Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut - Refusing to Choose (spoilers)

[Chronologist]

My character for Mass Effect 3 was a female Sentinel, reaching level 60 easily (second playthrough), imported from ME1 and ME2, full Paragon, and sporting the Prothean beam rifle with which many an enemy was reduced to so much green goo. The first time I finished the game, I felt drained, confused, and disappointed. However, I put aside all of my feeling recently and replayed the entire game, doing ALL of the side quests, and saving everyone I could. I came out with an EMS of 6900 or so, halved by the fact that I don't care much for Galaxy at War (it's fun, but I hate that the single player campaign is dependent on it, so I play on a different profile).

I questioned the Star-Child about everything, and found each of the options to be awful. So, my Shepard decided to refuse the choice, dooming this cycle to extinction. It is revealed that Liara's beacons remain after the Reapers cleanse the galaxy, and that they allow the next cycle to, as they say, "rofl-stomp" the Reapers into a fine metallic paste, resulting in a lasting peace.

I have to say, this is by far the most satisfying ending presented. My Shepard would NEVER rely on a Deus-Ex-Machina in order to beat the Reapers. She would rely on her friends and comrades instead, even if her chances of success were slim to none.

Personally, I would have preferred if your EMS allowed you the chance of defeating the Reapers conventionally, and you could receive the same "rebuilding" sequence that everyone gets, only with maybe a shot of Shepard and his/her love interest living together. Even a short scene would have made all the difference.

Does the Extended Cut make the ending better? Yes. Is it a good ending? Not by a long shot. There's still too much Space Magic involved, the themes still aren't clearly explained, and overall it feels like Metal Gear Solid - weird story decisions that just confuse and punish the player.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?

EDIT: On replaying the last mission (thank goodness for the Restart Mission option), I chose Synthesis, mostly because I didn't feel like wiping out the Geth or giving the Reapers a chance to keep killing organic life (in case Shepard went off the deep end after a while). It was alright, the still images were pretty much what I expected, but it's still a more jarring conclusion than Refuse's "Everybody dies, but the Reapers lose next cycle". Strange that the ending that a lot of people consider Bioware's "screw you for not enjoying the ending" choice is actually the most enjoyable and realistic.

 

[TaintedSaint]

The screw you god child ending was justified. The reapers were handing all the races a major butt kicking in spite of your readiness. The only way everyone survives is with the intervention of the crucible. Hence if you choose not to use the Crucible you lose. The reapers were and always have been portrayed as and unstoppable force. but on the positive if you watch the whole ending your cycles work allows the next to finally defeat the reapers.

 

[Chronologist]

The screw you god child ending was justified. The reapers were handing all the races a major butt kicking in spite of your readiness. The only way everyone survives is with the intervention of the crucible. Hence if you choose not to use the Crucible you lose. The reapers were and always have been portrayed as and unstoppable force. but on the positive if you watch the whole ending your cycles work allows the next to finally defeat the reapers.

Yes, but here's a thought. What if the "screw you" ending were effectively the ONLY ending to Mass Effect 3? What if Shepard was obliterated by Harbinger's laser beam and died? What if the Crucible was not, in fact, an uber-weapon but instead just another trap created by the Reapers to lure the remaining survivors into one place and annihilate the remaining fleets?

If I was on the design team, I would have given an option for Shepard to make it out alive, if she had high enough EMS (3000 or more) and chose Destroy or Refuse.

When it comes to Bioware endings, I really like Dragon Age: Origins. You have a) Self-sacrifice, b) Persuading a team-mate to sacrifice themself in your stead, or c) making a "deal with the devil" that may ultimately bite you in the ass. Those endings also fit the grey morality of the Dragon Age world very well.

When I completed the game for the first time, I kept thinking that I wanted an option that would reflect my Shepard's ideals, as well as the core themes of the series. Refuse comes close to that option, it's not quite there, but it's the closest we're going to get.

 

[alecstevans]

Well, I have played Mass Effects 3 and experience such an amazing graphics and feature of the game.

 

[jensenthejman]

I wanted the ability to win in the refuse ending as well. So many people talk about how the reapers can't be defeated conventionally. Sorry, but I just don't believe that. It would be ridiculously difficult, but I still think that it's possible.

 

[Chronologist]

I wanted the ability to win in the refuse ending as well. So many people talk about how the reapers can't be defeated conventionally. Sorry, but I just don't believe that. It would be ridiculously difficult, but I still think that it's possible.

I agree. Reaper ships CAN be defeated with conventional (and sometimes unconventional means, here's looking at you Thresher Maws). Sovereign, one of the biggest and baddest Reaper ships, was taken out with a barrage of missiles and lasers from the Alliance military and a few Council ships. The Reaper on Rannoch was also defeated in that manner, and this time with a significantly less powerful Quarian fleet. Reaper anti-air types can be taken out with a simple Nuke Launcher, as demonstrated on the final mission to Earth.

Reapers are not indestructible. If anything, I would liken them to Borg ships from Start Trek - extremely well-plated and with devastating weapons, but not very fast, maneuverable, and possessing poor shields. The best way to fight them is to out-maneuver their main guns, cycling your ships so that ones with damaged shields have time to retreat and repair. Winning is all about a war of attrition.

Plus, if that doesn't work, you can just shoot Thresher Maws at them.



Removing the ability to defeat the reapers conventionally removes any reason for Shepard to gather a fleet to take back Earth - making about 90% of the game a pointless exercise, existing simply to revisit old squad-mates and reference events from ME2 (but not ME1, because apparently no one likes talking about Saren, despite him being the best villain in the series by far).

Personally I'm waiting for a PC mod that alters the Refuse option when you have enough EMS, where your fleet takes out the Reapers without needing the Crucible, and you get a patchwork of all the best still-images from the other endings, with maybe a fan-drawn image for each of Shepard's love interest endings.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I wanted the ability to win in the refuse ending as well. So many people talk about how the reapers can't be defeated conventionally. Sorry, but I just don't believe that. It would be ridiculously difficult, but I still think that it's possible.

And it would actually fix the entire ending. People who don't agree with the logic of starchild (because it is fundamentally flawed) would get what they want. Ability to win if you have enough war assets. It would make war assets matter. Shepard would survive and we'd even get a reunion scene. There is still room to make Mass Effect ending what most people hoped for since the ending of Mass Effect 2.

 

[CommanderL]

I wanted the ability to win in the refuse ending as well. So many people talk about how the reapers can't be defeated conventionally. Sorry, but I just don't believe that. It would be ridiculously difficult, but I still think that it's possible.

And it would actually fix the entire ending. People who don't agree with the logic of starchild (because it is fundamentally flawed) would get what they want. Ability to win if you have enough war assets. It would make war assets matter. Shepard would survive and we'd even get a reunion scene. There is still room to make Mass Effect ending what most people hoped for since the ending of Mass Effect 2.

Both your names have jensen in them
But i agree with both of you The end game of mass effect 3 should have been handled much differently I.e you command all your assets like the me 2 ending And the ability to win through standard war I think we would have beaten them in a battle for example this cycle is much few centuries later then the reapers wanted Also they lost their main advantage of the surprize attack

 

[Rack]

The refuse ending was beautiful, but the fact you only got it from the writers getting huffy about you not agreeing with their comic blatherskite ruins it completely. I'd have LOVED to get that ending as a result of getting a mediocre War Assets with a variation on destroy if you got almost maximum War Assets.

It's a real shame, because while playing it I got a sense of how powerful this kind of ending would have been when Liara was compiling the tape. If you could only get true success with the most ruthless sacrifice it would have been a wonderful conclusion.

However I can't imagine an ending that good to a series with Cerberus in it actually happening.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

I liked the refusal ending solely based on that one line where the Star Child's voice becomes Harbinger's thereby keeping the hope that the Indoctrination Theory was correct.

 

[Jandau]

I don't think you should be able to win conventionally, if for no other reason than because it would then be the "BESTEST ENDING!!!" and would render all the other endings utterly pointless. This way, it's actually a choice.

 

[Vegosiux]

I don't think you should be able to win conventionally, if for no other reason than because it would then be the "BESTEST ENDING!!!" and would render all the other endings utterly pointless. This way, it's actually a choice.

In which case, why didn't they at least put in an ending where we'd see the war assets making the final stand? Doesn't matter if they win or lose, but y'know, actually seeing it happen would solve the whole thing. Right now it comes across as "Fine, here's that fourth option you wanted, but let it be perfectly clear we despise you thoroughly for wanting it it, you whiny entitled brats." Ironically, I still consider it the best possible ending.

As was said several times across the interwebs in the past months, the fact that the player was basically forced into using a McGuffin is problematic to begin with.

Oh I also had the problem with the kid to begin with. Not against kids in videogames, but seriously. Trying to tug people's heartstrings so damn obviously, that I can't stand for. Plus, what's

1) a shuttle with a kid on board being blown up compared to
2) seeing how husks are made, a thresher maw attack, Cerberus work ethics and the entire collector base creepiness

in terms of nightmare potential? Fucking hell, BioWare.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Because Shepard went through a lot worse, Shepard always pulled through before. But this time it is different.

And the kid in question was the definition of Shepard's failure, failure to bring the races together to stop the Reapers, failure to deliver any type of payback and for the first time failed completely. Even Anderson states how Shepard didn't failure till now after the Thesia debrief

 

[Vegosiux]

Because Shepard went through a lot worse, Shepard always pulled through before. But this time it is different.

And the kid in question was the definition of Shepard's failure, failure to bring the races together to stop the Reapers, failure to deliver any type of payback and for the first time failed completely. Even Anderson states how Shepard didn't failure till now after the Thesia debrief

Why yes, basically it's invoking "instant drama, just add children" for that dark and edgy angst factor. That's both lazy and a dick move.

 

[Jandau]

I don't think you should be able to win conventionally, if for no other reason than because it would then be the "BESTEST ENDING!!!" and would render all the other endings utterly pointless. This way, it's actually a choice.

In which case, why didn't they at least put in an ending where we'd see the war assets making the final stand? Doesn't matter if they win or lose, but y'know, actually seeing it happen would solve the whole thing. Right now it comes across as "Fine, here's that fourth option you wanted, but let it be perfectly clear we despise you thoroughly for wanting it it, you whiny entitled brats." Ironically, I still consider it the best possible ending.

As was said several times across the interwebs in the past months, the fact that the player was basically forced into using a McGuffin is problematic to begin with.

Same reason the endings initially sucked as much as they did - the game was rused out by EA. Bioware didn't get a chance to finish it properly and had to wrap the whole thing up as fast as possible. I know, not really and excuse, the endings are still not great, but I'm willing to cut BW some slack here. Also, the EC made the endings suck less, no matter how you swing it. I'd say they went from "poop" to "meh", and they didn't HAVE to do it. But they did.

But yeah, I didn't like the McGuffin from the first moment people in the game started talking about this mysterious Prothean weapon. I just knew it wouldn't end well. I was hoping the Crucible would fail or be blown up or something like that partway through the game...

 

[worldruler8]

Ugh, is it bad that out of all the endings, this is my favorite? One thing I don't get is, well, how did the next (or eventual) cycle beat the Reapers? The crucible didn't work as well as we thought it would, did they go through the endingtron 3000? And why do people assume we'd attack the Reapers conventionally? Only a fool would. If I remember correctly, the Alliance had ships capable of leaving warp, attacking a Reaper, then leaving before the thing even knew what happened. And what ever happened to what Liara said about lasting 100 years? And that was before we had a massive fleet! It seemed everything ended at the Crucible, but it should have ended when most of the non-asari/krogan cast were dead of old age. What the hell? How could the Galactic Fleet be destroyed in a day?

 

[Joseph Harrison]

Reapers are not indestructible. If anything, I would liken them to Borg ships from Start Trek - extremely well-plated and with devastating weapons, but not very fast, maneuverable, and possessing poor shields. The best way to fight them is to out-maneuver their main guns, cycling your ships so that ones with damaged shields have time to retreat and repair. Winning is all about a war of attrition.

Plus, if that doesn't work, you can just shoot Thresher Maws at them.

Removing the ability to defeat the reapers conventionally removes any reason for Shepard to gather a fleet to take back Earth - making about 90% of the game a pointless exercise, existing simply to revisit old squad-mates and reference events from ME2 (but not ME1, because apparently no one likes talking about Saren, despite him being the best villain in the series by far).

They actually give stats in the codex about how a Reaper Dreadnought, or Sovereign class is a match for 4 Council Dreadnoughts. Not only that but Reapers, are faster, more maneuverable and have longer ranged weapons. The largest fleet in the Galaxy, the Turian fleet, has 36 dreadnoughts, the Reapers have thousands.

So yeah there is no way that the Reapers can be defeated with conventional forces and I thought that was pretty well enforced in the game although pretty much everyone failed to pick up on it.

That doesn't mean I was perfectly fine with the Refusal ending though. I wished it at least showed a cut scene where all your allies and war assets held off Reaper Forces and a triumphant last stand, knowing that even though they're gonna die they're gonna take as many Reapers as they can with them.

 

[Lord Quirk]

I liked the Synthesis and control endings. I don't really mind that they don't really make sense, the monologues by EDI and Shepard respectively were good, and the control one reminded me of 2001: a space oddessy.

 

[Irridium]

A neat thing they could have done is if you refuse Star Child, it gives you the option to "kill" him. Doing so has the same effect on the Reapers as you killing Saren did on Sovereign. They're disabled for a time, giving everyone a chance to unleash hell, thereby ending them.

Would have been nice.