Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

[ThunderCavalier]

*sigh*

I like believing myself someone who's getting the points of both sides:

On one hand, I understand that Mass Effect 3's ending was one of the most abhorrent and wretched endings that I've ever seen to a series. For a moment, I thought there couldn't be an ending worse than Halo 2's, or Neon Genesis Evangelion's, but nothing has ever missed the point and simply been unable to 'end' a series quite like ME3's ending.

On the other hand...

ONLY THE ENDING WAS SHIT.

The game before it? Amazing. The multiplayer? Fun and addictive. The lore? Extremely well-developed and, discounting the ending, still leaves room for new stories to be told in it.

I'm seeing the exact same thing with the Prequel Trilogy here. People keep bitching about the BAD parts of the series, forgetting about the GOOD parts that kept them playing until the end, which I honestly think is more important and should be remembered more fondly.

Should we protest and argue that ME3's ending was shit and should have been better? Yes. Do I think that Retake Mass Effect is justified, as well as most of the fan reaction to tell BioWare to 'suck it' and that they're just 'money-grubbing whores'? NO. Yes, I admit, this feels like a mandated cash-grab by EA so they can make more DLC so people can get a better ending, but come on guys, GET OVER YOURSELVES. You guys think Mass Effect is the one good thing that's happened and letting this go unnoticed will lead to the destruction of quality in it and franchises following, but you're missing the point both MovieBob and Yahtzee have.

Experience.

THEY'VE SEEN THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPEN BEFORE.

AND THEY GOT OVER IT, BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENED ONCE DOES NOT MEAN EVERYTHING AFTERWARD IS GOING TO BE CRAP.

My god, people. Mass Effect's ending is NOT the end of the universe (well, maybe the ME universe ). Simply insert your two cents that Mass Effect 3's ending was horrendous and BioWare should have really done better. Scream to the heavens, if you must. But the minute you start making petitions threatening to buy out the ME IP so you can make your own ending, you've entered 'pants-on-head retarded' territory.

 

[permacrete]

Actually no...it isn't like what the Reapers do to make Husks. Reapers *kill* people to make husks and banshees and marauders. And those husks and banshees and marauders are more or less mindless zombies--they in no way have the personality of their former selves and no longer have individual personalities. Joker and EDI looked like the same people with the same personalities but with some different underlying structures. And the trees looked the same, with a little bit of tech thrown in. We basically became the cylon-human hybrids. And since my Shepard rewrote the Geth heretics, it is perfectly in line for me to do this cellular rewriting as well. Especially since by erasing the synthetic/organic binary I have stopped that particular cycle of violence forever. My Shepard has been a synthetic/organic hybrid since the Lazarus Project...it hasn't made me a the equivalent of a just. It is disingenuous to argue that they are the same. Just a poor excuse to QQ.

When you "re-wrote" the Geth, you were fixing a glitch that cause a mathematical error which led them to a mistaken perception of the reapers. It's like fixing someone's cataracts so that they can see what their ugly girlfriend really looks like. They were still free to form an alliance with the Reapers, which they did--you did not force your will upon them.

Shepard isn't a synthetic hybrid, he had some gizmos that replace or augment organic parts that had stopped working. The purpose of the Lazarus project was never to make Shepard into something new, it was to restore Shepard to the same level of function as before the Normandy was attacked.

A husk is fundamentally different from a human. It is a hybrid of man and machine. Shepard's robo-genetic experiment with green space magic might be creating hybrids that are much more independent and high-functioning, but they are still fundamentally different than they were before.

Any way you slice it, it isn't cool for Shepard and the Star Child Reaper God to go re-writing the genetic code of every living thing, and it is made even worse by the fact that the Star Child's justification for it is demonstrably wrong. Long before you reach the end as a Paragon, Shepard has resolved the AI issue. This unit has a soul. Joker has a girlfriend. You're done with that, you have closure, but the Star Child tells you that this issue has to be dealt with through space magic and the destruction of the relays. It's dumb.

 

[Iron Criterion]

I hope a lot of us consumers learn not to trust bioware again, this whole experience has been souring.

And if the big lesson from the ending is "you dont always get what you want", then I hope people take notice of this lesson and apply it to all related things.

Bioware isnt selling enough games, "well tough you dont always get what you want

Internet Reviewers arent getting enough hits on their pages or videos "well tough you dont get what you want"

I hope people that read this get the not so subtle hints.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Sour grapes because Bioware didn't give you the ending you wanted.

Sour grapes because people like Movie Bob and Yahtzee don't share your opinions.

Sour grapes because you don't always get what you want.

 

[4173]

I still feel like it was the ending for some other game. Shouldn't the big, ultimate, game ending choice have some ties to the rest of the series?


I wasn't sure I would like how ME3 ended, but never in my wildest dreams did I expect the ending to be underwhelming or without urgency.


Is that too much to ask for, an ending that I could care about?

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Odd to see you on that end, though nice to see you're not as way off the point as MovieBob. You, who argue that the choices you make should have an impact on how things play out. Personally, I'd accept a single ending if they actually took your choices into and gave a variant of everyone getting fucked, just a matter of "to what degree". Kill the Reapers, blow up the relays; synthesize, find yourself compelled to finish what the Reapers started; Disable the Reapers, inadvertently disable the Relays, finding that over the cycles of reaping, the two have become inseparably intertwined. Or, alternatively, you encounter the granddaddy of all Reapers, only to have your brain dribble out your ears due to the overwhelming power and control it suddenly exerts on you.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

1. Saren wanted to promote organic/synthetic fusion to prove worth to Reapers. But his plan wouldn't have done anything to change the Reapers or stop the cycle. What I did was fundamentally change the way everything is done. I've even changed the reapers. The cycle is over. Saren wanted to make everyone subservient to the reapers in order to hopefully survive (which wouldn't have worked because the reapers weren't going to go for that). I have erased the hierarchy completely.

While you're right that Saren's plan wouldn't have worked, it was still an expression of the Catalyst's (and, therefore, the Reapers') ultimate goal - a goal you end up achieving. Synthesis has you doing what the Reapers want you to do, just more efficiently (since you get the whole galaxy at once and ensure no organic life will ever develop again).

2. Just because we are all organic/synthetic hybrids now--like Shepard is, doesn't mean everyone is the same. The Turians and the Asari are both organic and they are quite different. There is diversity among organics, there is diversity among synthetics, there will continue to be diversity between the synthetic/organic hybrids...especially looking at EDI and Joker at the end.

There's no indication of any such diversity, especially since everyone is altered in the same way (the Crucible beam) and the change manifests in the same way (everyone's glowing green).

What does synthesis mean? Well the catalyst points out you, Shepard, are a synthesis...and is has worked out well enough for me. Are all the implications clear? No, but you can never know all the implications of anything. You didn't know all the implications of destroying or not destroying Mehlin's data. You don't know all the implications of curing or not curing the genophage. You don't know all the implications of saving or not saving the Rachni Queen.

Of course you do. You can't predict what will happen, but there's more than enough dialogue regarding the potential outcomes of your choices. Mordin will tell you that if you save Maelon's data, there might be a cure for the genophage someday. If you release the Queen, the Council will fear a new Rachni War, while the Queen promises you her allegiance.

This isn't the case for Synthesis. To quote my favorite geth, "no data available." You're not told anything about what organic/synthetic fusion will do to the galaxy other than "it will stop the Reapers". You can't even make educated guesses, because the Catalyst can't be interrogated further.

And from the final coda, it looks like it turned out all right. My Shepard made that choice and it turned out to be a happy ending.

For comparison's sake, my Shepard chose the "Destroy" ending. Since there's no indication that EDI or the geth were killed, I just assume the Reapers were all destroyed and I didn't have to rewrite every living thing in the galaxy on the whim of the Reapers' creator. So I get the same happy ending.

And that's precisely the problem: without context, without details, there's no way to qualify or quantify the conclusion without inventing pseudo-scenarios to fill the gaps. The best comparison I've seen is to "Battlestar Galactica", in which a character is killed in deep space only to return with the explanation of "She's whatever you want her to be."

 

[1337mokro]

When I hear the "an artists work is sacred", "an artist should never be influenced by others" bullshit I roll my eyes and shake my head at these people. You know why? Most of our entertainment media are collaborations of many people working together and bouncing off ideas to create their art.

Meaning there isn't just ONE view. For example, Han Solo saying "I know" rather than "I love you too". This wasn't the original script, however the actor playing the part, playing the character, said "I don't think he would say that given his personality and characteristics".

BAM!!! Line changed, Han Solo rockets into legend as the roguish, cocky, heart of gold space smuggler.

The original vision of the artist, George Lucas or the Script writer, got changed according to the feedback one of the people partaking in the creative process decided to voice his opinion, validate it with logic and thus adding to the product itself.

Now here is the thing. According to Yahtzee his playthrough talked about how the Krogans would start the wars again because of past differences and Krogans will be Krogans. Another player however said the exact opposite. How on his playthrough Wrex and Eve had survived and vowed to lead the Krogans on a new path. Away from destruction and towards developing their social culture beyond their initial aggressive tendencies.

That is the real breaking point here. In games, the player is part of the art. Without the player the game is a bunch of coding sitting on a hard drive being unproductive. Only with the player can it tell it's story and depending on the players actions the story that is told. Even in the early days of Pong you had a story that depended on player input.

Which Bar won the game? Left or Right Bar? It depends on the player(s). Without the players the game is incomplete.

With Mass Effect 3 the gamers were promised certain things they did not receive. On top of that the themes that became strongest in the series depended on the kind of playthrough you had. Was it the strength of diversity? Breaking the bonds of destiny? Marching towards the inevitable? Was it about the Son destroying the Father (Synthetics killing organics, krogans killing salarians)?

It differs between players, to end all that with 3 loose ends, weird plot twists, unexplained plotholes, restrictive narrative, an ending without a real ending or answer to questions posed in the game and to finish that off with strongly implying that there will be ending DLC, is just beyond lazy and greedy.

Simply said to imply that an artists work is sacred is ludicrous when artists depend upon the public to view or experience their creations and often depend upon ideas of others to eventually form their own vision.

That doesn't imply anyone should take a brush and draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa, but it does mean that anyone can suggest or demand that a moustache be drawn upon the Mona Lisa by the creator. You'll have to dig him up and revive him with a phoenix down, but you get the gist.

 

[FinalHeart95]

So far, every time someone has argued against the "Retake Mass Effect" movement, the overwhelming response is that the person "doesn't get it", most without actually saying what there is to get.
Just for future reference, if you really want to tell someone that they "don't get it", tell them what it is exactly they don't get. By not providing this, it just looks like you're saying it because it's the only way you can think of to defend yourself, even if it's not. (Also, ironically, some of the "he doesn't get it" posts actually missed the point of the article...)

Also, I stand by my opinion that it's not your game, so it's not your ending. You have o right to change it. Sue for false advertising all you want, that doesn't mean Bioware is obligated to change the ending. Sorry.

Alright then, here's what people don't seem to be getting:

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

To be honest I hate putting down a link and calling it "proof" or whatever but the guy who wrote that said it all a million times better than I could.

That argues as to why the ending is bad, which I can't argue for or against as I have not played the game myself. I wouldn't be surprised if the ending sucked.
But that doesn't give people the right to demand a new ending. That's more of what I'm saying. The creator has the right to do whatever he or she wants with the ending of their story. If that ending is shit, they're stupid, but unfortunately you can't do much to combat that stupidity.
I understand why people are upset, and they have a right to complain about the ending. But demanding a new one just isn't the right course of action. You really want to stick it to Bioware? Stop buying their shit.

 

[Sandytimeman]

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

That being said I don't think bioware should have to remake the ending I just don't want to buy anything they sell ever again. Almost 300+ hours of game play to give me some depressing ass story where everyone fucking dies. Could have saved myself 80 bucks and 35 hours if I had just let shepard die in ME2...

TL;DR fuck bioware and don't buy from them anymore.

Its the almost 300 hours part that gets me.

Why on earth are you complaining because the ending was shit?

THE SERIES WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO DEVOTE 300+ HOURS TO IT. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.

300 hours? That is... 2 months of school (Including lunchbreaks) if you are a youngling.

Hell, 300 hours is... ROUGHLY THE AMOUNT OF CONTACT HOURS YOU GET IN A 3 YEAR COURSE STUDYING HISTORY AT CAMBRIDGE. (If you are NOT a youngling)

My point?

People like you are insane. You will no longer support a company that gave you 300 entertaining hours because they botched 10 minutes? Will you never buy a car based upon the fact that sometimes a flat tyre happens and its a bit shit? Seriously.

Not saying the ending is good. Saying the rage is insane and that some people are not seeing the full picture.

300+ hours of fun > 10 minutes of shitty ending.

Seriously.

Most.
Annoying.
Fanbase.
Ever.

but those 10 mins but the finishing touches on how I will remember that experience for ever. I had like 270 ish in just the first two games because of constantly replaying through them. On the 3rd one...I just had no incentive to play through it multiple times changing this and that like I did in the other games because basically the endings are pretty much close to each other and nothing you do outside of resource gathering makes a difference.

So ME3 I got my 35ish hours of play from it...but when I didn't sit back and immediately start up 1 so I could start a brand new play-through up. There wasn't the drive to play through anymore because they had a horrible ending that doesn't care what you did in the first 3 games.

Then you hear things about the writing team being excluded from helping with the ending, the massive plot holes that don't make any sense, I just don't see the kind of passion and dedication from them that I saw back in ME1.

I feel like I was mislead and cheated with the ending. That last 10 mins is what I will now associate all my memories of the franchise with.

 

[Sandytimeman]

I just figured out the perfect analogy for ME3's ending. It's like if at the end of Romeo and Juliet before Juliet takes her own life, she uses a pandora's box to pull the trigger instead at the behest of a stranger who she recommends it to her and who she has no reason to trust.

A good analogy that was sloppily executed. Do it over.

Now imagine that you had paid for that split into 3 games at 60 dollars each and dozens of DLC packs for around 9.99 and I think we have an understanding here.

 

[psicat]

Thank god someone else with an intelligent and rational opinion. Unfortunately this is the internet where the idiot masses will now turn on Yahtzee claiming he doesn't know what he's talking about or completely missed the point.

Here's hoping Bioware does stand strong and leaves the endings alone. If they want to add an epilogue to the story to wrap things up a bit more that's fine. But definitely not change the endings themselves.

 

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

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?

Saying that games should have good writing doesn't mean we should pressure a company to change a game's ending that is perceived as bad. Even excellent writers do write bad books sometimes. But there's a certain level of respect for what the author has done, even if it's bad, that no one starts demanding they change something. Demanding changes is not respecting the writing, good or bad.

I'm with you on this, I don't get why people act as they own the bloody thing. Why are they correct and the writers/journalists are wrong? Because they're the majority? Right, start eating poo then, because billions of flies can't be wrong then.

Maybe I went a bit overboard, but seriously, it's getting ridicuous.

 

[TornadoADV]

This isn't art, it's a consumer product. Companies survive on the goodwill of their customers and a great way to lose that is to think that a customer's goodwill, once earned, is an immutable fact you can just butt**** without worry. Things considered great works of art were commissioned by somebody or some group and that artist had to bend to the whims of said commissioner(s).

This whole "Consumers don't have a right to influence a product!" seem to be forgetting all of human history.

 

[sumanoskae]

I thought the whole point of Mass Effect was that it doesn't give you easy answers. It's about thought provocation, about getting you to decide the meaning of the story on your own. It provides the setting and the question and asks you to answer it.

To that end, having more than one ending makes perfect sense. And no, it doesn't mean there can't be an ending that feels official and complete. The whole point of the game having so many branching paths is for the players to make it their own. You can't just reload a save and fix everything because the source of your conclusion could span back to the first game, and it would mean surrendering all the things you've done right in order to get back to where you are.

On the contrary, the power of these games is only amplified by the fact that they AREN'T inevitable, it forces you to take the time to consider the ramifications of your actions, to consider the value and meaning behind them.

In fact, no story benefits from only being seen one way. Stories themselves are products of subjectivity, of the attempt of humans to make sense of not only each other, not only the world around them, but themselves.

no story, anywhere, ever, as long as there are stories will ever be one thing and one thing only, and THANK GOD for that.

Furthermore, I doubt that every developer on earth will take this incident as proof that they now have to change their games, and I doubt that every dissatisfied customer will attempt to sue them if they don't. That's a generalization and a hell of a slippery slope.

Last but not least, what is this persistent idea on the part of almost every critic I've listened to, that work of art being changed as a result of critique will somehow defile it? Why? If an artist is given critique and decides the criticizer has a point and proceeds to change their work, why is that somehow wrong? Granted the audience can't force a change, but they couldn't do that even if they tried, and not all of them are. There's a very vocal minority, myself included, who don't feel that they own the series and just think the ending is bad enough to warrant changing, and BioWare themselves have stated that they don't listen when people are just being whiny and childish.

If DaVinci (Not necessarily voluntarily, but that's whole new can of worms) painted the Mona Lisa and instead if painting a mouth he painted a crudely drawn three foot badger cock, and later decided, after everyone got pissed, "You know what, that looks stupid, you guys are right, I'm changing it", would it somehow diminish the sanctity of the three foot badger cock lady? Is there something magical about the state that the product happens to be in on release? which is often the result of events entirely out of the artists control. Does it hold some sort of beauty unattainable by mortals simply because release dates imbue it with some sort of magical property that only certain people (Usually not the artists) can see.

Were the uncut versions of the LoTR movies bad? Did they hurt the medium somehow? Did literature just sort of die when Charles Dickens rewrote the ending to "Great Expectations"?

Did all of his fans convene and decide they now had the power to influence stories to be written as they saw fit, and thus proceed to dominate the wills of other artists?

Everyone seems to assume that
A) The game was ALWAYS intended to end the way it did
B) That it would somehow do harm to it to get a better ending
C) That BioWare are being literally forced to rewrite the ending

The first issue might be true, but I doubt it, considering how much BioWare themselves seemed to resist the idea of an ending like this

The second issue could be argued subjectively, if your some kind of alien creature from another world. Objectively... I have trouble arguing this point because it makes no fucking sense to me. The only thing the game represents, right here, right now, is the decisions made regarding it up until release. If it gets changed by the artist the artists vision doesn't get retroactively morphed, the artist could have just changed their mind. By denying the artist that right you're not defending their freedom, you're defending some arbitrary idea that what was released is sacred simply because it was released the way it was

And so what if they want to change it just to make people happy? It's their, they can do what they want with it, that doesn't diminish it.

And finally, BioWare are not being forced into any kind of decision. No democratic system is in place simply due to the fact that BioWare are the only ones with the resources to change the game! This should be glaringly obvious, but people are acting like BioWare have been strong armed into making a decision. No matter how much people complain, it's still so much noise, and BioWares decision is their own. If they like this ending, they should come out and say so, and if they don't, that's on them. You can't ask people to just ignore the flaws of the ending just because it hurts their feelings.

In the end, the only result that can come from this is for BioWare to change their minds, we have every right to ask for that, and they have every right to do it.

 

[GartarkMusik]

"Curing the Krogan Genophage implies that the Krogan Rebellions would start again"

No, they wouldn't because Wrex and Eve survived on my playthrough and they were determined to guide the krogan along a different path. Similarly, the geth and quarians started to get along and help each other, undermining the point that synthetics will inevitably fight organics.

But I guess paying attention to differences between playthroughs would require you to spend more than half a week thinking about it. And that requires way more effort than I've come to expect from you.

But would Wrex be able to stop them? What if a majority of the krogan want revenge for the Genophage? Wrex may be a respected leader, but he's just one krogan. If they all want blood, he may not be able to stop it happening. And let's not even get started if Wrex didn't survive and Wreav took over.........

*cough* Doesn't matter. Wrex/Wreav are stuck in Sol. Curing the Genophage meant nothing. And as most species think of Krogan as the trash of the galaxy, I doubt anyone's gonna be offering to fly them to Tuchanka, what with the whole destruction of all of the Mass Relays thing and all.

More like they're probably all dead anyways cause the Mass Relays are supposed to explode with the intensity of a supernova, (see Arrival) -_-

 

[mfeff]

Shepard is written with a Hesiod-ic. A Cassandra Syndrome, "the kid" is for-shadowing, to the inevitable conclusion. A Chekov's gun.

The Dream Sequences, are tropes from Gaius Baltar of BSG, complete with many other rip's of that franchise. Hall of the Dead, "It's in the Frakin Ship", Kera Thrace "Kara Remembers" so on and so forth. Gaius isn't convinced that he "ISN'T a cylon, until much later in the BSG story?.

When everything is revealed.

We never got the reveal. So we are left with a plot hole.

He is convinced that "God's Hand" is at work, as he frequently has visions of 6, just as Shep has visions of the God A.I. Gaius also IS an angel for the Cylon's 6 but this is never seen in the ME universe. So all we have is a 1 sided version.

Indoctrination, to me, is a vestigial tail, like dark energy, that was never fully realized in any meaningful or coherent way. Had it of been, we could of witnessed a trope of the Cassandra Syndrome, played in reverse, and had Shepard call BS on the "Hand of God" fate.

But that would be contrary to the "massive" retcon's of the universe given in ME3.

(It would of been sweet though) a true M. Night Shyamalan moment, but no, that is not what happens.

We could go with Philip K. Dick, and say "Total Recall", but that hurts more than helps in many respects. "If this is a dream, I don't want to wake up".

The catalyst, like the Trojan Horse, could be seen as the "final solution", but we have to know some Greek myth stories to really work that angle. Unfortunately, it ITSELF has to be "self-created", which in turn makes the case that it created the reapers.

Another plot hole. As no exposition is given as to WHY the catalyst exist in the first place, other than "it chooses to be".

That "it" had this plan all along, is plausible, if we simply accept that Shepard, is the chosen one, the Ubermensch a "Roy Batty vs. Tyrel", Lobster-Buddha, or Robo-Genetic-Jesus. This gets us into some "hard determinism" and "predestination" problems on both philosophical levels, and narrative levels. It happens when we play with Deus Ex Machina literary devices.

The cycle is no cycle, once the supreme organic comes to the rescue... again, a metaphysical problem, as the God A.I. never posits "why" organic life is important on any level.

What is so special about Shepard? Is he messianic or not?

We choose Ubermensch and "God" is dead. Cycle is broken. For a time? Who knows? -Roy Batty- Bladerunner- was Harrison Ford a replicant?

We choose Buddha, and we go to the void, with the reapers, as a reaper, and we escape Samsara. Samsara still exist, but WE get out. - Babylon 5 Sheridan Experience (this is rather contrary to Buddhist teachings though). Pop Culture version... go figure.

We choose Genetic Jesus, problem solved, diversity is ended, A.I. is no longer a threat, as it is no longer divergent from "God's Plan". - Battle Star Galactica - Hera

Legion helps us with this... but the "end game" writers, perhaps pressed for time, perhaps not as well versed as they could of been, ignore that explanation.

We just have to accept it. Just as Shepard, free from agency, has to accept "God's" explanation.

Alas, what we have is the Hesiod argument that even Zeus, cannot bend Fate for Achilles. Much as with any messianic archetype, Shep, has to kick the bucket. The "breath" plays off the Matrix - Neo ending, which in some ways could be seen as acknowledging the material, but taking it a different direction.

What is the God kid, other than Col. Sanders from the Matrix?

It struck me as last minute.

I would also add that we never fully see the destruction of the citadel, just the catalyst core.

I find the whole thing sloppy, poorly handled, poorly written... but that's my take.

There was (to me) a better narrative here... and it just slipped through the collective fingers of the writing staff.

Sorry... I guess?

 

[wintercoat]

"Curing the Krogan Genophage implies that the Krogan Rebellions would start again"

No, they wouldn't because Wrex and Eve survived on my playthrough and they were determined to guide the krogan along a different path. Similarly, the geth and quarians started to get along and help each other, undermining the point that synthetics will inevitably fight organics.

But I guess paying attention to differences between playthroughs would require you to spend more than half a week thinking about it. And that requires way more effort than I've come to expect from you.

But would Wrex be able to stop them? What if a majority of the krogan want revenge for the Genophage? Wrex may be a respected leader, but he's just one krogan. If they all want blood, he may not be able to stop it happening. And let's not even get started if Wrex didn't survive and Wreav took over.........

*cough* Doesn't matter. Wrex/Wreav are stuck in Sol. Curing the Genophage meant nothing. And as most species think of Krogan as the trash of the galaxy, I doubt anyone's gonna be offering to fly them to Tuchanka, what with the whole destruction of all of the Mass Relays thing and all.

More like they're probably all dead anyways cause the Mass Relays are supposed to explode with the intensity of a supernova, (see Arrival) -_-

Even assuming that the Mass Relays exploding doesn't wipe out the major race's homeworlds(which are all conveniently in the same system as a Mass Relay), you have a very aggressive race trapped on their planet with all the time in the universe and no way off of their radioactive rock. The Krogans without proper leadership are going to fucking genocide themselves into nothingness. Mordin's sacrifice meant nothing in the end, and that's something that truly pisses me off.

 

[GartarkMusik]

New idea bioware.

Agree to change the ending of mass effect on the proviso that every whiney loser who complained about the ending agrees to jump off a very high cliff and end their feeble lives!

(note to the humourless, only kidding!)

seriously though, I hope bioware keep the ending that is and tell everyone who complained to go fuck themselves.

I hope so too, but you just know that there's gonna be the whole "BIOWARE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THEIR FANS! WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!" crowd swooping down on them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, it seems. Also, swooping is bad.

 

[GartarkMusik]

"Curing the Krogan Genophage implies that the Krogan Rebellions would start again"

No, they wouldn't because Wrex and Eve survived on my playthrough and they were determined to guide the krogan along a different path. Similarly, the geth and quarians started to get along and help each other, undermining the point that synthetics will inevitably fight organics.

But I guess paying attention to differences between playthroughs would require you to spend more than half a week thinking about it. And that requires way more effort than I've come to expect from you.

But would Wrex be able to stop them? What if a majority of the krogan want revenge for the Genophage? Wrex may be a respected leader, but he's just one krogan. If they all want blood, he may not be able to stop it happening. And let's not even get started if Wrex didn't survive and Wreav took over.........

*cough* Doesn't matter. Wrex/Wreav are stuck in Sol. Curing the Genophage meant nothing. And as most species think of Krogan as the trash of the galaxy, I doubt anyone's gonna be offering to fly them to Tuchanka, what with the whole destruction of all of the Mass Relays thing and all.

More like they're probably all dead anyways cause the Mass Relays are supposed to explode with the intensity of a supernova, (see Arrival) -_-

Even assuming that the Mass Relays exploding doesn't wipe out the major race's homeworlds(which are all conveniently in the same system as a Mass Relay), you have a very aggressive race trapped on their planet with all the time in the universe and no way off of their radioactive rock. The Krogans without proper leadership are going to fucking genocide themselves into nothingness. Mordin's sacrifice meant nothing in the end, and that's something that truly pisses me off.

Yeah, I understand completely. Right now, I'm just trying to enjoy the parts of the game I liked, such as Tuchanka and Rannoch, to name a few, and disengaging after TIM's death, cause that's where it went downhill for me personally.

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

What epilogue could there be? 'The mass relay explosions wiped out all life and the galaxy waited for evolution to churn out another race'

the relays exploded in a mechanical way, not a phyisical way, which caused it to not destroy everything. whatever the crucible did muffled the relays explosion.