Undeadpool said:
Hence why I included the qualifier "Probably." Also the ending wasn't "broken," it was classic, high science fiction. If that's not to your taste, that's one thing, but in no way was it "broken."
Sorry to add another voice to the cacophony of opposition, but I disagree with one particular assertion: "...classic, high science fiction..."
No, it isn't, no matter how far back you go.
"The Time Machine" - H.G. Wells: The protagonist basically watches the world crumble as he searches in vain for a better future. As millions and billions of years pass, he sees life on Earth "ebb" and die. When he returns to the past and his laboratory, he leaves a few flowers as evidence of his travels and then disappears again. We don't know what happens to the protagonist, but throughout the novel we experienced his horror, shock, and awe at everything he experienced. It is thought provoking because it shines a spotlight on the entropy and mortality of what we subconsciously assume is eternal: Life and the world. The ending is satisfying because we know precisely what the protagonist has done - continued his search for answers, and we want him to succeed. The ambiguous ending is fine because the message of the author was delivered; "There are stranger things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies" + "Savor every day." We don't need the protagonist to return, because doing so would tarnish the message.
"Ender's Game" - Orson Scott Card: The protagonist is racked with confusion and guilt as it turns out the games he was playing turned out to be an actual war. He may have just committed genocide, but there exists a single hope: He finds the egg of a queen so that he may, if he chooses, rebuild the species he helped extinguish. At the time the protagonist is a young boy, with all of the social skills and moral values befitting a young boy. He has defeated every enemy - real or imagined - in his wake, and we are given a better understanding of the enemy via Ender's point of view. The ending is bittersweet but hopeful, pointing to a period in time where peace between the two warring species might be possible. We're fine not addressing what happens after Ender finds the egg because we know it's in good, capable hands.
"Blade Runner" - Directed by Ridley Scott: The antagonist delivers the key philosophical dilemmas in his confrontation with the protagonist - a person who is automatically established to have questionable morals in the first few minutes. The ambiguous nature of the protagonist's morals reflects the opaque nature of the antagonist's right to exist, which very effectively delivers the audience a single question: Where do our creations cease to be under our control and live for themselves under their own terms? The ending is either bittersweet or happy, depending on which version you've seen/prefer. Here, the question is clearly posed to the audience, and no answer is given because it's meant to point out the inadequacy of our conceptions of the definition of life and what it means to be alive.
I could go on with "Dune," "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Starship Troopers," Aasimov's "Foundation" series, and more if I bothered to look through my bookshelf. From reading all of them, I can tell you one thing:
The ending to ME3 is only an imitation of classic sci-fi endings. It mimics some of them in core philosophical issues (particularly "Dune" and Aasimov's "Foundation" series), and some in abruptness ("2001"), but it doesn't understand how or why the classics did it in the first place. ME3's ending doesn't pose philosophical questions relating to the core themes of the previous games; it addresses an entirely new, out of nowhere moral dilemma that's not fleshed out. Then it shows the cinematic, which is fine on its own up until Joker crashlands - this is infuriating because if Mass Effect 3 understood classic sci-fi it would
END when you make your choice and show the immediate affect cinematic (control/destroy/sythesize). That way the player could assume for themselves what happened to their companions and appreciate the heroic sacrifice they just made to save everybody. By showing the last 30 seconds and the Normandy on an unknown world it
immediately discards your heroic sacrifice because what you did has affected NONE of the crew. They're not crying, they're not weeping, the world they're on isn't one saved from the Reapers, by explicitly showing you the "uplifting" ending, the writer(s) is implying that Shepard served their purpose - like an old dish rag - and the galaxy is ready to trundle on without Shepard. This is only punctuated with the grandfather narrator that does nothing but show you; "Shepard is SOOOOOO ancient history by now."
So, to recap the endings of some "Classic" Sci-Fi:
-Moral dilemmas and themes posed throughout stories inform and enrich the ending. Ambiguous endings are often present because the specific question or message at-hand doesn't have a modern answer or context; the authors are showing us something knew. Through time and internal reflection the viewers/readers construct the answer to the questions or themes posed, effectively participating in the story itself and continuing it.
Then ME3:
-Moral dilemmas and themes posed throughout the story are completely discarded in favor of a single, brand-new dilemma that is forced upon the player. Then after the player makes their choice, their participation and dozens of hours of investment are immediately pushed aside like yesterday's news to make way for the introduction of a prologue that implies multiple centuries pass where the character doesn't exist, marginalizing the player's achievements to barely more than a paragraph in a futuristic history book. You just don't do that. It wouldn't even be so bad, but Joker/Edi/Whomever don't even take a freaking moment of silence at the end to signify their affection or relationship with the person that just sacrificed themselves to save them all from a gruesome death.
No, ME3's ending is like a classic sci-fi ending that's been told secondhand to somebody who usually writes technical manuals.
).
