Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

[SickBritKid]

Because it would set a horrible precedent if they're serious about actually changing the ending in line with some kind of democratically agreed upon alternative, rather than merely expanding or adding to it. I'm not as incensed about this concept as Moviebob has been on Twitter lately, but I can definitely say it's a bad idea. Because if it's established that the creators of a story can be pressured by constant browbeating by the audience, then the sanctity of the creator's original intention is made meaningless.

2 things, Yahtzee.

1. I can't believe you're going with the "horrible precedent" bullshit when Bethesda changed the ending of Fallout 3 due to popular outcry and backlash and proceeded to deliver one of the most awesome DLCs ever(Broken Steel).

2. The creator's original intention doesn't mean shit when said intention completely puts off their customers and leaves them(at least the vast, vast majority of them) completely dissatisfied with the product created AND leaves those same customers disenchanted with their product.

Because, I won't lie, I was a HUGE Bioware fanboy until I beat ME3. ME1 restored my faith in their original IPs, and I enjoyed DAO and liked DA2. Now, well, unless Bioware does something to mend their broken bridges, I'm done with them. I mean, I might shell out the cash for DA3, but that's a BIG maybe and it's only because the DA series still has some cred with me. Mass Effect's credibility was completely and utterly destroyed by the ending, which sucks because I thought it was the best original IP of this generation, just ahead of Assassin's Creed.

 

[nipsen]

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.

..Douglas Adams wrote a lot of the scripts for the radio play three minutes before deadline, and so on. So they were rewritten and done over again, compiled differently, and so on when it turned into a book.

But the "depressive ending" was never a bad ending, and it made perfect sense in the way it was written. If you watch the movie, they're going with that ending, except they're skipping over the entire road to get there. And then making it happy, for a moment, because they're not telling the story. So, not particularly impressive either, even if it was an ending that slightly crossed the source material, I guess..

I doubt very much that Douglas Adams rewrote the ending right before he died to placate "fans". If he did, he must have had a terrible attack of something.

But.. that's completely beside the point, isn't it. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had enough content in the ending to actually get a picture of what happened. You could like it or dislike it for various reasons.

But it wasn't a "if he had written something like this... then it would have been a good ending" discussion. It was about what was written there in the first place.

Bioware missed that with ME3, since there wasn't any ending or plot there at all. Not from what they described to the viewer/player, anyway.

 

[satsugaikaze]

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.

I was under the impression that the whole deal was a posthumous work which was penned by someone else under his approval, but I suppose that's still valid.

Again, though, I'm kind of looking for examples specific to videogames.

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.

It's still technically a precedent, because while the contexts are similar they're by no means identical. The main difference, however, would lie in the end outcome - the extent and severity of the response (in this case, a comparatively more drastic fundamental change in the writing) would set a precedent, and as Yahtzee hinted at, could create future, more extreme situations. Also, "guilt" is a word which I'm not sure we would be using objectively. =P

I personally think retconning the Lone Wanderer's sacrifice detracted from the significance of the event, but that might be a matter for a different topic.

 

[megaadair]

I haven't got a problem with the ending. Thought is was pretty good. The only thing I don't like is the mass relays being destroyed. You can't continue the mass effect universe now unless you set it generations into the future. Why couldn't they realign instead? Civilisation would have to explore the galaxy all over again, that's jolly.
Picked synthesis.

 

[Fox242]

You know what I just thought of? National Lampoon's Vacation. As random as it sounds, it had a similar situation. The test screen audiences were laughing all the way through the movie, then came the ending. The Griswolds didn't go into Walley World and instead went to Roy Walley's house and held the people there hostage and made them do a song and dance. All the build up to Walley World, all the tension that the family went through, amounted to nothing. It didn't make sense and the audience wasn't laughing anymore. Rather than release what they had, the film makers went back to work to film a new ending at Walley World and inserted John Candy into it. It made the movie a million times better. See what happened there?

 

[PiCroft]

Yeah pretty sure I mashed the shit out of that HGTHG ending stuff, as I said it was second hand-info.

Probably should have looked into it more before opening my trap v

v

 

[tmande2nd]

You know what I just thought of? National Lampoon's Vacation. As random as it sounds, it had a similar situation. The test screen audiences were laughing all the way through the movie, then came the ending. The Griswolds didn't go into Walley World and instead went to Roy Walley's house and held the people there hostage and made them do a song and dance. All the build up to Walley World, all the tension that the family went through, amounted to nothing. It didn't make sense and the audience wasn't laughing anymore. Rather than release what they had, the film makers went back to work to film a new ending at Walley World and inserted John Candy into it. It made the movie a million times better. See what happened there?

Yes exactly!
Test screenings have changed films all the time due to "pressure" from their audiences.
But what do us the meek consumers know that the mighty producers/critics dont?

 

[Electrogecko]

I disagree with the idea that a work of art can't be modified after it's release (by either the creators or the fans) and I disagree with the idea that a story HAS to have a single "official" ending.

 

[satsugaikaze]

And by the by, movie test-screenings are more akin to gamers involved in closed-beta testing.

Post-release changes are far more awkward. Studios sure as heck don't tend to change an ending and release it theatrically a few months after it hits the big screens. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head was that DVD release of I Am Legend (the meh Will Smith version) that had a "CONTROVERSIAL NEW ENDING" (read: lulz)

Yeah pretty sure I mashed the shit out of that HGTHG ending stuff, as I said it was second hand-info.

Probably should have looked into it more before opening my trap v

v

No harm, no foul, mate. =)

 

[Mausenheimmer]

"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.........

Well, I'm pretty sure you haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet. But the game goes out of its way to make it clear that Wrex and Eve (the krogan female whose tissue was used to cure the genophage) cause a cultural paradigm shift in the krogan. Furthermore, they pretty much explain that the unintended consequence of the genophage was 1400 years of nihilism and hopelessness for the Krogan. An end to the genophage means that krogan have a tomorrow to fight for and will actually focus on rebuilding their culture again rather than fighting as hired muscle.

I could never bring myself to pull the trigger on Wrex, but from what I've read, Wreav's violent tendencies are kept in check by Eve's influence. But if Eve and Wrex are dead, then you're right. There would be no culture shift and then history would repeat itself.

But that's the problem with the ending and why everyone hates it. All of that diversity of choice is completely meaningless. The game couldn't be bothered to tell you what happens on Tunchanka after the Reaper invasion. Or anywhere else. So long as you get your 2800 Effective Military Strength in whatever way you deem fit, you have your three endings carved in stone.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah pretty sure I mashed the shit out of that HGTHG ending stuff, as I said it was second hand-info.

Adams had intended a new HHGTTG book before he died. He died before its completion, and he had initially started writing a Dirk Gently book, "The Salmon of Doubt." He said he might even keep the title. There's a release of the partially written book.

The third-party book referenced, "and another thing," was written with the blessing of Adams' wife and evidently using Adams' own notes. Who released it, however, seems less important than the fact that Adams had intended a new book after the ending.

Just to clear the air, and you may not give a damn at all, but there it is.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The main difference, however, would lie in the end outcome - the extent and severity of the response (in this case, a comparatively more drastic fundamental change in the writing) would set a precedent...

The magnitude of a precedent has no bearing on the establishment of the conditions that lead to it. Murder would still be murder whether you killed one person or a thousand.

The impact of a thousand deaths would have more impact for sure, but the precedent for murder could have been established with EITHER event.

Since Bethesda's Broken Steel came first, chronologically, it established the precedent, even if nobody bothered to pay much attention to it.

 

[xEightBitPlayerx]

I really hope that Bioware does not change the ending. Maybe just an epilogue about the squadmates and races, I'd be fine with that. This whole mess about how gamers reacted to the ending is shameful.

 

[Fearzone]

It is not without precedent. The earliest form of storytelling, telling a story orally, were varied with each retelling and popular changes would stick and less popular plot elements fell by the wayside. Even operas would commonly be modified by composers throughout their life, and surely some of those changes had to be in response to feedback from others. Purists should back off and let the process unfold as it does.

I'm. Just saying, a good story is not an artist unleashing his or her creative freedom in a vacuum, but a reverie between audience and storyteller

 

[Ninjafire72]

You know what? I no longer care whether the ending should be changed or not. Normally I'd try and clarify to people why the endings should be at least altered, but SO MANY GODAMNED PEOPLE are just shouting the 'artistic integrity' 'it's their story' 'get over it' retorts that I've just given up. I'm just going to sit back in happiness of knowing that with this much negative PR, Bioware won't be seeing the sunlight anytime soon. Serves them right for dishing out that pile of tripe they call an ending...

 

[CosmicCommander]

Mass Effect 3's ending is architecture.

Indeed.

>demeaned me an age ago for having the audacity to think BioWare are going to fuck ME3 up in some way

I have been vindicated.

VINDICATED.

BOW TO ME ESCAPIST.

VINDICATED.

 

[DioWallachia]

Since Yathzee doesnt get that the endings contradict what the developers said about what WE the gamers would get i will just let Gunther Hermann from Deus Ex sums it up:

"THEY TALD ME I WOLL GET ORANGE ENDING BUT IT GAIFF ME LEMON LIME ENDING!!"

 

[MiracleOfSound]

>demeaned me an age ago for having the audacity to think BioWare are going to fuck ME3 up in some way

I have been vindicated.

VINDICATED.

BOW TO ME ESCAPIST.

VINDICATED.

Lol I don't recall this but if true then yeah, you win

Mass Effect 3's ending is architecture.

Your words brought the image into my head, all I had to do was post it

Indeed.

-image-

This my good sir. Is amazing.

Your words put the image in my head, all I had to do was post it

 

[mfeff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

This covers the main issues.