I liked the Mass Effect 3 ending.

[DioWallachia]

What idea could POSSIBLY be in the ending that is worth attention at this point?

Well, in a series that was supposed to be based so heavily around choice, there's something to be said about an ending where you can't make everything turn out all right. At the end of the other two games, you can, more or less, come up with a happy ending. But that, in the penultimate moment, you might have to make the kind of choice that you know some people will resent you for? That some people aren't going to survive at all? That's not a bad idea at all. It would take the idea of choice, and lift it to another level entirely. Unfortunately, it just wasn't handled very well at all.

But that is not something unique that ME3 has dusted off. Sure, most games arent RPGs and cant give you the choice of "happy ending at the expense of puppies and cake forever" but there is plenny of stories that do the Pyrric Victory approach.

But if you want to look at an ending that is like that then look no further than Planescape Torment. Even the "happy 100%" ending is quite sad because not everything turned out right, and that was a game from 2000. Another alternative is the game Sacrifice.

ME didnt bring anything new, you just need to look at how Casey Hudson was convinced that having a final boss is "Video-gamey" or how the marketing keep placing enphasis on how "other less awesome than ours"-RPGs are ALWAYS about the good vs evil that needs to be sealed and shit. These people, and probably the audience, dont know anything about gaming history to said the kind of bullshit they do. Either that or they are trying too hard to make sure that no one remembers the Golden Age of Gaming.

Like having Ressainance people trying to reinvent the wheel and pretend that only THEY made it first.

 

[afroebob]

I dont see how ANY of the endings, even The Huskyficator 3000 AKA Synthesis, could be the base for ANY sequels.

Who says it won't be a prequel? I haven't been paying to much attention but I don't think they've said either way.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Had the extended cut been in the original ending... I probably would have just shrugged it off instantly.

Saddly, it wasn't. And yeah, the Start Child was a really awful idea.

 

[DioWallachia]

I dont see how ANY of the endings, even The Huskyficator 3000 AKA Synthesis, could be the base for ANY sequels.

Who says it won't be a prequel? I haven't been paying to much attention but I don't think they've said either way.

Isnt that like admiting that they fucked up so hard that there is NO ground to work with? And so what if it is a prequel? we already know how it ends anyway. Whoever the new brick is, is not going to make a difference on the galaxy, is not going to unite everyone like Shep did because if they do and still get killed, then the Reapers are a bunch of idiots for not making sure of preventing another galaxy uniting event for future cycles.

If there is any prequels to be had, then it will be more likely when the Leviathan were around but even then it would be reusing Reapers but in organic form.

 

[Macgyvercas]

In my prefered version of the ending, Shepard destorys the Reapers, survives the blast, escapes the Citadel, reunites with his love interest (on this playthrough, it's Tali), and spends the rest of his life living peacefully on Rannoch, visiting with Garrus and Liara on occaision.

EDIT: It should be noted that I've seen the endings and rather liked them. I have the EC DLC.

 

[Robot Number V]

The main reasons it's bad:

1. The endings are barely effected by your prior choices at all. It just effects how many endings (between 1 and 3) you can pick from. And there's not even a whole lot of appreciable difference between them. It's just a massive cop-out.

2. The Cycle(You know, the reason that anything happens in the entire series) makes no sense. That little bastard was talking my ear off about how organics and synthetics can never get along, while RIGHT OUTSIDE there's a fleet of geth getting with organics. AND the game goes out of it's way to tell you that the Geth were only ever hostile when (a) They were acting in self-defense, or (b) when they were under the control of the Reapers. So the Reapers are literally the ONLY cause of the conflict they CLAIM they exist to PREVENT.

3. The whole final mission is actually pretty bad, in my opinion. It takes place in a boring, destroyed urban area. Look at the finales of the other two games. Remember walking along a zero-g Citadel with Sovereign looming in the distance? Or the massive Collector Base in the center of the Galaxy? In ME3 we get...gray buildings. Oh joy.

3.a. The mission centers around a single team of human marines. Kind of a let down, after spending the entire game amassing an army.

3.b. The Reaper Tower Thing was kind of silly. Where did it come from? What is it's purpose? I get that it teleports people to the Citadel, but WHY? Why are we only hearing about it now? Why does it go right to the Control Center? It's purpose, of course, is to get Sheppard to the Citadel, and they couldn't think of a good way to explain in the plot. It's just sloppy writing.

3.c. No final boss, other then yet another horde-mode style ad for the multiplayer. Also kind of a let down.

Still, the Extended Cut fixed a shitload of problems. But those are the big ones that remain.

 

[HalfTangible]

**Obviously this is going to be spoiler-rific**

I just finished Mass Effect 3 (I'm super late, I know), and I managed to avoid getting the ending spoiled for me, except for the fact that it was apparently really bad. And having just finished it I don't see what everybody was so upset about.

Spoiler: My ending went something like this

I chose to control the Reapers, because if I destroyed them the cycle would just start all over in the next generation of people which would make all 3 games pointless, and I didn't do synthesis because it seemed kind of douchey to make that kind of choice without anybody's consent on the issue.

Sheapard dies sacrificing himself for the survival of every living thing everywhere, the rest of his squad lives on and his sacrifice is never forgotten.

Can somebody explain to me what was so bad about it?
I do realize that the choice you make has little effect on the ending but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad one.

Did you download the extended cut first?

If yes, your confusion is understandable. If that had been the ending the game had SHIPPED with... it still would've been poorly received, but not to the degree it was.

If no... there are several reasons.

A) the normandy crashed and was, as far as the ending showed us, stranded on a strange planet. Because of Dextro-amino acids, either everybody EXCEPT Garrus and Tali (possibly her too, given the immune system thing) was screwed, or Garrus and Tali were doomed to slow starvation.

B) The ending dialogue wheels? yeah, those weren't there, and Starkid said a LOT less regarding the reapers and the end result of each of the three choices.

C) The Mass Effect trilogy was all about free will, the denial of destiny, massive choice... and then we get told the point was supposed to be the conflict between organics and machines, that we would get little (if any) choice at the end, and that we would have to accept our destiny and die.

D) There is little indication that the Starchild exists before we meet him. This stays true in the Extended Cut, but it's especially bad in the original since we can't question a single thing he says.

 

[Azuaron]

I also just recently finished Mass Effect 3, and was all ready to defend the ending to my last dying breath. I've been a fan of Bioware since Neverwinter Nights, and their stuff has only gotten better (Dragon Age II was better than Dragon Age: Origins, so ).

But... I can't. And I can't because two of the endings don't make any goddamn sense.

So, for control (which is apparently paragon, despite being the plan of the "I'm the completely fracking evil racist corporate suit" guy), you've basically had the entire game where everything and everyone is telling you it's impossible (except the evil guy who is already indoctrinated and following the same plan that a sect of indoctrinated Protheans also had that got them all killed). And then you get to the end and the super AI, embodiment of all Reapers is like, "No, man, you could totally wipe me out and completely overwrite every Reaper's mind and become some kind of controlling Reaper-god. I encourage you to do it." And then it turns out he wasn't lying? How is that not a flat out lie? The "control" ending should have been the same as the new ending where you tell the hologram to screw off ("the Reapers win" ending) while someone laughs in the background.

Then, for synthesis, the kid's like, "We'll merge organics and synthetics into a new DNA." What the fuck does that even mean (I don't normally swear harshly on the internet, but seriously)? Oh, it's expanded in the extended ending, and we're told that organics will be given technology, and synthetics will be given understanding. Yeah, that makes things a whole lot clearer. Now that everyone's some kind of cyborg or something (glowing green eyes... seriously, what does this even mean?) I'm totally sure there won't be any more wars. I'm sure that now that krogans have "technology" integrated into their DNA, they won't still try and kill all kinds of people. The Reapers? Totally forgiven for their attempted genocide now that they have "understanding" from Shepherd's DNA.

Add on to that the fact that this is a flat-out, totally evil, supervillain decision. "What's that Magneto? You want to turn everyone into a mutant against their will or knowledge?"

And, again, the kid's like, "This is the best option." Uh, why didn't you just do it yourself, like, before you cycled through the Universe a few thousand times, harvesting sentient life? "Because they had to be able to choose it for themselves." Oh, yes, me choosing it for everyone is somehow different from you choosing it for everyone at the start of this mess and not committing a few genocides.

And, once again, how is this not a flat-out lie? Isn't the Reaper harvest, with them storing and integrating the DNA of all sentient life in the galaxy basically "synthesis"? How is this not a front to trick me into dying so he can laugh maniacally and continue the reaping?

Then destruction, the only ending that makes any sense. You disable the Reapers, there's a Darth Vaderian "NOOOOOOO!" and everyone lives happily ever after, except for the synthetics (er, sorry about your girlfriend, Joker...) I actually don't care that Shepherd may survive with this ending; as far as I'm concerned he blew himself up on the station, whatever.

Why is this the only one that makes sense?

Well, for starters, it's the only one that the (clearly crazy, genocidal AI) doesn't want you to do, and your trusted friend does want you to do. I mean, if a guy who is literally worse than Hitler doesn't want you to do something, and one of your best friends does, shouldn't you probably listen to your friend, based on that alone?

Beyond that, the little jerk is like, "If you destroy the Reapers, you'll just make more synthetics and they'll destroy you." A couple of things here. First of all, I would like to thank you, little AI boy, for killing me with synthetics so that hypothetical synthetics that I may build in the future never have a chance to kill me. That was in no way completely insane and is absolutely logically consistent. Secondly, as I showed by brokering a peace between the geth and the quarians, with the geth actually helping to rebuild the quarian homeworld, and my pilot dating a freaking AI, I think we do just fine getting these different "races" to coexist, at least as well as we ever could races like the salarians and krogan.

tl;dr Little boy was crazy, tricks everyone into "controlling" or "synthesizing" the galaxy which is should have been really just a lie to get you to kill yourself so the Reapers can continue their genocide.

In the words of Will Smith in I, Robot, "You have so got to die!"

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

But that is not something unique that ME3 has dusted off. Sure, most games arent RPGs and cant give you the choice of "happy ending at the expense of puppies and cake forever" but there is plenny of stories that do the Pyrric Victory approach.

But if you want to look at an ending that is like that then look no further than Planescape Torment. Even the "happy 100%" ending is quite sad because not everything turned out right, and that was a game from 2000. Another alternative is the game Sacrifice.

ME didnt bring anything new, you just need to look at how Casey Hudson was convinced that having a final boss is "Video-gamey" or how the marketing keep placing enphasis on how "other less awesome than ours"-RPGs are ALWAYS about the good vs evil that needs to be sealed and shit. These people, and probably the audience, dont know anything about gaming history to said the kind of bullshit they do. Either that or they are trying too hard to make sure that no one remembers the Golden Age of Gaming.

Like having Ressainance people trying to reinvent the wheel and pretend that only THEY made it first.

No, no, you're absolutely right: this isn't a new idea at all. But it's an extremely underdeveloped idea. I could name maybe half-a-dozen games off the top of my head that touch on it, but only one or two of them do it well.. (Props to Planescape, but I've never played Sacrifice).

The thing is, games like Planescape are standalone titles. The idea of having a trilogy culminate in this manner, giving it that kind of scale, that is something worth mentioning. I mean, I have some issues with the way the whole 'choices' thing ended up working out in the series, but can you imagine if every choice you made across all three games was one you had to stop and scratch your head over, where there wasn't a clear 'renegade' and 'paragon' answer? Think, like, the kind of choices you made in The Witcher 2, and then build a trilogy around that. If every single choice had that kind of weight, and in the end, it turns out it wasn't all necessarily leading to a happy ending, or even a really satisfying conclusion*?

I really think that was the shadow of the idea that haunted ME3's ending, but it just wasn't ever built upon. Hell, maybe they didn't even recognize it: some of the thematic shortcomings in the original ending make me think that it was created in a vacuum or something. It's more than possible they took this doddering step toward narrative brilliance completely unaware that they had a solid gold idea floating around their heads. (Even though, when I heard Mass Effect was going to be a heavily choice-based trilogy, that's what I thought it was going to lead up to anyway. Maybe I'm just crazy).


*And here, I don't mean dissatisfying from a narrative standpoint, but from a conclusive standpoint. The ending was 'good,' but the conclusion it came to made you wish for a different ending. (The final 'What's in the box?' scene from Se7en, for example. Smug sonofabitch got exactly what he wanted... Not satisfying at all).

 

[J Tyran]

2. The Cycle(You know, the reason that anything happens in the entire series) makes no sense. That little bastard was talking my ear off about how organics and synthetics can never get along, while RIGHT OUTSIDE there's a fleet of geth getting with organics. AND the game goes out of it's way to tell you that the Geth were only ever hostile when (a) They were acting in self-defense, or (b) when they were under the control of the Reapers. So the Reapers are literally the ONLY cause of the conflict they CLAIM they exist to PREVENT.

Today I didn't eat any cake, therefore I will never ever ever eat any cake again. Just because something happens (or didn't happen) at one particular time it doesn't mean that the same will hold true forever.

The Catalyst claims war between Synthetic and Organics is inevitable, just because a singularly unique man managed to negotiate a truce between one particular group or Synthetics and Organics it doesn't mean that the peace will last forever. Indeed there was already a conflict with the Geth where they chose to follow the Reapers and attacked Organics, they didn't do that out of self defense either so who can say whether the Geth may choose to attack again for some other reason?

 

[DioWallachia]

Today I didn't eat any cake, therefore I will never ever ever eat any cake again. Just because something happens (or didn't happen) at one particular time it doesn't mean that the same will hold true forever.

The Catalyst claims war between Synthetic and Organics is inevitable, just because a singularly unique man managed to negotiate a truce between one particular group or Synthetics and Organics it doesn't mean that the peace will last forever. Indeed there was already a conflict with the Geth where they chose to follow the Reapers and attacked Organics, they didn't do that out of self defense either so who can say whether the Geth may choose to attack again for some other reason?

Then why he didnt show ANY evidence of COUNTLESS cycles ago? because the synthetics of this cycle just suck at their job of killing organics. Geth HAD TO BE TOLD how to self defend to begin with by the Quarians who werent acting stupidly evil and it was Sovereing who FORCED (just like with the Rachni) the Geth to work with him. They were so pathetically harmless and innocent that it makes the Quarians look like racist morons.

In fact, The Reapers could just kill all Synthetics right there instead of just preserving all life.

Skip to 37:55 for a more longer list of questions that the "Synths ALWAYS kill Organics"

Spoiler

The only reason that organics could be killed by robots its because the robots develop pity and they mercy kill the organics because they are too dumb to live

 

[Joccaren]

Today I didn't eat any cake, therefore I will never ever ever eat any cake again. Just because something happens (or didn't happen) at one particular time it doesn't mean that the same will hold true forever.

The Catalyst claims war between Synthetic and Organics is inevitable, just because a singularly unique man managed to negotiate a truce between one particular group or Synthetics and Organics it doesn't mean that the peace will last forever. Indeed there was already a conflict with the Geth where they chose to follow the Reapers and attacked Organics, they didn't do that out of self defense either so who can say whether the Geth may choose to attack again for some other reason?

Following this sort of logic, we're not at war with Russia, China, Europe or many places right now, but in the future there is the possibility that we will be, so we should just nuke everyone else now just to be safe, right?
We've even been at war with them all in the past, who knows when they'll turn on us again [In this context I'm using "Us" to substitute for Americans, as this is an American site, whilst I am myself Australian]. Just because some influential leaders managed to make peace doesn't mean that peace will last forever.

"It might happen in the future" is not a compelling argument for committing genocide.

OT:
The ending was poorly executed, anti-climactic, lacked influence from previous choices, and then tried to re-focus the entire story around an issue we had covered on Rannoch. The story lost all of its momentum, stumbled, and never managed to get back up. Originally, nothing was explained either and it appeared as if the Galaxy was on its deathbed no matter what you did, with relays blowing up all over the place, and one random scene where a guy talks to his grandchild. Now, everything is handwaved away with the "With the power of friendship we can make anything happen". The ending was a shift in tone from most of the rest of the series, and stacked onto the other problems with the third game resulted in an originally poor, afterwords thoroughly meh ending.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

No one is saying you're not allowed to like the ending. But if you want to know why the ending is objectively bad and horribly written look here:


Yup, loooooog vid, but most of the points are valid. The story followed a logical patern that was thrown out the window during the last 10 minutes.

Nothing can be objectively bad. If it accomplishes its goal of people enjoying it then it is good. And as for horribly written, I haven't gotten around to finishing ME3 yet but so far the writing has been up to Bioware's high standards.

 

[J Tyran]

Today I didn't eat any cake, therefore I will never ever ever eat any cake again. Just because something happens (or didn't happen) at one particular time it doesn't mean that the same will hold true forever.

The Catalyst claims war between Synthetic and Organics is inevitable, just because a singularly unique man managed to negotiate a truce between one particular group or Synthetics and Organics it doesn't mean that the peace will last forever. Indeed there was already a conflict with the Geth where they chose to follow the Reapers and attacked Organics, they didn't do that out of self defense either so who can say whether the Geth may choose to attack again for some other reason?

Then why he didnt show ANY evidence of COUNTLESS cycles ago? because the synthetics of this cycle just suck at their job of killing organics. Geth HAD TO BE TOLD how to self defend to begin with by the Quarians who werent acting stupidly evil and it was Sovereing who FORCED (just like with the Rachni) the Geth to work with him. They were so pathetically harmless and innocent that it makes the Quarians look like racist morons.

In fact, The Reapers could just kill all Synthetics right there instead of just preserving all life.

Skip to 37:55 for a more longer list of questions that the "Synths ALWAYS kill Organics"

Spoiler

The only reason that organics could be killed by robots its because the robots develop pity and they mercy kill the organics because they are too dumb to live

The Reapers didn't force the Geth into joining them a portion of the Geth chose to follow them, the rest of the Geth didn't. If he forced them then all of the Geth would have joined him, some obviously chose not to and called them "heretics". The Quarians did force the Geth into the war but if they didn't who can say whether or not the Geth wouldn't have started the war themselves eventually anyway? Not enough evidence either way.

Saying the Catalyst was wrong just because of one unqiue set of circumstances over a short period of time is a non argument. He never said temporary truces couldn't be made and he never claimed that the Synthetics would always be the one to start the conflict, he stated that inevitably Synthetics would exterminate Organics. Peace could last centuries or millennia before the shooting would start.

The idea of wiping out the Organics to stop them making Synthetics that would eventually eradicate all Organic life is the stupid part, why not just wipe out the Synthetics or even just the species that are on the verge of creating dangerous Synthetics? The only reason I can think of is that the Catalyst never wanted to risk a civilization growing advanced enough that the Reapers where no longer a threat and couldn't prevent either the creation or ascendancy of a powerful Synthetic race. Even then it makes little sense.

Today I didn't eat any cake, therefore I will never ever ever eat any cake again. Just because something happens (or didn't happen) at one particular time it doesn't mean that the same will hold true forever.

The Catalyst claims war between Synthetic and Organics is inevitable, just because a singularly unique man managed to negotiate a truce between one particular group or Synthetics and Organics it doesn't mean that the peace will last forever. Indeed there was already a conflict with the Geth where they chose to follow the Reapers and attacked Organics, they didn't do that out of self defense either so who can say whether the Geth may choose to attack again for some other reason?

Following this sort of logic, we're not at war with Russia, China, Europe or many places right now, but in the future there is the possibility that we will be, so we should just nuke everyone else now just to be safe, right?
We've even been at war with them all in the past, who knows when they'll turn on us again [In this context I'm using "Us" to substitute for Americans, as this is an American site, whilst I am myself Australian]. Just because some influential leaders managed to make peace doesn't mean that peace will last forever.

"It might happen in the future" is not a compelling argument for committing genocide.

Exactly, like I said "Just because something happens (or didn't happen) at one particular time it doesn't mean that the same will hold true forever". It goes both ways

Just because there is peace between Organics at Shepards time it doesn't mean a war is impossible but it doesn't mean it will happen either. That makes it a non argument any time some claims the Catalyst is "wrong" because of the peace one of the story lines can bring, it doesn't mean the peace will last forever or that a war is really inevitable either.

"It might happen in the future - is not a compelling argument for committing genocide." Is a different argument and a valid point, it is flimsy premise and the largest plothole stemming from the Catalyst concept.

 

[DioWallachia]

No, no, you're absolutely right: this isn't a new idea at all. But it's an extremely underdeveloped idea. I could name maybe half-a-dozen games off the top of my head that touch on it, but only one or two of them do it well.. (Props to Planescape, but I've never played Sacrifice).

The thing is, games like Planescape are standalone titles. The idea of having a trilogy culminate in this manner, giving it that kind of scale, that is something worth mentioning. I mean, I have some issues with the way the whole 'choices' thing ended up working out in the series, but can you imagine if every choice you made across all three games was one you had to stop and scratch your head over, where there wasn't a clear 'renegade' and 'paragon' answer? Think, like, the kind of choices you made in The Witcher 2, and then build a trilogy around that. If every single choice had that kind of weight, and in the end, it turns out it wasn't all necessarily leading to a happy ending, or even a really satisfying conclusion*?

I really think that was the shadow of the idea that haunted ME3's ending, but it just wasn't ever built upon. Hell, maybe they didn't even recognize it: some of the thematic shortcomings in the original ending make me think that it was created in a vacuum or something. It's more than possible they took this doddering step toward narrative brilliance completely unaware that they had a solid gold idea floating around their heads. (Even though, when I heard Mass Effect was going to be a heavily choice-based trilogy, that's what I thought it was going to lead up to anyway. Maybe I'm just crazy).


*And here, I don't mean dissatisfying from a narrative standpoint, but from a conclusive standpoint. The ending was 'good,' but the conclusion it came to made you wish for a different ending. (The final 'What's in the box?' scene from Se7en, for example. Smug sonofabitch got exactly what he wanted... Not satisfying at all).

Actually, Sacrifice has an ending that its more of the kind of Final Fantasy VI, as in, it gives the feeling that The Magic is Gone. A more appropiate game on par of Planescape Torment would be the indie game "OFF".

Now, leaving aside that ME went off rails with the "planned trilogy" idea in ME2 since it didnt progress the over arching plot of stopping the reaper threat like:

ME1: Discovering about the threat
ME2: Learning how to stop it
ME3: Defeat it

Instead we just fapped around with a bunch of side characters in ME2 (we dont even get to stop the Geth Quarian conflic even when we had Legion and a bunch of admirals who wanted peace)

AND leaving aside that people who died are replaced by a suspiciously similar sustitute, thus making the people you know not really THAT vital for the greater scheme of things. I dont see how far the endings would have differ when they most end up getting rid of the Reapers anyway.

Even the original original original ending of the trilogy, the Dark Energy rising and devouring the galaxy and the Human Reaper being the last effort to stop it, makes no mention on how the little things end up piling up into affecting the ending.

However i DO like the choices it would entail, choosing to let the Reapers finish a HR and save all the galaxy at the expense of millions of humans or stop the Reapers and figure out a way to stop the Dark Energy ourselves. However, it isnt NEARLY as tragic as i would have liked. Here is how i would do it:

Lets suppose that the HR in ME2 ACTUALLY took half of the human species to make and destroying it along with the Collector Base means that in the ME3 ending, you have to sacrifice ALL of the humans that exist just to make another HR and save the galaxy because the Dark Energy is expanding so fast that there is no time to make clones (or dont work in the process of making a HR) nor time to let the humans procreate enough to have a big genetic pool to avoid extintion. If you saved the base, then less humans are needed to finish the HR and maaaaaaybe there is chance for the humans to survive.

Anyway, it seems that having a "good vs evil" plot kinda hurts something with branching endings. It would work more if it were a more personal story where the protagonist is doing whatever the fuck he wants, where making a machine that makes all males of the world as hot females or converting the moon into cheese and go live in it for the rest of its life are perfectly viable endings.

 

[DioWallachia]

Nothing can be objectively bad. If it accomplishes its goal of people enjoying it then it is good. And as for horribly written, I haven't gotten around to finishing ME3 yet but so far the writing has been up to Bioware's high standards.

Then does that mean that Transformers 2 Revenge Of The Fallen is good just because it gives the people what it wants? Porn has more plot than that movie and STILL gives people what they want

Also, if NOTHING can be objectively bad then you havent played Metroid Other M yet.

As for ME3 being well written even before touching the ending.....why dont you take a seat and play ME2 and describe me how the plot of that game progresses the overarching plot of the trilogy? As in, what did we end up learning that could help us stopping the Reaper invasion?

Or better yet:

Spoiler

 

[A.A.K]

Damn.... I seem to be in the minority again.
I loved the Mass Effect 3 Ending. I found it justified. I didn't find any logical fallacies, because I didn't look for them. I just enjoyed myself and the ending made sense.

 

[TK421]

Silly Koala, that's a weird way of saying how much you hated the ending.

In a game franchise that prides itself on choice and the consequences of those choices, having an ending that thematically goes against those choices makes it a poor ending.

Also, it's been established that the ending was written by two guys, with no input by any of the rest of the team.

And it shows.

This has always been my problem with the thing. No, the ending doesn't have to be happy, but in a game who's entire premise across three games has been "your choices affect the outcome," my choices damn well better affect the outcome. Which they didn't.

 

[PurePareidolia]

That's OK OP - You're objectively wrong for liking it, but by all means do so.

 

[00slash00]

good lord, its been almost 8 months. how long is it going to take for people to finally stop talking about the mass effect 3 ending?