Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy

[Murmillos]

When I heard of large open ended endings, along with this will be the end of "Shepard's Story" while still keeping the world of ME open for future stories, I thoughts the endings would be something like this;

Notes: ME3 War Assets and Crucible are still critical to the storyline. The Citadel is still ends up in earth space and the Crucible still links to the Citadel but there is no ground war, all the fighting with everybody happens on the Citadel. The Crucible works by sending a signal that disrupts the Reapers internal processing and communications, weaking them. The War Assets are required to protect the Crucible. The lower the assets, the more damage it gets before it fires. The more damage it receives the more damaging the fire pulse is to those other then the Reapers. The War assets are used as ships to protect it, and ground troops used to fight thru the Citadel faster.

1) Shepard critically fails, Reapers advanced throughout the galaxy impeded. (like the "fake" ME2 Shepard is dead ending.)

2) Shepard scarifies Earth and himself, but stops the Reapers at a major cost -- all current civilizations will take 100-300 years to recover, the Humans, Krogan, Turians & Quarians take the brunt of the loss, and are hanging on for survival of the species. 75% of Shepard's team has perished.

3) Shepard keeps Earth while stopping the Reapers, Depending on player actions in ME3, either Krogan and/or Quarians are a dying race and hate Shepard/Humans. 50% of Shepard's team has perished; 50% chance Shepard will have died too.

4) Shepard keeps Earth & stops the Reapers, but at the cost of a impending galactic war that not even Shepard can stop; 25% of Shepard's team has perished.

5) Shepard rolls a 20 and Reapers are stopped dead cold. There is a uneasy peace, but so far everybody is still happy shooting at the reaming scattered reapers as long as Shepard keeps the races "united" in peace. All of Shepard's team lives and we get to see blue Shepard babies (or what ever baby producing couple the player developed).

In all endings (2-5) Shepard is a Hero. Regardless on how you end ME3 (2-5), you can start ME4 200 years after ME3. Endings 4 & 5 still have a galaxy wide war, either after Shepard dies or Shepard dies in trying to stop, which severely weakens everybody. Endings 2 and 3 has the galaxy still very weakened recovering from just barely surviving the Reaper threat.

So other then a few wording tweaks at the very start of the story - you have generic ME4 perfectly set up after ME3. The story: The Reapers may be dead, but all the technology they left behind is still raging its own hidden secret war. What remains of a splinter cell of the Geth, along with other organics still indoctrinated (and their childrens children) during the attack 200 years ago are trying to develop a method to spread the indoctrination signal throughout the whole galaxy and bring to fruition "Reaper 2.0."

 

[mfeff]

BS Ending aside I like were your going with this.

I recall reading somewhere that in many respects that "was" the original intention. I may make mention that this all sounds familiar... aka. Babylon 5 Season 5 and Babylon 5 Crusade.

Where ME has fallen flat for me, was the metaphysical concept of "what is life", "what is a soul", why kill (possessors of such a thing) to protect it? Just... never really got the taste out of my mouth that these were critical elements tossed aside like an orphan.

Its the "Morpheus" terrorist argument "we have to kill these people to save these people". Circular reasoning does not normally lend itself to "going further" than the circle, except by introducing mumbo jumbo to shore up the leaks.

I will note, that the citadel/crucible in the end game CGI is never shown to be "destroyed completely". So the space magic that got it to earth could be explained as "being found" on the citadel... solving the FTL issues.

Considering that the RP elements of ME have evaporated like old spilled milk on the counter... I suspect it will be dropped in subsequent games in favor of even more action and FPS elements... at which point, what makes it any different than any other Sci-Fi FPS? Especially if the narrative is going to take liberties and use "video game" logic and retcon's where-ever and when-ever the developers see fit.

Konami loves doing this... I (personally) do not expect "evolution", I expect process refinement and de-evolution. Less choice, more on rails narrative, less RP, more action... maybe it will work? Lot's of stuff going this way turning a buck.

It's the video game version of "Star Wars" I.P... go figure.

 

[grigjd3]

Great video. Thanks for raising the level of discussion.

Still haven't played the game but I appreciate that you are considering this outside of some sort of nebulous art as sacrosanct kind of view. Too many of the gaming media has taken this as outrageous because an artist might consider changing their art.

The concept artist of "Bioshock" discussing the difference between art, and industrial design. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TVji_fiKsw&list=UUbdyjrrJAjDIACjCsjAGFAA&index=1&feature=plcp

 

[mfeff]

Great video. Thanks for raising the level of discussion.

Still haven't played the game but I appreciate that you are considering this outside of some sort of nebulous art as sacrosanct kind of view. Too many of the gaming media has taken this as outrageous because an artist might consider changing their art.

The concept artist of "Bioshock" discussing the difference between art, and industrial design. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TVji_fiKsw&list=UUbdyjrrJAjDIACjCsjAGFAA&index=1&feature=plcp

Most welcome, not really trying to say anything different in the "art=games=art" discussion or debate, simply provide some information about how these things are done at the industrial level. On a personal note a family member is a commercial artist who has worked on both sides of the coin... his feeling on it has always been, in either case, that it is a job. Only his personal stuff, in his personal books does he qualify as "art". We tend to agree it has a lot to do with "intention", art is generally for art's sake, and last I checked EA was not a purveyor of fine arts.

I may also add that Charles Dickens changed his stuff in response to critiques... and Mass Effect is a lot of things... but Dickens it ain't...

This guy is a semi-professional writer, who also enjoyed the ME series, his thoughts, and his criticisms of the ending are very well discussed.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

 

[The.Bard]

I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters, shame on you, Shamus. Not for having the opinion that you do, but for having it without even pretending to take a few minutes to contemplate what any of it could mean in the bigger picture. It's far too simplistic and dismissive to say "This ending makes no sense to me, therefore it must be stupid. Bioware sucks."

Bioware put several obvious & not-so-obvious hints into the ending sequence that should be MORE than enough to indicate something ain't quite right. Something that is at the very least worth consideration.

You, of all people, should be patient enough to do this. You continuously bemoan the dumbing down of video games, and yet, here you are, with a ginormous opportunity to jump into a massive pool of juicy potential and consider the questions... but NOPE! Why think about something that is clearly meant to be thought provoking when you can slap the "DUMB" label on it and call it a day? In much the same way you expect more out of video games, isn't it fair that we hold you up to those same expectations and demand more from you?

I shouldn't need these, but hey, I don't want to ruin anyone's day or prevent them from finding it out for themselves... here is some of the visual cues I picked up on that I think support the final moments of the game being indoctrination.

There are more than a few passing things that led me to this...

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.




Me, I chose Synthesis, something I now regret. My Shepard was crushed that his love, Ashley, was dead. With nothing left to live for, he chose to sacrifice himself for the good of everyone... but isn't that EXACTLY what indoctrination is about? To trick you into THINKING you're doing the right thing? And after choosing it, I watched Shepard burn up into what looked shockingly like a Husk (complete with the illusive man eyes), I am now ABSOLUTELY convinced the entire ending is Reaper indoctrination and this has been part of Bioware's plan all along. To make us THINK these are the final endings. (It's a stretch, I'll grant you, but hot damn if the pieces don't FIT.)

Connected to that, I am also convinced the Husks are modeled off of ShepLoo's head. Seriously, look at this face:



I'm not sure how that fits into the big scheme of things, but I'm guessing it ties into Shep being "reborn" in ME2 and could be extrapolated upon in future DLC. Several mentions are made to (don't quote me on phrasing) "artificial husks" or "manufactured husks" or some such. Given that Miranda's father was involved (a man known for test tube daughter), it's quite possible Shepard died in ME1, and we've been playing as a sleeper Husk-Indoctrination Bomb since the start of ME2... ooh.

I then chatted with some people who directed me here, to an indoctrination-theory thread:
http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1

The evidence is fairly staggering. I only caught a few things in my run, but there are a metric ton of observations. Do yourself a favor, all of you who despise the ending, give this a read through.

If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?

I'm not going to say this is absolutely what Bioware was planning. It's certainly possible incompetence/funding/EA led them to where they are currently at. But like any good film, there is evidence in plenty to - at the very minimum - warrant THOUGHT. CONSIDERATION. CONVERSATION.

I respect what you do, Shamus, but this article is a perfect example of why you make me sad. This ending is ripe for contemplation, even if it is largely conjecture on the player's part. There are visual / audio cues all over the place to suggest something more is going on. This is what you always wanted, isn't it? An opportunity to take a video game and get something more out of it. Something philosophical/intellectual... and you whiffed.

 

[grigjd3]

Great video.
I may also add that Charles Dickens changed his stuff in response to critiques... and Mass Effect is a lot of things... but Dickens it ain't...

Actually, most people would be shocked how much art is changed in response to feedback from clients. I think perhaps because of the nature of museums, people have gotten the idea that art is somehow permanent, which if anything, is a point art only serves to undermine.

 

[OliverTwist72]

Excellent article! I find my feelings on the subject similar. I am OK with a sad/bittersweet ending as long as there is some sense of an explanation and/or closure. I played thru the ending and my reaction was something akin to: uhh what, but who, where? OK...whatever. The Normandy clip just seems so disjointed from EVERYTHING. Why is this happening this clip just seems tossed in here for no reason.

It just killed any excitement I had for the game/series. I don't even want to play my 2nd Shep that I've taken thru ME1 and 2. I understand that the storyline is the narrative that they wanted to deliver and I am OK if they want to stick to it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I think people fail to realize is that other media (film in particular) does sometimes pass thru test audiences to see how i will be received before its released. Does this tarnish the creative artistic side? Probably but because it isn't as public there isn't a huge uproar. Most of the time directors cuts will come out. So I think the topic of this being unprecedented is inaccurate.

To be honest I first thought this was a very aggressive projection of project 10 dollar. They purposefully give us a shit ending to charge us DLC for the real ones. Now that more is coming out I see that at least this wasn't purposefully done.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters, shame on you, Shamus. Not for having the opinion that you do, but for having it without even pretending to take a few minutes to contemplate what any of it could mean in the bigger picture. It's far too simplistic and dismissive to say "This ending makes no sense to me, therefore it must be stupid. Bioware sucks."

Bioware put several obvious & not-so-obvious hints into the ending sequence that should be MORE than enough to indicate something ain't quite right. Something that is at the very least worth consideration.

You, of all people, should be patient enough to do this. You continuously bemoan the dumbing down of video games, and yet, here you are, with a ginormous opportunity to jump into a massive pool of juicy potential and consider the questions... but NOPE! Why think about something that is clearly meant to be thought provoking when you can slap the "DUMB" label on it and call it a day? In much the same way you expect more out of video games, isn't it fair that we hold you up to those same expectations and demand more from you?

I shouldn't need these, but hey, I don't want to ruin anyone's day or prevent them from finding it out for themselves... here is some of the visual cues I picked up on that I think support the final moments of the game being indoctrination.

There are more than a few passing things that led me to this...

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.




Me, I chose Synthesis, something I now regret. My Shepard was crushed that his love, Ashley, was dead. With nothing left to live for, he chose to sacrifice himself for the good of everyone... but isn't that EXACTLY what indoctrination is about? To trick you into THINKING you're doing the right thing? And after choosing it, I watched Shepard burn up into what looked shockingly like a Husk (complete with the illusive man eyes), I am now ABSOLUTELY convinced the entire ending is Reaper indoctrination and this has been part of Bioware's plan all along. To make us THINK these are the final endings. (It's a stretch, I'll grant you, but hot damn if the pieces don't FIT.)

Connected to that, I am also convinced the Husks are modeled off of ShepLoo's head. Seriously, look at this face:



I'm not sure how that fits into the big scheme of things, but I'm guessing it ties into Shep being "reborn" in ME2 and could be extrapolated upon in future DLC. Several mentions are made to (don't quote me on phrasing) "artificial husks" or "manufactured husks" or some such. Given that Miranda's father was involved (a man known for test tube daughter), it's quite possible Shepard died in ME1, and we've been playing as a sleeper Husk-Indoctrination Bomb since the start of ME2... ooh.

I then chatted with some people who directed me here, to an indoctrination-theory thread:
http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1

The evidence is fairly staggering. I only caught a few things in my run, but there are a metric ton of observations. Do yourself a favor, all of you who despise the ending, give this a read through.

If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?

I'm not going to say this is absolutely what Bioware was planning. It's certainly possible incompetence/funding/EA led them to where they are currently at. But like any good film, there is evidence in plenty to - at the very minimum - warrant THOUGHT. CONSIDERATION. CONVERSATION.

I respect what you do, Shamus, but this article is a perfect example of why you make me sad. This ending is ripe for contemplation, even if it is largely conjecture on the player's part. There are visual / audio cues all over the place to suggest something more is going on. This is what you always wanted, isn't it? An opportunity to take a video game and get something more out of it. Something philosophical/intellectual... and you whiffed.

http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.

 

[Murmillos]

If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?

Because I think it was executed in the wrong manner, and they out-right lied on what the ending was going to be like.

Had they not promised non A-B-C endings and polished the ending better & provided some more clues towards the end, this ending would have gone down much much better.

 

[mfeff]

I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

snippidy snip

Please if you have a moment, read this, and the comments. It's worth your time.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

 

[mfeff]

Snippity do da

Reminds me...

DLC you can believe in!

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/294926,mass-effect-3--final-fantasy-xiii-2--wtf.aspx

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Snippity do da

Reminds me...

DLC you can believe in!

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/294926,mass-effect-3--final-fantasy-xiii-2--wtf.aspx

Things We Didn't Even Know We Wanted, But Kind of Do Now.

Sums it up. Franchise crossovers out of left field are awesome.

 

[JSDodd]

As much as i hated the ending, i don't feel that Bioware HAS to completely change it. All i want is a text scroll telling me what happened to the factions and people encountered along the way, i don't feel like that much actual closure is an unreasonable ask.

 

[The.Bard]

http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.

Interesting site. As a big fan of FFVIII, I'll definitely go check that out.

The only bit I take particular exception to is this:

to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is

"Actually is"? No, no, the ending is precisely as good and as deep as the person viewing it believes it to be. It's the way of all art; the viewer receives pieces of information (visually, audibly, etc) and pieces it together as they see fit. Whether Bioware intended indoctrination is not the point if the pieces can seamlessly go together that way.

For me to believe indoctrination theory and make it fit within the ending, zero concessions have to be made. NONE.

BUT... to claim that everything that happens in the end is reality, several concessions DO have to be made. Whether they are chalked up to a sudden rampant case of excessively extreme stupidity by Bioware (to the point of one guy being shot and the OTHER guy bleeding), deliberate subterfuge by Bioware, or indoctrination is ultimately irrelevant.

For me, indoctrination IS the ending of the game. You may certainly think otherwise, but the evidence for me says that's what it is. That is the conclusion I drew, and everything I've seen on the replay supports it. What the artists' intent was no longer matters. How I interpret it is all there is.

And be it book or movie or whatever have you, this kind of discussability is generally looked upon as a GOOD THING. Which is why I think Shamus has - once again - let us down. Instead of DISCUSSING THIS as art, he is content to shake a finger and roll with the crowd, offering very few suggestions of how it COULD be interpreted, nothing in terms of how it could be better. Whether you believe it IS indoctrination or ISN'T, a case can absolutely be made for both sides. Both sides deserve discussion.

But Shamus seems content to roll with the "HERPA DERP, this is stooooopid!" crowd. And as someone who constantly complains that the industry treats us like morons, he needs to be held to a higher standard than constantly complaining that video games need to be better, and then completely avoiding all discussion of that meaning when it's perched atop on his nose.

 

[The.Bard]

I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

snippidy snip

Please if you have a moment, read this, and the comments. It's worth your time.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/

Great write up. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes many excellent points. I did not read all of the comments yet, but I definitely will scope them out.

I have no evidence or fly-on-the-wall info to suggest what he hypothesizes about rushing the ending is on the money or out in left field, but I very much agree with him that - regardless of the shitestorm the endings caused - Bioware was going to be releasing more of an ending update at some point in the near future anyway. I just don't see all the DLC coming down the pike for this game to be separate missions unrelated to the Reapers. I think a lot of it will be focused on tying up the story. I know some people like Zeel would flip out at that prospect, but if they end up with 10-12 LotR-esque endings that culminate in a 2-3 hr mega-ending, I'm sure a lot of people would die of joy.

 

[The.Bard]

If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?

Because I think it was executed in the wrong manner, and they out-right lied on what the ending was going to be like.

Had they not promised non A-B-C endings and polished the ending better & provided some more clues towards the end, this ending would have gone down much much better.

Well, at this point anything additional they release will be assumed to have been done at gunpoint by the fans, but I believe the intent was to roll out multiple pieces of endings over time so we could be left hanging a little and get a jammin' emotional punch when it hits.

With all of the emotion and time they've invested into this series, do you really think it was their intent to lie to you and purposefully undercut this? To what end?

I completely understand how one could come away from the ending dissatisfied. That's a valid emotional response. But I also think too many people are confusing "This ending didn't satisfy me" with "This is the stupidest thing ever and I have to retake this game from the artists who made it."

I guess I still have faith Bioware is gonna pull an ace and deliver an extended ending ($0 if they're smart), and it will flesh out a beautiful ending to this trilogy.

 

[ThingInTheCoat]

I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters... snip-snip

Bard, I can admire the idea of the Indoctrination theory. I really can. Hell, I even believed Shepard was being subjected to some sort of fishy Reaper control the instant Harbinger's beam blind-sided him. But that idea quickly fell apart as the ending continued, and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't just accept the ending at face value.

The truth is, nearly every point the Indoctrination theory sets forth can be Occam's Razored down to a much simpler, more obvious explanation, or else simple coincidence, or else sloppy writing. I'm going to give a brief run-down of every one you mention.

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.

1) The final radio transmission was being sent out while Shepard was lying, apparently dead, on the ground, so Command would probably just chalk him up alongside the other casualties and turn their attention elsewhere to regroup. There's also the possibility that the destruction of his armor made his life-signs flat-line on their end. Anderson following you onto the Citadel is a little trickier to explain, although I guess you could dismiss it as him getting up from the rubble and following you after you got on, implausible as that may be. No idea on how to explain the "dark hallway" he claims to be in, since there are no other "dark hallways" between you and the control panel.

2) What do you mean about "all game long?" As far as I've noticed, he only mentioned it once. Keep in mind that Vega is standing in the docking bay of a space ship -- a docking bay, of course, which is beneath the giant thrumming engine core. Why is this a suspicious thing to say -- in idle dialogue before a battle, no less, when his nerves would be at their jumpiest. I'm pretty sure that is what the writers were attempting to convey: his nerves.

3) What made you think the copy of Shepard was evil-looking? My Shepard looked simply peaceful, even as the flames engulfed him. A more obvious explanation is that this was simply foreshadowing that Shepard would join in death those he couldn't protect -- a foreboding of potential failure to stop the Reapers. Bioware seems to have clearly been trying to humanize Shepard, and the dream sequences were one of their methods.

4) If the Illusive Man could control one man with Reaper tech, why is it odd that he control two? The black tendrils creeping in represented the "song of oily shadows" of Reaper control -- only in this case, it was Reaper control by way of the Illusive Man's tech.

5) No fucking idea. This is perhaps some of the more compelling evidence, I think, in support of the theory, but given the sloppy, rushed nature of the rest of the ending, it was probably just a case of reused art assets. They didn't want to make a separate cutscene to account for every squad configuration you took down to Earth with you, so they made one cutscene for each ending and you just happened to see one that had at least one of your squad members in it.

Now, fair's fair, my explanations may be simpler and, on their face, more plausible, but that's not to say they're certainly true; that's an assumption in itself. There are, however, much more damning evidence that runs contrary to the Indoctrination theory:

For instance, if the theory is correct, then why, if Shepard has low EMS, does only the "Destroy" option present itself? If the Reapers are trying to Indoctrinate Shepard's mind, then presenting only one option -- their destruction -- with no resistance seems a bit . . . dumb. This is especially dumb if you've chosen to destroy the Geth during the game, since there is now no reason to take that only option.

Furthermore, what is the point of the cutscenes after the choice on the Crucible? Why, after you choose anything, does Harbinger take the time to show you images of Reapers flying away or falling to the earth, Mass Relays exploding spectacularly, and the Normandy attempting to outrun the blastwave and crash landing on an alien world? What function does that serve? Building from that, why -- especially during the "Destroy" ending, where it appears after the scene of Shepard waking in the rubble -- does an epilogue appear? An epilogue which features, no less, the same alien sky the Normandy crashed beneath and which depicts an old man and grandchild presumably generations descended from the original survivors. Their dialogue even gives us the impression that humanity has been unable to reach the stars since the Mass Relays exploded, which pretty well implies that the events we saw at the end happened as we saw them. Why -- and how -- does Harbinger impart that little nugget into Shepard's brain after he breaks free?

Lastly, the Mass Effect series -- hell, all of Bioware's games -- have never been this oblique and psychological; they've always been purely straight-forward adventures -- adventures with mature and complex themes, to be certain, but always straight-forward in execution. So why now, in the last ten minutes, should I expect this change? Why should I suppose that Bioware has applied this level of sophistication and complexity, when nothing prior to this has even approached this level of subtlety?

To compound all of this, none of the released documents, interviews, and statements give any real indication that they have any ace up their sleeve or that this is not their honest-to-God, intended ending. They've always been frank about how this is the way the wanted it to end, and if they were planning something, why did it take a massive petition, a wave of Amazon returns, and review-bombing, for them to make the simple, small concession of planning "game content initiatives" to "add more closure." Why wouldn't Casey Hudson or someone just come out in the face of this controversy and say, "Hey, we know you're confused about all this, but don't worry -- we've got it covered. You wouldn't believe the shit we've got in store." It just doesn't add up.

I like the indoctrination theory. I really do. In fact, it shows a level of imagination in the fans that Bioware should be jealous of. But the fact is, there's just not as much going for it as people believe. It's mostly just boxing shadows on the wall, so you shouldn't really blame people for accepting what they see at face value. Personally, I find it bad writing on their part even if it is indoctrination, since there's so much conflicting evidence either way.

And you know what? Fuck it. Believe in it if you want, even if it doesn't totally make sense. It's a better idea than what Bioware tossed us, at any rate, so substitute their reality for your own.

http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.

Oh, man, I can't believe I forgot about that site. Thanks for bringing that up.

P.S. Goddamn, I didn't realize I wrote that much. Forgive the shit-brick of text.

P.P.S. During the writing of this, I watched the gameplay of the Crucible approach on Youtube to refresh my memory, and goddamn if that shit just doesn't jive. Bioware's writing team certainly couldn't have dropped the ball that much by accident, could they? It's just so fucking weird to take that sequence of events at face value, even though I doubt the Indoctrination theory.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.

Interesting site. As a big fan of FFVIII, I'll definitely go check that out.

The only bit I take particular exception to is this:

to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is

"Actually is"? No, no, the ending is precisely as good and as deep as the person viewing it believes it to be. It's the way of all art; the viewer receives pieces of information (visually, audibly, etc) and pieces it together as they see fit. Whether Bioware intended indoctrination is not the point if the pieces can seamlessly go together that way.

For me to believe indoctrination theory and make it fit within the ending, zero concessions have to be made. NONE.

BUT... to claim that everything that happens in the end is reality, several concessions DO have to be made. Whether they are chalked up to a sudden rampant case of excessively extreme stupidity by Bioware (to the point of one guy being shot and the OTHER guy bleeding), deliberate subterfuge by Bioware, or indoctrination is ultimately irrelevant.

For me, indoctrination IS the ending of the game. You may certainly think otherwise, but the evidence for me says that's what it is. That is the conclusion I drew, and everything I've seen on the replay supports it. What the artists' intent was no longer matters. How I interpret it is all there is.

And be it book or movie or whatever have you, this kind of discussability is generally looked upon as a GOOD THING. Which is why I think Shamus has - once again - let us down. Instead of DISCUSSING THIS as art, he is content to shake a finger and roll with the crowd, offering very few suggestions of how it COULD be interpreted, nothing in terms of how it could be better. Whether you believe it IS indoctrination or ISN'T, a case can absolutely be made for both sides. Both sides deserve discussion.

But Shamus seems content to roll with the "HERPA DERP, this is stooooopid!" crowd. And as someone who constantly complains that the industry treats us like morons, he needs to be held to a higher standard than constantly complaining that video games need to be better, and then completely avoiding all discussion of that meaning when it's perched atop on his nose.

Sorry if I sounded condescending. :S
You have every right to believe that, but I don't want to see Bioware getting credit for something that they didn't put in the game. From my understanding, they scrapped the Indoctrination plan, but were lazy enough to leave the hints in. They created a horrible ending, some fans made it better than that.

 

[Caverat]

I have to seriously ask: When was it promised that the ending of mass effect 3 wouldn't be a choose a, b, or c ending, that it would be a unique ending based on the choices made throughout the three games for the player?

I've read many times that Bioware "Lied, owes us a refund because the last 10 minutes of the third game didn't meet the standard the 100+ hrs of the series had met, translation: We are indisputably children, with entitlement issues."

I understand being unhappy with the ending, I've read books with endings I didn't like. But suddenly deciding I'm owed something because I didn't like the ending of a series I liked until that point? Yeah, at that point you need to grow up.

 

[Volkov]

I have to seriously ask: When was it promised that the ending of mass effect 3 wouldn't be a choose a, b, or c ending, that it would be a unique ending based on the choices made throughout the three games for the player?

I've read many times that Bioware "Lied, owes us a refund because the last 10 minutes of the third game didn't meet the standard the 100+ hrs of the series had met, translation: We are indisputably children, with entitlement issues."

I understand being unhappy with the ending, I've read books with endings I didn't like. But suddenly deciding I'm owed something because I didn't like the ending of a series I liked until that point? Yeah, at that point you need to grow up.

Just so you know, saying "I do not know what you base your points on, do not care to research, and yet am in a position to call you children" is laughably bad logic.

But here is a list of verifiable lies told by BioWare staff prior to release:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/10204263/1

To answer your first question:
- Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] ?Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3??
- Casey Hudson: ?Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C... The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.?

This specific enough for you?