4 Reasons Why The Mass Effect 3 Debate Refuses to Die

[maxben]

1) It was a good series of games. It lives long. You can rekindle discussion about FFVII or Doom after all this time too.
2) The ending was controversial. Some love it, some hate it, nuff said.
3) New people keep getting to the game. I only played it last year and when I did, I wanted to discuss it. Other people play the game for the first time today.
4) It was a fucking moronic controversy in the first place. Of course these live the longest.

I love how you just ignored the whole article and are responding to nothing in it. Hell, you could write what you wrote having read the title alone, and I'm guessing that that is exactly what you did.

On my end, I was one of those who got angry at ME2 and stopped playing the series altogether so I don't have anything to say on the ending. I did feel upset and I have not purchased a Bioware game since (though I might buy Dragon Age Inquisition providing that it gets much better reviews then II did)

 

[ecoho]

So who is this mythical person that thought the ending of ME3 was great (or, really, anything but moderately bad at best?)?

Is Armond White doing video game reviews now?

So who is this mythical person that thought the ending of ME3 was great (or, really, anything but moderately bad at best?)?

There were several of them floating around this forum, last year and the year before.

Most of them are banned now, for being insulting and inflammatory against what they call "ending-bashers".

no a few of us are banned because they couldn't keep their mouths shut. The majority are alive and well on these forums just not engaging with people who we'll never convince the game was good.

OT: honestly I got to say two things make this a hot topic
1.the hype was way too much. I mean come on there really was no way they could end this series with everyone happy but when people saw the first ending(a very early draft that looked pretty good)they went bat shit on how it was a BS ending and thus we ended up with an ending that while ok was not what it could have been.

2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time this point comes up I always ask how long did they play before it went sour for them and 99% of the time they say till the last 15 mins. Ok assuming your not rushing through that's at least twenty hours of game play so roughly 10 movies worth of time. movies cost $8 a seat at my theater so roughly $80 for the same amount of fun, assuming you can find 10 movies worth watching that is. (and yes I know Netflix is cheaper but talking froma point of a new release)

 

[AnarchistFish]

I seem to be the only person who totally loved all three games

 

[Foehunter82]

I hate the Mass Effect 3 ending, pure and simple. That said, I'm just no longer interested in complaining about it anymore, as I've more or less just accepted the fact that Mass Effect is intended to fit into the Lovecraft Expanded Universe. The Reapers are just disembodied Cthulhu heads floating around in space - very, very deep space. They are a cold, uncaring, almost unstoppable force in the universe, very much like Lovecraft would describe. Their true intentions and motivations are unknown and unknowable. Those that cross paths with them tend to slip into the Indoctrinated state where they start obey and even worshipping the Reapers. The ending only completed the hopelessness involved in Lovecraftian horror by effectively requiring the death of Shepard by making a choice between A, B, and C endings that were effectively meaningless and illogical, all because Starthulhu (if he actually existed at all*) said so.

Face it, Mass Effect is really just Lovecraftian horror in space that was given a poor ending because Karpyshyn ran off for Austin before the ending was completed. Would his ending have been better? It would have been less than perfect, but I happen to think that it would definitely have been better.

*Frankly, I think the Star Child was just a Reaper deception.

2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Not sure about your point here. You seem to be saying that people should shut up about what they feel simply "because math". The ending felt like a betrayal of promises that had been made (not just before release but way back during and after Mass Effect 1's development), and so many people feel that they were manipulated and taken advantage of without receiving what they were, in fact, promised.* I'm sorry, but your point cuts too close to the "You paid, now you have no right to feel anything other than joy at being screwed over" for my taste. People don't function in accordance with cold, impersonal algorithms. They have feelings. Their logic isn't based solely on pure data, but also on how the facts and experiences make them feel. If a person feels that the game was a waste of money for them, then that is their opinion. Frankly, I have often felt the same way with games. Buy a hyped game, get it home, and find out that is sucks, but, of course, you can't return it because EULA.

People often believe the hype, and because they do, they start developing expectations. When a key expectation isn't met, they feel let down and want to voice their opinion on the matter. Should people manage their expectations? Sure. Developers could also stand to be more realistic about their hype and/or promises they make throughout development. Developers need to quit the BS, get real, keep the promises they make, and don't overstay their welcome(loads of DLC, for instance). And "because business" cannot be used as a legitimate excuse, frankly. There is a right (ethical) way to do business, and a wrong (unethical) way. Right now, the AAA developers are big on using unethical means to make money.



*It wouldn't surprise me at all if we were to find out that EA/Bioware managed to Bob Orci their previous statements off of the internet.

 

[Rodolphe Kourkenko]

It's not only the ending. I don't know for others but i played the game only once and find it rushed and the more you progress trought the story the more it's obvious. After Tutchanka, you can see the number of side missions dwelling (oh some will say "it's because it's war against the reaper but it was more a war against Cerberus), the choice that matter less and less to finish in a big A,B or C choice without any kind of consequences based on the player's choice. And the auto dialogue, the fact you need dlc to have a full story, the ninja assassin with big plot armor and all the half truth PR speech before the launch... And i'm sure i forgot a lot of things.

It's a lot for a single game. I don't care about it and have little to no interested in the IP today, they'll have to make a really good game to bring me back, some other are way more interesting and good today.
Bioware is just an overhyped studio that make overhyped games imo.

 

[ajr209]

2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time this point comes up I always ask how long did they play before it went sour for them and 99% of the time they say till the last 15 mins. Ok assuming your not rushing through that's at least twenty hours of game play so roughly 10 movies worth of time. movies cost $8 a seat at my theater so roughly $80 for the same amount of fun, assuming you can find 10 movies worth watching that is. (and yes I know Netflix is cheaper but talking froma point of a new release)

With going to a movie theater I can walk out and demand my money back from the manager if it's bad. Ever try returning a game that wasn't defective or bought used? Your argument falls apart because if I don't like a movie I can do something about it and if I liked the bulk of the movie but felt the ending just ruined it I'm only out ten bucks ($8? I don't think I could even get into a matinee for that) and two hours. If' I buy a game and don't like it and it wasn't used I'm stuck with it, sure I can just stop playing or sell it but no matter what I do I'll never recoup that money and If I liked the bulk of it but thought the ending just ruined it I'm out sixty bucks and an entire days worth of time.

And you're also not taking into account those who had carried over characters from the previous games. For them after at least 60 hrs and $180 having the whole time believing that their choices mattered and that it would have an impact on the end of their journey because that's what bioware was telling them from day one... only to find out far too late that it didn't. None of it mattered. They could have picked up the 3rd game and and never bothered with 1 or 2 and they would have wound up with the same results. That's a hell of a lot of time and money to spend just to have the rug pulled out from under you at the last moment.

 

[Malk_Kontent]

My biggest problem with Mass Effect 3 is that I KNOW that BioWare is capable of SO MUCH BETTER. It's the same problem I have with aspects of Dragon Age 2. Personally, I think that EA put pressure on them and forced them to do a rush job on both games, leading to an overall inferior product.

If I had a way to do so, I'd make my own ending for Mass Effect 3 that addressed my issues with the game. I'd let the Star Child start out with its big ol' monologue, and then have my Shepard cut him off, saying that in this cycle, we have grown outside of his flawed paradigm, and to go ahead and go through my memories as proof. Following that would be a montage that highlighted any/all of the important actions & choices I made throughout the three games, after which the SC would agree, and then most of the Reaper forces would shut down, leaving them open to being destroyed by the allied forces... Except for Harbinger and a number of other Reapers under its direct control.

The SC would let Shep know that somehow Harbinger has exceeded its control, and that Shepard would have to bring that group down, which would segue into the REAL final mission: Shepard, placed in overall command of ALL the allied forces, is sent against Harbinger and the Reapers under his/her control. They won't be as POWERFUL as they were throughout the rest of the game, but they're STILL pretty formidable! Shepard sets up a battle plan, utilizing everything s/he has under his control, leading to a final battle INSIDE Harbinger itself, not unlike the Suicide Mission in ME2, but with different units, based on the assets you've assembled, assisting at different points and helping shape the overall conflict.

At the end, we could even have a sequence at Harbinger's core, where you try to convince it that it doesn't need to continue the conflict, which can make for some entertaining end-drama, and maybe you can even convince it to stand down, though it will probably self-terminate in that circumstance. Afterwards, the Star Child, along with it's VAST knowledge of all the cycles before, can help galactic civilization reach the next level, with a big happy ending for everyone, WITH something a bit more exciting than the Happy Ending Mod. of course, that's just MY idea... But i think it would be better than what EA/BioWare fed us!

 

[Avalanche91]

The ending was messy enough as it was, but the way it ended was unforgiveable. Just a message of 'buy more dlc' and a vague indication that Joker and the crew (some of which were with you on the ground in the original ending) crashlanding on a jungle planet.

Was it really so difficult to give us an epilogue or even a text scroll to inform us of the consequences of our choices?

'Liara continued working as Shadow Broker and used her resources to aid planets ravaged by the reapers.'
'Ashley traveled the galaxy, fulfilling her duty as the second human spectre. She returned to earth to train a new generation'.
'Garrus was approached by the new Primarch to become a spectre, but refused the position. He attempted to live the high-life for a few years until boredom kicked in and he decided to begin a new vigilante group.'
'Zaeed crashed a space cruiser filled with explosives into a meeting between the Blue Suns and the Bloodpack. His body was never found.'
'Joker never actually landed on that weird planet for no reason, it was just the acid kicking in'.

I remember someone actually doing this in great detail. The ME3 ending generator or something. You ticked of all the important choices you made and the thing gave you an actually satisfying epilogue, even taking the dumb war assets into account. If fans are doing a better job than you're writers, you probably need new writers......

 

[Littaly]

Reading the article it's kind of obvious why people won't stop talking about it. Because it's really interesting and there's so much to talk about!

There are so many aspects of it that you can argue for and against and so many theories of why it ended up the way it did. It's not just people talking past each other, it's speculation about questions we may never get an answer to. And that kind of stuff is impossible to stop discussing, no matter how pointless it is xD

I personally believe the games suffered from too many, too shabby rewrites. It kept saying it had this big plan for an overarching story, but constantly seemed to shift focus and couldn't nail down it's own themes. Someone probably believed the ending was brilliant and thematically correct when they wrote it, and I'm sure in some sense it was, but over the corse of the games it had sent so mixed signals about what it was about that when it came down to tie it together it fell apart.

Of course, I have no way of proving that, it's just a theory, and it will forever just be a theory, and that's why I can't really let it go xD

 

[Fairly Chaotic]

My problem with the ending was the ending was a rocks fall everybody dies ending. That the writers were convinced was actually happy. Forget that the Mass Relays should have wiped out every solar system they were in. The galaxy's economy depended on trade between worlds and without the Mass Relays that was impossible, so the entire fleet was going to starve to death.

The writers seemed to totally ignore the question of what came next.

When it comes to ME3 topics I've become an echo chamber. I've echoed this before and I guess I'm doing it once more. The whole writing team wanted to deliver everything that was promised to the players. All story lines were to be wrapped up and they wanted a massive battle involving all the alien and synthetic species based on the choices the player made.

But lo, one writer, one stupid writer, said nay, I have the best idea on this. Said idiot locked himself in a room with the writing materials and completed the rest of the writing by himself. This single writer is responsible for star child and the lack of other story elements. The rest of the writing team was wondering what the heck was going on and later when the finished product was revealed the whole team had a WTF moment. So the same reaction that gamers had upon completion of the game, the staff had already experienced the same thing.

Spoiler: Writer allegedly slams ending

Writer allegedly slams ending [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.355616-Mass-Effect-3-Writer-Allegedly-Slams-Controversial-Ending]

This doesn't cover everything I mentioned. Some articles covering the writing team's reaction to the game have been removed from the internet.

 

[Aggieknight]

IMHO Worst article you've ever done, Shamus (and I've been reading your articles and comics for years). I think you completely missed the point of this angst after two years.

There are many reasons why I'm still bitter about the ending, and most have been described.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's not because "nothing could have satisfied fans".

Although that's probably true here. I don't think there was any way to satisfy the base with an ending. Now, I sort of hate the "the fans are unpleaseable" argument because it's basically a cop-out, but three games of choices plus whatever players read into their character? I don't even know where to begin with that.

Which dovetails nicely with point four (and the overall point of the comic). Yeah, a good chunk of the audience weren't pleased. They wanted different things. Some wildly different. Pleasing everyone given the circumstances would have been hard. Maybe impossible.

This is especially true with any franchise that offers big promises over a protracted period of time. Compare it to Lost. Yes, the ending was crappy. Yeah, it was a cop-out. But after so much hype, how were they going to please fans with radically different interpretations? And Lost doesn't even let you choose the actions of Sawyer and Sayeed.

I think one of the biggest issues was actually that the story was so nonsensical that people were actually making up another story to try and make sense of this one. This isn't an indicator (to me, your mileage may vary) of a fanbase who just pulled a "haters gonna hate," but rather fans who were desperately trying to make the ending "good." While I think maybe the fanbase couldn't have been pleased, it's not for the usual dismissive reasons.

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Though I'm not sure what that has to do with artistic integrity, since I'm not sure Bioware ever had any.

Y'know, some of us played all three games (multiple times even) and still considered the sequels to be huge improvements, both in gameplay and storytelling.

That's probably why he said "a lot," rather than "everyone," though.

#notallmasseffects

It's obvious the game artists really screwed up here. There was clearly no collaboration between them and the writers.

Considering the end was changed at least once, it's possible that at one point there was collaboration and the changes left them with assets that didn't fit. And, of course, this being the modern gaming industry, postponing a launch is a suggestion looked upon as fondly as high treason.

I'd add that the last bits of Mass Effect 3 seem rather disjointed--even by the standards of the rest of the game. This is one of the reasons people came up with the "Indoctrination Theory," and while insisting that my version of events was true would be just as silly is IT, I wonder if it doesn't perhaps support such a hypothesis. I guess what I'm saying is: HL3 confirmed!

 

[Something Amyss]

IMHO Worst article you've ever done, Shamus (and I've been reading your articles and comics for years). I think you completely missed the point of this angst after two years.

There are many reasons why I'm still bitter about the ending, and most have been described.

But wasn't the end point of the article that there were many different reasons and people were arguing at cross purposes?

That doesn't sound like a "bad article," that sounds like he agrees with you.

 

[4173]

I agree with some of Shamus' points, but the thing that really bugs me is the game telling me that rather than fighting the Reapers because they are threatening the galaxy and everything living in it, what I should really care about is EARTH because I'm (the player) a HUMAN...

Well, understand that there are some themes about that in the game as well.

See, conceptually Humanity is the newest species entering into intergalactic society, but it's also a very powerful one comparatively speaking. First contact came in the form of a war fought against the Turians who are the strongest military force in the galaxy, and humanity did pretty well given the situation, so well in fact that it's scary, given that one would have expected humanity to be crushed outright (and it would have been had the full force of the Turian military entered into it, but as limited as the clash was the Turians were paying dearly for their successes). Humanity also successfully stood up to, and demolished, a couple of other minor space powers, the Batarians, the organized pirate clans. The result is that a lot of the elder races distrust humanity as newcomers, and don't listen to humanity when they should. A big part of the plot initially is that a lot of people don't want to see a Human Specter because they dislike and distrust humanity. What's more while humanity has largely been playing "good galactic citizen" including limiting it's number of Dreadnaughts and such, the Council has made a point out of not doing it's part in helping to protect human colonies and the like. A lot of the ethical questions that exist with the Batarians for example exist because The Council refused to intervene when the Batarians intruded on human territories, but of course conversely refused to intervene when humanity got a little... excessive, with it's retaliation. The second Mass Effect game has The Council refusing to honor it's general commitment to protect colonies, by pretty much leaving the Earth Military to it's own devices to protect it's own colonies when it asks for help. Furthermore when the council is presented with evidence in the first game, it refuses to do anything about the various problems that are mounting, and arguably the whole finale at the end was because The Council was dismissive towards humanity and it's warnings. This is why the final moral choice was "do we let the council die or not?" that's not purely a good or evil choice (Renegade isn't evil) because frankly The Council caused the entire mess with it's anti-human bigotry and refusing to accept evidence that was being plopped down right in front of it.

As they point out a few times, the whole Paragon/Renegade choice system isn't good or evil, Shepard is a good guy and trying to do the right things no matter what you select. If your renegade your a lot more ruthless and anti-alien, but in the scope of the game that isn't evil because it's not baseless bigotry, the council really has been screwing humanity and causing problems. As Renegade-Shep points out, why should he give a crap about aliens, when they are willing to just let human colonies die, and why should Earth Military help support their wars and police actions when The Council ignores earth when it has asked for support against groups like The Batarians and Pirate clans? Paragon Shep takes the attitude that he can change things by being nice to everyone, Renegade Shep takes the attitude that earth is on it's own no matter what nice words are thrown around. Who is right? Well that depends on player choice. I prefer the attitudes of Paragon shep, but I do notice that even if you play Paragon through the first game, The Council is pretty much saying "we don't care about human colonies" in the second game, which according to the database if I remember is exactly the same attitude they have been having all along.

Now yes, it is a bit of humanity-horn blowing that the most important artifact in the universe came from Earth-Space and as such earth becomes the flashpoint of the storyline, but that's not a huge deal. It is important to note though that the Alien races have been telling humanity "play by our rules, but we won't help you" since the very beginning. Not being willing to help defend earth is nothing new, and they ALWAYS have an excuse, every single time. This is a big part of why you can walk around with the whole "recruiting to defend earth" agenda even without some of the final reveals which get everyone involved. Basically the elder races take the attitude that humanity is a race of brutish children who have to be handled with care because of our power and technology (they could wipe us out, but it would hurt to do it, and genocide isn't something they do casually, as they are still grappling with the moral implications of the Krogan plague... besides we aren't that directly hostile or malevolent) they actually think things that hurt and slow down humanity are good as they help keep us in our place since we're not really ready to be involved in galactic affairs like the big three (hence why there is no Human council member to begin with). At the same time the minor species are envious that the council actually deals with humanity and takes them seriously to any degree, given that humans are a relatively new discovery. The basic point there being that military force is trumping say economic contributions, with a new military power getting it's reps face time with the council regularly, where the guys who spent 5000 years building the galactic economy (the Volus) don't even get their own embassy office, meaning the "minor" races aren't exactly part of the humanity fan club either.

Basically the point to begin with is pretty much "Humans are having trouble again, we ask the council for help, and they do nothing and leave us to our own devices". Remember refusing to seriously help defend earth comes after the mess they caused by not listening to humanity's reps during the first game, and refusing to help human colonies in the second game even when a bigger threat is discovered, sure they always have a good sounding excuse, but the point is they always have an excuse. This is also why Cerberus as a group can be fairly heroic in concept, the leadership might be pretty evil in it's endgame plans (or turns that way) but their whole "protectors of humanity" thing is not without merit because after all... humanity really can't rely on anyone else. Also while they never explored it other than mentioning it, they made it clear Cerberus did sort of have it's opposite numbers among the other species. If anything it could be argued the major difference between Cerberus and The Council was that Cerberus was honest about not liking aliens and putting earth first, The Council tended to lie about it and come up with excuses, but it all came down to the same
basic thing. The Elusive Man was a piece of work, but the rank and file Cerberus guys? As you saw in ME2 a lot of them were good guys, doing the hard things that needed to be done in a truly hostile universe... and without Cerberus humanity actually would have been destroyed, along with the rest of the galaxy eventually.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Sure, that works quite well in ME1 and (mostly) works in ME2.

In ME3 though, after the prologue everything* is all about liberating Earth. All the missions Shepard undertakes for the Turians, Krogan and Geth/Quarians are sold as necessary to get the support to push the Reapers off Earth. Earth isn't presented as containing an abundance of resources/trapped military forces and only gains tactical importance (for a stupid reason, but that's a separate discussion) late in the plot. Interesting race politics had their place in the first two games, where the threat(s) were at least somewhat mysterious and removed from the center of galactic politics and Saren and the Cerebus connection biased information.

In the face of the fully manifested Reaper assault, Shepard/Hackett's fixation on "rescuing" Earth looks incredibly petty, short-sighted and, IMO frankly stupid. The idea that the other races would be willingly to, or should (from a tactical sense) commit resources towards Earth leads me to believe their generals have the sense of toddlers. In meme form:

Step 1: Liberate Earth
Step 2: ???
Step 3: The Reapers are no longer a problem

The closest the game ever gets to justifying the behavior of supposedly seasoned military beings is a) Shepard feels incredibly guilty about the death of a random child, b) the galaxy is willing to commit suicide** because Shepard was a bro. It's ludicrous and insulting and the game hopes no one will notice because the player is too busy thinking "Oh shit, I live on Earth too."


*Yes, there is the Crucible sub-plot, but it is so nebulous, mcguffiny and mysterious (in a bad way) that it barely provides any drama during the first playthrough of the game. In the cold, hard light of time and distance it's fluff only in the game as a mechanic to deliver the final cutscene and give the player a handy guide to how far through the game they've played.

**If the game had truly committed to telling a story in which the protagonist(s) had no hope that would be different, but it doesn't. The Crucible plot gasps along on life support, alternate military options are never proposed/discussed/rejected, Noah's Ark scenarios are never a part of the game and the game vacillates wildly on how effective Alliance and Council military is against the Reapers. I felt way more dread during the suicide mission in ME2 than I ever did during ME3 (which could have used for a nice morbid twist at the end, but the writers decided against that option. Instead they opted for out of the blue Word of [Authorial] God: Your cause is now officially doomed because we want you to pick your colour-coded ending).

 

[Something Amyss]

A summary of the ending of Mass Effect 3 and audience reaction thereto:

Spoiler

Well, in the sense that dealing with the ending and the "because I said so" mentality feels like driving spikes into your body....

It sort of amazes me how the ME ending parallels The Matrix. Except in the Matrix, Neo is given two options and keeps finding a third. In ME3, We're given three endings and told those are our only choices, because reasons. Then the extended ending gave us the "fuck off" option, which at least lets us choose to not just listen to child ex machina (who has been wrong all the time, and needs a new option, and depending on player actions may even be wrong within this story regarding organics and synthetics), but the quality of that outcome is somewhat...questionable. And, of course, it came later.

And if this comes off as praise for The Matrix part 3, that should show just how screwed up ME3 was.

 

[Yeager942]

I played the first two when they were first released. I then rebought them to play before ME3. Out of all 3 ME games, ME3 is the only game i didnt replay. The ending wasnt that great and that killed the replay. But before that seeing the Rachi pissed me off as I killed the last one in ME3. Also by then all the stuff your character did was only shown in emails. In ME2 it wasnt like you could play as Wrex if you saved him in ME1. So i knew from ME2 that the whole "your choices change the world" was bullshit and cosmetic. Your choice whether to kill the council or save them in ME1 made no real difference to ME2. Your choice to destroy or save the base in ME2 made no difference to ME3. So for me, ME3 lost a lot what made me love ME3.

THIS

Bioware sold ME as a game that would react and branch off to your decisions. Choosing the fate of the Rachni, Council, and Collector Base were agonizing decisions, but all those choices amounted to was cosmetic dialogue and a different number on the galactic conflict track. It was foolish of me to expect that amount of intricacy in a AAA game, but then I look at what Witcher 2 did, and every promotion Bioware told us to sell the game rings hollow.

 

[zinho73]

ME3s ending caused the fans to go "Heeeey waaiit a minute, there is something seriously fishy going on. I better step back and have better look on the whole thing!" And what they found wasn't pretty. Fans (including myself) finally realized, that the whole plot had more holes than a swiss cheese. It had been hold together the entire time by nothing more than a few beloved characters and an atmospheric universe.
For me, playing the ME series was like eating a cheap cake: it tastes really good, but afterwards you feel a litte sick because the thing was way too sweet and the nuturitive value was close to zero.

The original script made sense. It was not brilliant but made sense. They decided to change it and added an enormous dose of nonsense splattered with laziness in a scale never seen before.

Other bad endings on other titles (like Fallout 3, Half-life 2 and others) are just poor ideas. Here, the bad ideas have a serious dose of incompetence and misleading marketing. I actually find the ME3 ending disrespectful.