Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[Dys]

Everyone seems to be complaining about the system ending on a massive downer, but tbh I'm far more satisfied with it ending this way. I'd be lying if I said I was ever a huge fan of the series, but in general I'm sick of the whole "hero does the impossible and everything works out swell" theme to vidja games.

Some of my favorite movies end up with the protagonists getting fucked over (requiem for a dream springs to mind). Sometimes the aim of art isn't to make you feel uniformly good, sometimes there are other emotions that can be tapped into (and by experencing crushing defeat or depressing "realities" the highs can stand out all the more).

So yeah, I think the ending was fitting and actually did the series far more justice than shephard managing to band everything together and absolutely defeat the reapers.

 

[jason27131]

A. Watch the video again. the mass relays exploded, with the energy shooting out to another mass relay to do the same thing in a chain effect. Secondly, EDI DIED on the run to the teleporter. Why the fuck did she step out of normandy? Come on. You can't defend this.

B. The civilian fleet was part of the war against the geth, so I'm pretty sure they'd be part of the war against the reapers as well, considering the galaxy needed every possible manpower to win an impossible fight. If I was in a losing war, I wouldn't leave people capable of fighting at home "in case". Why aren't most krogans on earth? Krogans pride themselves as a warrior species. Why the fuck would they stay on Tuchanka sucking on their thumbs when there's a galactic war going on.

C. That's an assumption. I didn't see Liara stepping out of the ship, or Vega, even though they didn't die. I want a good epilogue ala DAO. Not some "lets assume shit happened". I didn't invest 60 hours into a series just to end with some half-assed lazy ending that makes you assume half the shit.

P.S. *think before* you post.

A: They did not explode. As you said, they shoot the energy to another relay, which then caused them to collapse. They have no energy for an explosion; it was all shot to the next relay and used to perform whatever action Shepard chose.
B: Replay ME2. They want a planet to leave their civilians on for when the fight with the Reapers comes up. Against the Geth, every Quarian has a personal reason to fight them. Against the Reapers, they would rather only risk their military as they now have their homeworld back and a fair bit to lose, and they have the survival of their species to think about, but they have an obligation to fight the Reapers still.
C: Not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure somewhere on the BSN it is confirmed that the Stargazer is from a colony that your crew founded. Haven't seen the OP, but I have seen it referenced numerous times.

A. Rewatched the video. Kinda shows that the mass relay blew up. A build up of energy doesn't normally collapse stuff. It blows them up.

B. Wait, I just want to clear up one thing. Reapers wiped out the protheans. You're telling me quarians have a bit to lose if they commit everything to the fight against the reapers? What? The reapers WIPED OUT CIVILIZATION 50,000 years ago for god sakes! They have more to lose IF the quarians leave people at home and then proceed to lose the war against the reapers!

 

[Joccaren]

C. DAO really didn't have that great of an ending. Secondly if you NEED someone to tell you every little thing your characters do afterward, which DAO didn't, then ou lack imagination and I question why you would play a RPG series.

The point with the DA:O ending is that it explained stuff to you, and gave you a fitting conclusion to your story. A fair amount is still left to your imagination, but you know have some idea about how the people and places you grew to care about were affected by your choices. ME3 gives absolutely 0 detail about what happens, and that is not satisfying as an end to a series. It is meant to conclude plot lines, not start up new ones and leave them as a cliff hanger. Even explaining why the Normandy is in Mass Relay transit would be a good start. A lot of it seems like a big Deus Ex Machina for a really bad bittersweet ending, and some exposition would likely help with that.

A. Rewatched the video. Kinda shows that the mass relay blew up. A build up of energy doesn't normally collapse stuff. It blows them up.

B. Wait, I just want to clear up one thing. Reapers wiped out the protheans. You're telling me quarians have a bit to lose if they commit everything to the fight against the reapers? What? The reapers WIPED OUT CIVILIZATION 50,000 years ago for god sakes! They have more to lose IF the quarians leave people at home and then proceed to lose the war against the reapers!

A: I rewatched the video, they collapsed. If they exploded, you would have seen a massive white explosion rather than a beam of energy being shot to the next relay. The energy is sent to all the relays to enact your choice, not used in a solar system destroying explosion. I think you are comparing the explosion of a car hitting the ground after falling 1Km and a Nuclear Bomb going off.
B: The Quarians aren't planning on losing. They have all their ships manned by military personnel. Tali states many times that the Flotilla is crowded - the ships are full of people. Nowhere near all of those people are needed to man the ship. By leaving non-combatants behind, the Quarians can send their whole fleet in, manned by military personnel, with the guarantee that if they actually win the fight, but the fleet is destroyed, their race is not doomed. If they lose the fight their race is doomed either way, but as I said - they're not planning on losing.

 

[Elitefusion]

Yeah, read the edit I posted after
Sorry about that.

Wait, you mean the second link I posted? The one I said was playing devil's advocate? Because even with that interpretation, I still don't agree with the original endings, although it makes me dislike them less. I just posted it to contribute to the discussion. The idea I really like is the option to tell the "god-kid" that you reject his options.

 

[SajuukKhar]

The point with the DA:O ending is that it explained stuff to you, and gave you a fitting conclusion to your story. A fair amount is still left to your imagination, but you know have some idea about how the people and places you grew to care about were affected by your choices. ME3 gives absolutely 0 detail about what happens, and that is not satisfying as an end to a series. It is meant to conclude plot lines, not start up new ones and leave them as a cliff hanger. Even explaining why the Normandy is in Mass Relay transit would be a good start. A lot of it seems like a big Deus Ex Machina for a really bad bittersweet ending, and some exposition would likely help with that.

DAO's ending was a hand-holding parade of "here is things for people who cant think for themselves and NEED other to tell them what happens when the outcome is obvious anyways".

 

[tendaji]

To be honest, I'm conflicted on how I feel about the ending. In one sense, it gave me absolute control instead of assuming that this was the way it should end based on my previous choices. On the other hand, it didn't feel as though it was conclusive, nor did it seem to have a option that I would think my Shepard would actually choose.
I sat in between those three choices so long, that I'm sure Shepard would have bled out by the time I actually picked an option...

But what we can say is that it was left open enough to bring in DLC, as well as sequels, which is what EA wants to have. In the end though, I thought ME3 was an amazing game, and enjoyed the 27 hours I put into it. Saying that, I think it is time for the game to be retired and put onto the shelf of gaming history.

I can't even express how worked up the game got me throughout those missions. But that ending, there was just something about it, that I can't express in words, or thoughts for that matter.

As for the mass relays, I would assume the power of the Crucible+Citadel would have altered the energy of the mass effect generator to be less explosive and more of an (insert energy here) kind of power, making it less of a destructive force.

 

[jason27131]

A. Watch the video again. the mass relays exploded, with the energy shooting out to another mass relay to do the same thing in a chain effect. Secondly, EDI DIED on the run to the teleporter. Why the fuck did she step out of normandy? Come on. You can't defend this.

B. The civilian fleet was part of the war against the geth, so I'm pretty sure they'd be part of the war against the reapers as well, considering the galaxy needed every possible manpower to win an impossible fight. If I was in a losing war, I wouldn't leave people capable of fighting at home "in case". Why aren't most krogans on earth? Krogans pride themselves as a warrior species. Why the fuck would they stay on Tuchanka sucking on their thumbs when there's a galactic war going on.

C. That's an assumption. I didn't see Liara stepping out of the ship, or Vega, even though they didn't die. I want a good epilogue ala DAO. Not some "lets assume shit happened". I didn't invest 60 hours into a series just to end with some half-assed lazy ending that makes you assume half the shit.

P.S. *think before* you post.

A. I suggest you replay the ending again, they specifically say that it requires all of the energy of the Mass Relays to enact whatever choice you pick, the beam that shoots out of the Mass relay, and the wave that enacts your choice in that system, is ALL of its energy, there would be no energy left to create a supernova.

B. Just because YOU wouldn't doesn't mean the Quarrians, who specifically mention in Mass Effect 2 that they need a place to leave their civilians during the war, wouldn't also.

Again Turians and Krogans have civilians, just because they are both warrior/military cultures does not mean that they don't have many noncombatants on their homeworlds.

There are TONS of people needed to support the miltary that wouldnt be on the front lines, or even off thier homeworlds.

C. DAO really didn't have that great of an ending. Secondly if you NEED someone to tell you every little thing your characters do afterward, which DAO didn't, then ou lack imagination and I question why you would play a RPG series.


Again, think, before, you, post.

This is going nowhere. I'm ending with this.

A. In a war against the enemy that can and will destroy all advanced life in the galaxy, I wouldn't risk putting civilians at home just in case. I would concentrate all possible manpower to the war, as would most generals and tacticians. Take Russian in WW2 for example.

B. Mass Effect is NOT a RPG series. It's an action shooter series with some RPG elements. If you call this game a RPG, you really need to re-evaluate your gaming life.

And I'm still wondering why you ignored this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.

 

[SajuukKhar]

This is going nowhere. I'm ending with this.

A. In a war against the enemy that can and will destroy all advanced life in the galaxy, I wouldn't risk putting civilians at home just in case. I would concentrate all possible manpower to the war, as would most generals and tacticians. Take Russian in WW2 for example.

B. Mass Effect is NOT a RPG series. It's an action shooter series with some RPG elements. If you call this game a RPG, you really need to re-evaluate your gaming life.

1. I can only thank god you aren't a military tactision, you would be terrible for the job, and most people wouldn't do that. It is crazy and exceedingly suicidal.

2. "A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."

Mass effect fits those criteria.

Is mass effect a traditional RPG series like NWN or BG? No, but there are MORE RPG styles then just the classic method.

If you think ME3 doesn't fit the definitions of a RPG I would suggest you stop being so close-minded and traditionalist about the definition and realize that the term "RPG" is so broad is covers many types of games.

 

[Deremix]

I suggest everyone should make peace with the endings. Ignore the problems and focus on the story it's telling: Sajuuk IS right, keeping the relays in-tact would have been counter productive. Sure, it's extremely destructive and it will probably take thousands of years to remedy, but that's just it: in those thousands of years, the galaxy no longer has to worry about the Reapers making the galaxy's decisions for them. The galaxy has the actual POSSIBILITY of destroying itself, or thriving.

It truly is bittersweet to the letter, but it's right.

Plus, if we're lucky, there will be some epilogues for all the characters.

 

[jason27131]

1. In a normal war, no one would do that. But this isn't a normal war. This is either you win, or you die. In those cases, no tactician who's remotely sane would try to save civilians instead of committing all manpower. Please, go read history. This has shown up again and again. It's called militia, a last defence in case the main army was not enough. It's called conscription. L2history.

2. In that case, every single game out there is a RPG. COD is a rpg. So is BF3.


P.S. Still ignoring this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.

 

[Joccaren]

Yeah, read the edit I posted after
Sorry about that.

Wait, you mean the second link I posted? The one I said was playing devil's advocate? Because even with that interpretation, I still don't agree with the original endings, although it makes me dislike them less. I just posted it to contribute to the discussion. The idea I really like is the option to tell the "god-kid" that you reject his options.

That is what I was referring to. Telling the Guardian to stuff it and watching the fleets kill the Reapers, or die trying. I don't know what anyone's problem with that ending would be, but the endings we have now are definitely crap (I agree with you). And yeah, I also pointed out my dislike of all the endings due to the Deus Ex Machina that is pulled.

DAO's ending was a hand-holding parade of "here is things for people who cant think for themselves and NEED other to tell them what happens when the outcome is obvious anyways".

Yet it made a satisfying end to the game. In ME3, you have no idea what happened, and that is a problem for many people.
People want a satisfying ending, not one that leaves them asking 'WTF actually happened?'. Its why its an ending. Give details on what happened to the squadmates and the imagination side is still there, but you at least have some closure on what actually happened, rather than this whole 'The universe is F*****' stuff. It would be nice to know if all your fighting actually paid off, or if it was all for nought. The series has told you everything so far, why not let you know how it ended - a pretty important thing IMO.

 

[Deremix]

And still, we have to remember that this is an amazing game. The ending actually didn't destroy all of your decisions: those decisions still happened, and they're still largely in flux. It's just the fact that Shepard almost always dies and we don't see epilogues for that characters that bothers all of us.

EDIT: It takes a lot of deep thought, but if you REALLY look at it, you can realize that even though Shepard is gone, even though we haven't seen what happened to the characters, the Galaxy really is better off without the relays. This effectively ends the wars and conflicts that the races are having with everyone else up in their business, and allows them to rebuild, evolve, and eventually all find their way back to making their own forms of Mass Relays. This would eventually lead to some more conflict, of course, but at least it's conflict they can handle themselves without worrying about Reapers breathing down their necks.

But still, like everyone else, I would love some closure for the characters.

 

[jason27131]

And still, we have to remember that this is an amazing game. The ending actually didn't destroy all of your decisions: those decisions still happened, and they're still largely in flux. It's just the fact that Shepard almost always dies and we don't see epilogues for that characters that bothers all of us.

Not argument there. Amazing game, just ended quite badly. As someone said before, a 5 course meal, then shit for desert.

 

[Deremix]

And still, we have to remember that this is an amazing game. The ending actually didn't destroy all of your decisions: those decisions still happened, and they're still largely in flux. It's just the fact that Shepard almost always dies and we don't see epilogues for that characters that bothers all of us.

Not argument there. Amazing game, just ended quite badly. As someone said before, a 5 course meal, then shit for desert.

Made me lol. Very true.

 

[Elitefusion]

And still, we have to remember that this is an amazing game. The ending actually didn't destroy all of your decisions: those decisions still happened, and they're still largely in flux. It's just the fact that Shepard almost always dies and we don't see epilogues for that characters that bothers all of us.

Of course. The people saying that the ending ruined the series or even the game are raging for raging's sake. I have problems with the concept, execution, and implications of the endings, but at worst this takes the game from greatest game I've ever played to just above Mass Effect 2. How AMAZING were the Geth-Quarian missions?

The only thing I like about the endings (and also the epilogue) is that it is basically a chance for the galaxy to start over. At the very end you correct the Reaper mistake. Not without cost, but now the galaxy can evolve naturally. Eventually the Mass Relays can be understood and built again. Perhaps the events of ME3 are part of a cycle as well? Imagine that there's the 50,000 year cycle with the Reapers, but every X million years there's a Commander Shepard to break the cycle. Of course, there's no background to support this in the game, it's just an idea.

 

[SajuukKhar]

1. In a normal war, no one would do that. But this isn't a normal war. This is either you win, or you die. In those cases, no tactician who's remotely sane would try to save civilians instead of committing all manpower. Please, go read history. This has shown up again and again. It's called militia, a last defence in case the main army was not enough. It's called conscription. L2history.

2. In that case, every single game out there is a RPG. COD is a rpg. So is BF3.


P.S. Still ignoring this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.

1. Normal war or not most people wouldn't be so shortsighted as to risk sending ALL of their people to fight.

Secondly even in this war THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE NEEDED FOR NON-COMBAT PURPOSES. YOU CAN'T run a military by putting everyone on ships and sending them off to fight. There NEEDS to be MANY people back on the homeworlds/colonies to make things for the military.

2. Most games are technically RPGs.

3. EDI doesn't show up if you pick the destroy ending, she only appears in the merge endings, and if i recall she was in the control ending.

Merge ending and control ending don't involve killing all the Reapers. Beyond that she could easily have had more then one body, and/or they fixed her body.

 

[jason27131]

The thing is tho, is that the ending of a series is suppose to bring closure, a sense of finality. I wanted things to settle down, like the talks liara and sheppard had, or the thoughts of tali building a home, etc. Instead it ended with more questions. That's what kinda annoyed me.

If they showed the entire normandy crew crash landing on that forest, with Liara being pregnant or sumthing (in my playthrough) I woulda been a tiny bit more happier than now. Hell, I don't even know what happened to her.

 

[jason27131]

1. In a normal war, no one would do that. But this isn't a normal war. This is either you win, or you die. In those cases, no tactician who's remotely sane would try to save civilians instead of committing all manpower. Please, go read history. This has shown up again and again. It's called militia, a last defence in case the main army was not enough. It's called conscription. L2history.

2. In that case, every single game out there is a RPG. COD is a rpg. So is BF3.


P.S. Still ignoring this. Why did EDI show up in normandy AFTER she died by the reaper laser.

1. Normal war or not most people wouldn't be so shortsighted as to risk sending ALL of their people to fight.

Secondly even in this war THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE NEEDED FOR NON-COMBAT PURPOSES. YOU CAN'T run a military by putting everyone on ships and sending them off to fight. There NEEDS to be MANY people back on the homeworlds/colonies to make things for the military.

2. Most games are technically RPGs.

3. EDI doesn't show up if you pick the destroy ending, she only appears in the merge endings, and if i recall she was in the control ending.

Merge ending and control ending don't involve killing all the Reapers.

1. History has shown again and again that indeed this DID happen. The only one who apparently doesn't think so is you. The final battle doesn't need anyone to make things for the military. What it needs is as much ships as possible, and as many people to mann this as possible. What it doesn't need is civilians sitting at home. If they lost the war due to a lack of manpower, the reaper proceed to kill everything and everyone. Would you rather risk the chances of losing everything due to a lack of manpower, or use all available manpower and sacrifice some civilians? (they didn't know they'd be stranded in the sol system).

2. Awesome! Good to know. In that case, why don't I have any choices in COD?

3. EDI did show up in the ign's playthrough where they picked destroy. She still showed up. Thats not the point. People had Garrus dying at the run towards the teleporter, then show up anyways in the final movie. His dead body was on the damn ground!

 

[SajuukKhar]

1. History has shown again and again that indeed this DID happen. The only one who apparently doesn't think so is you.

2. Awesome! Good to know. In that case, why don't I have any choices in COD?

3. EDI did show up in the ign's playthrough where they picked destroy. She still showed up. Thats not the point. People had Garrus dying at the run towards the teleporter, then show up anyways in the final movie. His dead body was on the damn ground!

1. Actually in history there has never been a war between nations were every nation put ALL their people into battle. It just doesn't happen.

2. RPGs are not defined by having choice.

3. Probably a glitch, Bioware's games usually have several. also IGN? seriously? they are probably the worst gaming site in existence.

 

[jason27131]

1. History has shown again and again that indeed this DID happen. The only one who apparently doesn't think so is you.

2. Awesome! Good to know. In that case, why don't I have any choices in COD?

3. EDI did show up in the ign's playthrough where they picked destroy. She still showed up. Thats not the point. People had Garrus dying at the run towards the teleporter, then show up anyways in the final movie. His dead body was on the damn ground!

1. Actually in history there has never been a war between nations were every nation put ALL their people into battle. It just doesn't happen.

2. RPGs are not defined by having choice.

3. Probably a glitch, Bioware's games usually have several.

1. Sacking of Rome had civilians fighting for their life because the military got owned. Same with Russian. War between Sparta and Persia had every spartan man fighting in the war, but women couldn't fight back then soo....

2. "A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines." - contradiction much?

3. A glitch shouldn't be present in the ending of a game or part of a storyline, where it makes no logical sense.


Like what I don't understand is why you're defending this ending. It's clearly bad, and not up to par to what should be the ending a trilogy. Even star wars ended better than this in their last movie!