Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

[Kingjackl]

Apart from the Mass Relays being being destroyed, which I felt was a completely arbitrary and needless gut-punch, I actually didn't mind the endings that much. The weird thing about the ending is that it actually makes more sense when explained outside of context. The whole business with the Catalyst and the origin of the Reapers actually doesn't sound as far-fetched when you hear it described on something like TV Tropes or the Mass Effect wiki. It's only when playing the actual game, when it's being incoherently rambled by Casper the Genocidal Space Ghost that it comes across as an offensive arse-pull.

On the subject of changes to the ending, I can sort of see where Yahtzee is coming from here. The issue is that fans are outright demanding changes, as opposed to merely criticisng the endings. If that were the case, then Bioware's decision to go along with the ending change business would come across as being courteous, supportive and dare I say very Paragon toward their fans. It's only because people are rabidly and angrily demanding change that it looks like Bioware are caving into fanboy demands. Another thing you have to remember is that, form what we've heard, the ending was written separately by the Lead Writer and Producer without feedback from the rest of the writing team. So one could argue that if the endings came out of troubled production, then they could very well be changed without comprimising the developer's artistic integrity.

If Bioware did decide to change that ending, then it should be something akin to the Blade Runner Director's Cut, keeping the actual story intact, but fix up the dialogue so it doesn't come across as forced and arbitrary. That would hopefully alleviate the problems of people who hated the logistical problems with the endings, while still (hopefully) keeping within the developer's artistic intentions.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

In my experience, child deities (or invincible child masters) are always offensive. Bad call putting that one in.

 

[mfeff]

In my experience, child deities (or invincible child masters) are always offensive. Bad call putting that one in.

Drew knew this when he created the reapers, that in narration it is very difficult to deal with a villain that has no weakness...

solution...

God... he has no weakness right?

but that's lame...

so let's make it ambiguous, and rushy, and not bother with the ending until the last minute, cause we had to take the prothean out to sell it back to you as DLC, and that sort of breaks the narrative, and we had to fix that....

so half ass PTSS, Cassandra Syndrome, make Shep an emo pussy, and martyr him to save the galaxy... cause fate demands it.

That is what we call shit writing. The narrative is shit, the crucible is shit, there are 100 different ways to have gone about this, and NONE of them are in the game... cause the writer's tasked with the job, only had pseudo psychology, crummy pacing, and awkward moments on their minds.

Drew would of done better, as Drew is why anything at Bioware was ever worth a shit. /endrant

 

[Danny Ocean]

It's a first person story. When Shepard dies, you die, and there would be no way of knowing the exact consequences of your actions. That's what makes the final decision actually something you think about rather than just choosing the paragon option like you've been doing so far.

 

[JayDeth]

Really Yahtzee? I expected better of you when NOT retarded, plot hole riddled, awful story telling is on the line. I am just dumbfounded that you apparently didn't spend all of 5 minutes looking into this ME3 Ending business. There's a thing called Google Yahtzee. It contains the knowledge that would bring you and pretty much anyone else who's played the Mass Effect games together. I implore you to please use it.

But sadly, I'm sure this is the last we'll ever hear of it again as I'm sure you'll never give it another thought. That's fine. I wish you well in your blissful ignorance, the rest of us will continue to rightly feel betrayed, lied to, and very annoyed.

 

[Rylian]

It's a first person story. When Shepard dies, you die, and there would be no way of knowing the exact consequences of your actions. That's what makes the final decision actually something you think about rather than just choosing the paragon option like you've been doing so far.

I call BS. Let's be honest, this is no excuse for terrible, terrible writing.

 

[satsugaikaze]

Nice to see how there's slightly less hyperbole involved in this thread, although the same arguments/elements still seem to be here.

Also, I think if Bioware completely replaced the ending, that would be a precedent. At least for videogames. People keep bringing up Broken Steel - no. Similar, but not the same. Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes.

I believe the difference is that people in the Retake movement seem to be demanding a completely different ending, with a completely different plot point. I think a lot of people are overtly incensed about the issue that they don't realise how problematic it could be.
And similarly, might be overtly incensed about the issue that they don't even attempt to find the positives about the ending.

 

[Celador]

At least some people share my opinion about ME3 endings. I couldn't understand what was all the fuss about when i finished the game. Those were pretty standard sci-fi book endings: bad but with a "hint" of hope, bad but provocative and just bad. Not everything is suppose to have a closure and not always do you get hollywoodesque "happy ending".

I was surprised they did not include "inevitable entropy" ending as well. Reapers win, credits roll, post credits movie shows how 50 000 years later some evolved cow finds Shepards hologram in a dig site on Earth. Everybody's happy.

 

[JesterRaiin]

For serious, I heard the ending was shit so I just didnt buy the game.

It's not shit. We're not unreasonable folk. We know that one size does not fit all. But if the product doesn't meet expectations of MOST clients, then... ;]

 

[MalkavianLunatic]

While I was disappointed in the ending of Mass Effect 3, mostly for the whole palette-swap, ABC ending/s thing, I really don't see the point of the sheer amount of complaining and outright demand for a changed ending. First off, it's a game. A bad ending isn't the end of the world itself. Secondly, that was a lot to live up to over three games and it was inevitable that it would disappoint some people. Do I think they could've done better? Yes, I do. Do I feel they could've written a better ending and not had what happened come out of nowhere like it did? Sure. But I'm not going to get my torch and pitchfork over it. Just like I wouldn't do that over a movie whose ending I disliked. Or how I wouldn't make such demands of an author who wrote the ending of their book in a way that I found disappointing.

I know that some people will point out all the claims that were made that the ending/s would deal with all the decisions made throughout the previous two games, but those decisions made in the games were still all written by Bioware's creative team. Everything done in all three games were along the lines set by them. In the end, it's their product and their story. People chose to buy it just as easily as others chose not to.

Now, if they release some alternate stuff or explanations for what happened and a little more closure in DLC, I'm, personally, fine with that, free or (more likely) not. If people want to keep complaining, then there are some pretty simple solutions, I'd think: don't buy the DLC, swear off Bioware's games if you must, and take your copy of Mass Effect 3 to a store and maybe get some money or some credit towards another game you may want to play instead. Why keep dwelling on it? It's not the first disappointing ending in the history of games and it certainly won't be the last, so why expend so much energy in a manner that's hardly constructive?

I shudder to think that if Bioware completely rolls over and retcons the ending because of some outraged, entitled people whining for what they say they want, what does this mean for any narrative-heavy games in the future? If one dares to disappoint, is there going to be another pointless fit thrown by so-called fans of that game for the creators to cater to their own ideas and opinions of what should've happened? If so, then what's the point of putting out any games with quality stories or even endings at all if all people will do is complain about it and behave as though they're owed their own particular outcomes by the game companies? If people want to be disappointed and express it, that's one thing; but to outright demand something be changed because they're disappointed seems ridiculous to me.

Another thing I've seen a lot of lately is how people are saying how Bioware owes them what they want, not because they're 'fans', but because they're 'consumers'. If I buy an item of a specific brand and dislike a detail of it, does that give me the right to try to file complaints and throw a fit about it and demand that the manufacturers bend to my will because I and possibly a small percentage of other people who agree bought the item in the first place? It's a weak argument, this 'consumers-not-fans' argument, at least to me. Either you're a fan of the series because of what you enjoyed about it and deal with the disappointment of a weak ending and move on; or you're merely a consumer who chose to buy a product and you live with being disappointed with your choice because you dislike a feature of it. Neither means that you get to dictate how the creators chose to make it.

I know it's only my opinion and there are certainly enough people who disagree; that's their opinion. Sorry this became such a long post and a bit of a rant, but I felt I needed to throw my two cents in on the matter.

 

[zefiris]

You guys are sure it's Yahtzee (and MovieBob, and Devin Faraci, and Ben Kuchera from PA Report and every other journalist that has said similar things recently) that's missing the point, and not yourselves?

Why do you think all the paid journalists that have to worry about ad revenue voice more valid opinions than thousands of customers?

Also, I think if Bioware completely replaced the ending, that would be a precedent. At least for videogames. People keep bringing up Broken Steel - no. Similar, but not the same. Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes.

Wrong. Several games already changed endings, including Fallout. As did other media, including such classics like Sherlock Holmes.

Not to mention that oddly, "Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes." is what many people were originally asking for.

Guess you defeated your own argument there. Good job.

 

[nipsen]

That was actually a good point, Yahtzee. Except that.. you don't actually see any of that in the story-telling in the game.

.. that's kind of the point, isn't it.

 

[satsugaikaze]

Also, I think if Bioware completely replaced the ending, that would be a precedent. At least for videogames. People keep bringing up Broken Steel - no. Similar, but not the same. Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes.

Wrong. Several games already changed endings, including Fallout. As did other media, including such classics like Sherlock Holmes.

Not to mention that oddly, "Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes." is what many people were originally asking for.

Guess you defeated your own argument there. Good job.

Could you list me some examples for changed endings, please? Specific to videogames? I don't profess to have an encyclopedic knowledge of literature, but I don't know of any significant examples remotely comparable to what's going on here, besides Fallout 3.

And if you paraphrased my entire argument properly, you would realise that I theorised that there was a majority of people involved in Retake Mass Effect who want to change the core plot of the ending, which have some subtle differences from that of what Bethesda did.

The main plot of Fallout 3 still ends with the finalization of Project Purity, Broken Steel deals with the ramifications of that. In contrast, there are people who seem to want to remove the concept of the Star Child entirely.

In any case, if people just want to see what the ramifications of the Crucible/Catalyst were, and what happened to characters after the player made that 1/3 choice, fine - I can sympathise with the lack of closure. But there's a difference between extending an ending, and changing the fundamentals of it entirely.

 

[PiCroft]

Also, I think if Bioware completely replaced the ending, that would be a precedent. At least for videogames. People keep bringing up Broken Steel - no. Similar, but not the same. Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes.

Wrong. Several games already changed endings, including Fallout. As did other media, including such classics like Sherlock Holmes.

Not to mention that oddly, "Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes." is what many people were originally asking for.

Guess you defeated your own argument there. Good job.

Could you list me some examples for changed endings, please? Specific to videogames? I don't profess to have an encyclopedic knowledge of literature, but I don't know of any significant examples remotely comparable to what's going on here, besides Fallout 3.

IIRC, Hitchhikers Guide' author wrote a really bad, depressing ending because at the time he was depressed. He later got the ending changed (or encouraged fans to do it for him I think, because he died not long after) because he realised he made a mess of things.

I think, I'm not a HGTHG fan I've only heard this second-hand.

 

[yeah_so_no]

Yeah, I feel like most journalists / critcs are on a completely different wave length then us gamers.

Sorry, are you implying that Moviebob and Yahtzee are not gamers, and you are?
Because if so, I feel a full-blown facepalm coming.

I'm saying there is a difference between someone who plays games and watches movies for a living, than someone who works a standard 9-5 job and plays games for enjoyment and escapism. Yes.

In fact Movie bob has stated there is a difference in several of his articles about how he sees movies different from your average joe because he sees almost every movie that comes out and your regular person sees only one or two a month, at best.

Plus they are involved in the industry I feel they have a bit of stake in things to side mostly with the authors and not with the consumers. Thus the "its the consumers fault for caring about/ being angry about getting a shitty ending" that seems to be cropping up amongst all paid reviewers.

I think it's more of a long view/short view kind of thing.

People who want it changed think the ending sucked and feel cheated, and that BioWare needs to give them the ending they feel they were promised. (short view - thinking only about this one game and how they feel about it)

The people who don't want it to change are thinking about what precedent it will set for the entire industry, one that is still in the developmental stages and finding its feet (long view - thinking about what it means for the burgeoning industry itself. Think the growth of DLC - if fans had refused to buy DLC when games first started, there'd be no DLC happening with nigh every game now. This is also why even people who haven't played the game, like Movie Bob, are chiming in on this side - it's not about this one game for them.)

That's where the big difference lies, I think, and why there won't be agreement between the two sides.

 

[yeah_so_no]

The thing is, here, that the indoctrination theory is just speculation. And if it's true, it instead leaves us with a non-ending where the battle for the Earth and the Citadel isn't over yet. Which leaves us with an incomplete game.

I'd kinda disagree with that - if you see the game as being Shepard's story, then ending when it does makes sense because

Spoiler

that's where Shepard 'dies' unless you get the one ending that has him live. His story ends with him.

 

[Scuzzbopper]

Sherlock Holmes. Died at Reichenbach Falls or didn't? Was the sanctity of Sherlock Holmes rendered meaningless by every story after that one?

Also, as others have said, your framing of the problems with the ending ignores most of the very major issues people have with the ending completely independent of the choice/divergence.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Also, I think if Bioware completely replaced the ending, that would be a precedent. At least for videogames. People keep bringing up Broken Steel - no. Similar, but not the same. Bethesda extended the ending past the original and plugged up a few plot holes.

I don't buy that.

"A company changed the ending to their game because the fans pissed and moaned about it."
That's exactly the same precedent, the same response even.

Bethesda was pressured into compromising their (shitty) story for the sake of the fans, and future DLC sales. No matter how you spin this, they caved to the fans' demands and sold out.

So yes, objectively, Bethesda is every bit as guilty here.
The difference lies in the severity of their actions, mostly because the story for Fallout 3 was written by total hacks, whereas in ME3, well, the writing and characters were the best parts of that series.

With a greater loss of investment comes a greater bias, which seems to be the sole discriminator here. Yet logic has no place for bias. Nobody cared about FO3's terrible story, so nothing was really lost by changing it. But precedent remains the same.

 

[Trillovinum]

I was surprised they did not include "inevitable entropy" ending as well. Reapers win, credits roll, post credits movie shows how 50 000 years later some evolved cow finds Shepards hologram in a dig site on Earth. Everybody's happy.

Exactly! Why wasn't this included? It would have been great.

 

[Little Duck]

Mass Effect 3's ending is architecture.

Indeed.

-image-

This my good sir. Is amazing.