well the joke is that it's not as if those things can be done just like that.
Wait, wait, wait! If writer intent is meaningless, why did you go all incredulous over the idea that the fans know better than the writers about whatever? As Ithurael discussed, you can choose to view events in an alternative way for fun or because it feels better, but IT is simply not the story the writers told. They have to reinvent Indoctrination, the very core of the idea, in order to make it work.
Writers intent is meaningless because everyone is entitled to view the story differently regardless of what the writer claims. I live in a free country (not sure about you) and can believe or think whatever I want. The writers didn't intend IT? Well I can disagree with that and believe whatever I want. Nothing you can do about. Free speech.
They won't reinvent IT just because it doesn't work the way you view it. Not everyone believes it works the way you think it does. In order to reinvent IT, they'd have to go all the way back to ME1, because that's where the indoctrination theme all started. With Saren and all. You can't really view IT from a face value angle anyways. So maybe it doesn't work from a face value angle, but it does from the way they view it.
The idea that fans know better is still there, because they nitpick all the writing flaws and how everything doesn't match up on how they view the story. They want everything fixed to their own specifications according to how they view the story. Kind of like what they did when that Deception novel came out. As if they have all the answers or something. They want to retake the story from Bioware and warp it into their own image. Like that one guy I posted a few pages back. Took the ME3 script, redid it and it ended up being worse than the one that the original game came with. It's really a control thing with some people around here.
Writers intent is meaningless because everyone is entitled to view the story differently regardless of what the writer claims. I live in a free country (not sure about you) and can believe or think whatever I want. The writers didn't intend IT? Well I can disagree with that and believe whatever I want. Nothing you can do about. Free speech.
They won't reinvent IT just because it doesn't work the way you view it. Not everyone believes it works the way you think it does. In order to reinvent IT, they'd have to go all the way back to ME1, because that's where the indoctrination theme all started. With Saren and all. You can't really view IT from a face value angle anyways. So maybe it doesn't work from a face value angle, but it does from the way they view it.
The idea that fans know better is still there, because they nitpick all the writing flaws and how everything doesn't match up on how they view the story. They want everything fixed to their own specifications according to how they view the story. Kind of like what they did when that Deception novel came out. As if they have all the answers or something. They want to retake the story from Bioware and warp it into their own image. Like that one guy I posted a few pages back. Took the ME3 script, redid it and it ended up being worse than the one that the original game came with. It's really a control thing with some people around here.
Wow, you're a pathetic joke. The sanctimony of that post exposes how you have no legs to stand on. I already said you can view the material however you want. Make up whatever BS makes you happy. But just because you look up and say the sky is orange with green polka dots doesn't make it any less blue. What you don't seem to understand is the difference between saying you choose to view something a certain way, and saying it is that way. IT does the latter. IT is not an interpretation; it's saying that the game as written was Indoctrination, which is totally and completely wrong.
This has nothing to do with free speech. You don't even understand the thing you're appealing to. I'm not a government official and therefore can't violate your free speech. Clown.
Edit: added the polka dots for a smartass
After having finally completed ME3 I'm left in such an emotional void I don't even...
I don't think the ending was bad, at least not anywhere near bad as I'd heard. But the entire sequence with the Leviathan AI really disrupts how powerful, sad and moving the final conversation between Shep and Anderson is, and ultimately completely unnecessary since it introduces too many facts not in evidence throughout the story, along with sort of fake choices that require mary sue knowledge/godlike intelligence of Shepard to even make. I think the IT take on the ending might make it feel more believable, although I don't know, didn't BW say that wasn't a thing?
Anyway, it's all quite overwhelming and definitely emotional up until the last moments. But I'm tempted to just use JAM for future playthroughs since Kaidan and Shep's final scenes were almost too sad to deal with at the end by themselves (Yes, I'm a sap) and they officially said Shep survives with the gasp part of the ending which I already had. So JAM is probably borderline canon at this point, anyway.
Writers intent is meaningless because everyone is entitled to view the story differently regardless of what the writer claims. I live in a free country (not sure about you) and can believe or think whatever I want. The writers didn't intend IT? Well I can disagree with that and believe whatever I want. Nothing you can do about. Free speech.
They won't reinvent IT just because it doesn't work the way you view it. Not everyone believes it works the way you think it does. In order to reinvent IT, they'd have to go all the way back to ME1, because that's where the indoctrination theme all started. With Saren and all. You can't really view IT from a face value angle anyways. So maybe it doesn't work from a face value angle, but it does from the way they view it.
The idea that fans know better is still there, because they nitpick all the writing flaws and how everything doesn't match up on how they view the story. They want everything fixed to their own specifications according to how they view the story. Kind of like what they did when that Deception novel came out. As if they have all the answers or something. They want to retake the story from Bioware and warp it into their own image. Like that one guy I posted a few pages back. Took the ME3 script, redid it and it ended up being worse than the one that the original game came with. It's really a control thing with some people around here.
This sounds a bit like sophistry to me and loosely akin to the argument (a valid one at the time)on the Skyrim board about whether mods add to game enhancement, or are simply a case of the modder trying to turn the game into something different and not in the spirit of the OC - eg Hentai in 4th century Sweden equipped with lightsabers.
There are those who want a game to run to suit the experience they had somewhere else, no doubt of that , but try as you might you cannot escape the volume and origin of criticism on this aspect of the game which received wide publicity in the media.
It is possible that the traditional concept of hero saving the universe and so on to veteran gamers needs challenging and ME3 ending certainly does that. However such a transformation needs to be a process that evolves not one that hits you over the head with a blunt instrument. Leaving writing aside for the moment, there is another argument that looks at gameplay. ME1 and 2 encourages you to act as either a paragon or a renegade, yet the final scene between Shep and the IM can only play out one way which seems to turn all that effort on it's head! There is the possibility,that the intent was exactly that, but even I wouldn't recommend a game on the basis of it's ability to deliver the ultimate reality education
In terms of the choices available for Shep to make they are fairly straight forward but is the decision one Shep should make as (a) an Alliance Officer that follows orders (
A Spectre who is the guardian and protector of all races, or © A lunatic who thinks it would be a good idea to fuse a processor chip with a reproductive gland and to hell with altruism
As mentioned previously I took the promotion to ethereal being as someone else could have gotten it wrong, and I was better equipped at putting it right than some tank brain that likes playing with nukes. Also I m,ight even get to have Asari idol worshipping me, or Ashley as she thinks I'm a god anyway! When I was faced with the choice for the first time I went immediately retro to BG2 Throne of Bhaal where I get to be either (a) a good God, ( an evil God, or © go back to getting on with my life before all this **** came down my head.
and get **** faced afterwards, have hundreds of little blue progeny, whittle wooden spoons with Williams on a ranch somewhere, or shoot pigeons from the top of Big Ben with Anderson who I killed (but it wasn't me really!)
Sheesh!
Retour en haut