Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He really had nothing to add here. He just felt obliged to. Anyone getting that feel here?
Well he did throw in there some ideas for some endings that could have worked about a million times better, but it's all really insubstantial.
Well he did throw in there some ideas for some endings that could have worked about a million times better, but it's all really insubstantial.
There are many issues with me3, however i think an important one is: the game fails to get the player emotionally invested in the plot - most importantly, in the characters, and in the EARTH IN PERIL main plot point.
EARTH, (and also ALL ORGANIC LIFE and THE ENTIRE GALAXY) is simply too large a concept for us to be able to form an emotional attachment to.
If you were to think of why earth blowing up right now might suck, you'll think about yourself, your memories, your friends, family, and so on.
So, you need to make what is at stake more personal, more accessible.
Now, Bioware tries to put a human face on this through the KID. However, this is such a heavy handed and obvious attempt at emotional manipulation, that the player simply rejects it right away.
I'm sure you all groaned when u saw the kid at the beginning.
Then later on, we are never given any evocative imagery from the crisis on Earth. We only ever see a hologram of Anderson, who TELLS us that things are in a bad way. We never SEE the crisis. Even when you land on Earth for the final mission, it seems pretty bland and boring. Not exactly captivating in any way.
What might have worked would be say... newscasts from Earth, images of an abandoned child crying in the wreckage of a house, of rag tag bands uselessly attacking a reaper with sticks and stones, of people crawling on their bellies trying to escape husks, of people being horribly captured, processed, along with the sound of crying, wailing, fire, and so on.
Little bits like this would bring the conflict on Earth down to a personal level, would get the player to become more emotionally invested in the issue.
EARTH, (and also ALL ORGANIC LIFE and THE ENTIRE GALAXY) is simply too large a concept for us to be able to form an emotional attachment to.
If you were to think of why earth blowing up right now might suck, you'll think about yourself, your memories, your friends, family, and so on.
So, you need to make what is at stake more personal, more accessible.
Now, Bioware tries to put a human face on this through the KID. However, this is such a heavy handed and obvious attempt at emotional manipulation, that the player simply rejects it right away.
I'm sure you all groaned when u saw the kid at the beginning.
Then later on, we are never given any evocative imagery from the crisis on Earth. We only ever see a hologram of Anderson, who TELLS us that things are in a bad way. We never SEE the crisis. Even when you land on Earth for the final mission, it seems pretty bland and boring. Not exactly captivating in any way.
What might have worked would be say... newscasts from Earth, images of an abandoned child crying in the wreckage of a house, of rag tag bands uselessly attacking a reaper with sticks and stones, of people crawling on their bellies trying to escape husks, of people being horribly captured, processed, along with the sound of crying, wailing, fire, and so on.
Little bits like this would bring the conflict on Earth down to a personal level, would get the player to become more emotionally invested in the issue.
One thing i think we should remember is that Bioware doesn't exactly have the best track record with its other series.
Neverwinter Nights was great, #2 didn't do as well. KotOR was great; KotOR 2 wasn't quite as well received. Dragon Age Origins was well liked, DA2 not so much.
Now all these games were pretty good, but all i'm saying is that Bioware tends to taper off the further it gets into a series (yes, baldur's gate 2 was great, but throne of baahl was less so).
Also, there was that merger with Mythic between ME2 and ME3, and one of their lead writers for ME1 & 2, Drew Karpyshyn (who also worked on BG2, NWN1, and KotOR1) was put to work on the Knights of the Old Republic MMO.
Not saying that Karpyshyn was carrying the story all by himself - there were a whole lot of other writers on ME2 - but imo he's the one with the most experience, and the most consistently solid portfolio (game writing-wise).
Just something to think about
Neverwinter Nights was great, #2 didn't do as well. KotOR was great; KotOR 2 wasn't quite as well received. Dragon Age Origins was well liked, DA2 not so much.
Now all these games were pretty good, but all i'm saying is that Bioware tends to taper off the further it gets into a series (yes, baldur's gate 2 was great, but throne of baahl was less so).
Also, there was that merger with Mythic between ME2 and ME3, and one of their lead writers for ME1 & 2, Drew Karpyshyn (who also worked on BG2, NWN1, and KotOR1) was put to work on the Knights of the Old Republic MMO.
Not saying that Karpyshyn was carrying the story all by himself - there were a whole lot of other writers on ME2 - but imo he's the one with the most experience, and the most consistently solid portfolio (game writing-wise).
Just something to think about
Yahtzee didn't really seem to give a shit. Kinda sounded like he made this article just because.
While I obviously don't agree with his opinion, he isn't as insufferably deluded as Moviebob or Colin Moriarty of IGN in his criticisms of the fan reaction.
I definitely agree with his bringing up of Shepard's blandness.
One of my many problems with ME3 (besides the ending, which people are acting like it's the ONLY problem with the game) is the failure to humanize and Shepard in any way.
As brought up above, the attempt to humanize Shepard through the scenes with the child are laughably executed and failed completely to show the stress and weight of the situation getting to Shepard.
Maybe if Bioware showed Shepard's physical health deteriorating as the game (ala Shadow of the Colossus) via stress and perhaps a rejection of the synthetics implanted by the Illusive man (or maybe Shepard's new body is in fact disintegrating?) to imply humanity and weakness in the character.
But this doesn't happen. And with Shepard's family made dead through text (my Paragon Shep was from Akuze), Shepard has no real emotion connection to Earth's obliteration and thus Earth just becomes another mission to a falling planet.
This makes me think the entire Mass Effect trilogy could have executed better if Shepard was a more defined and human character (like Ashley Williams or Navigator Presley), and gone through the ark of being ignorant and xenophobic towards working with alien races, but then gradually learning to work together and unify everyone against the Reapers on Earth, with his family on Earth to protect. Bioware could have delivered a more defined and stronger narrative, not having to worry about player input.
But instead Shepard was made a bland foil in a player-choice driven trilogy.
For the most part, it worked. Until the end of course.
That was fun.
While I obviously don't agree with his opinion, he isn't as insufferably deluded as Moviebob or Colin Moriarty of IGN in his criticisms of the fan reaction.
I definitely agree with his bringing up of Shepard's blandness.
One of my many problems with ME3 (besides the ending, which people are acting like it's the ONLY problem with the game) is the failure to humanize and Shepard in any way.
As brought up above, the attempt to humanize Shepard through the scenes with the child are laughably executed and failed completely to show the stress and weight of the situation getting to Shepard.
Maybe if Bioware showed Shepard's physical health deteriorating as the game (ala Shadow of the Colossus) via stress and perhaps a rejection of the synthetics implanted by the Illusive man (or maybe Shepard's new body is in fact disintegrating?) to imply humanity and weakness in the character.
But this doesn't happen. And with Shepard's family made dead through text (my Paragon Shep was from Akuze), Shepard has no real emotion connection to Earth's obliteration and thus Earth just becomes another mission to a falling planet.
This makes me think the entire Mass Effect trilogy could have executed better if Shepard was a more defined and human character (like Ashley Williams or Navigator Presley), and gone through the ark of being ignorant and xenophobic towards working with alien races, but then gradually learning to work together and unify everyone against the Reapers on Earth, with his family on Earth to protect. Bioware could have delivered a more defined and stronger narrative, not having to worry about player input.
But instead Shepard was made a bland foil in a player-choice driven trilogy.
For the most part, it worked. Until the end of course.
I liked the part where the ending made all your choices made over 5 years null and void.Bretty said:
That was fun.
The ending was a clear rush job. There's no point in arguing that. Ignoring the writing, it lacked any form of fluidity and felt slapped together and disjointed in comparison to the rest of the cut scenes. Shepard reminiscing of still images of the cast kind of give that away.zehydra said:
But anyway, purchase of a product sold on the basis of player choice (and apparently 16 different endings) would imply the aforementioned would be delivered.
It clearly was not.
I haven't read the 15 pages of of text this thread has created just the last so forgive me of what I said has been said. But this post sums up a lot of what I was going to say.SiskoBlue said:
The issue with Mass Effect 3 is that it breaks form, horribly. In both ME1 and ME2 there is really little difference to the end the driving story stays the same just the small details are what change. Whether you save the council or not, doesn't matter Sovereign dies. Whether you destroy the base or give it to the Illusive man doesn't matter, you have a dead collector base.
In truth though each has a mechanic that changes subtleties in the universe, loyalty effects whether or not team members live or die. Little actions are reminders that the things you've done in the past have effected the universe as a whole.
While the little reminders remain in the game, war assets essentially do... nothing. An entire mechanic created that does nothing. Compounded by a ending that gives us a choice that isn't really a choice.
All the more if you've ever read the indoctrination theory many tweets and hints in the game show the game is not the real ending, if this were true then my god. Why not just put in a real ending and avoid this. There is no way Bioware will ever rid themselves of the question whether this was intentionally planned or they gave in to consumer complaints. This will haunt them, forever. Moreso if they decide and most likely will charge for the ending.
The game would've been 100 times better if we were never really given a choice on how it ended and that War Assets actually made the final fight easier. Alternatively that the ending we have now is fake, and if your war assets where high enough you could wake up and continue to the real ending. How great would that have been? Awesome right, if thats how it was from launch and not some shoe-horned DLC whether it was planned or not.
Basically what erked me wasn't the ending, it was that War Assets had no real affect. Why induce a mechanic and stress that you go out of your way to do said mechanic then have it do nothing.
Even though it's about 3 am, I doubt my answer's going to change very much. There's even a video on youtube showing the similarities, unless you thought I was talking about the other game. If so, I apologize:Revolutionaryloser said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA
Just finished ME3, checked all 3 endings
While I don't feel that Bioware ruined my childhood, by raping puppy in front of my eyes, I now understand why people have problems with the endings
My main problem is that reasoning behind Reapers attack reminds me of Inquisition logic
And solutions make even less sense
Also- why mass relays needed to be destroyed? As far as I understand, developers will make other games in ME universe, so even this makes little sense.
So my main problem is that everything in last act makes no sense.
Should developers remake ending? Hell, no (like already has been said- it is bad precedent. Bioware, good luck salvaging this trainwreck up
)
I think that next ME game will start with the task of rebuilding mass relays.
P.S. As for those who RAGE over the ending. Guys (I won't even pretend that there are any girls in top tier of rage- there aren't) if you go to closest window and open curtains there is whole world outside, you know, outside (it is like your room, only bigger). And in this "outside" there are blue skies, sun, stars, fresh air and occasionally you can see some pretty girl walk by. So maybe you should do more "outside" and less gaming? I know, I know it sounds like heresy, but it should calm you down. So please, for the sake of us all, try it!
P.P.S. One thing should be fixed though, in the ending sequence characters who died in the last suicide run, shouldn't appear. Before entering teleporter I saw Ashley lying on the ground, but in the end she was climbing out of Normandy. Apparently her plot armor can resurrect and teleport her. Replace her with other human crewmember, like Samantha Traynor, please.
While I don't feel that Bioware ruined my childhood, by raping puppy in front of my eyes, I now understand why people have problems with the endings
My main problem is that reasoning behind Reapers attack reminds me of Inquisition logic
And solutions make even less sense
Also- why mass relays needed to be destroyed? As far as I understand, developers will make other games in ME universe, so even this makes little sense.
So my main problem is that everything in last act makes no sense.
Should developers remake ending? Hell, no (like already has been said- it is bad precedent. Bioware, good luck salvaging this trainwreck up
)I think that next ME game will start with the task of rebuilding mass relays.
P.S. As for those who RAGE over the ending. Guys (I won't even pretend that there are any girls in top tier of rage- there aren't) if you go to closest window and open curtains there is whole world outside, you know, outside (it is like your room, only bigger). And in this "outside" there are blue skies, sun, stars, fresh air and occasionally you can see some pretty girl walk by. So maybe you should do more "outside" and less gaming? I know, I know it sounds like heresy, but it should calm you down. So please, for the sake of us all, try it!
P.P.S. One thing should be fixed though, in the ending sequence characters who died in the last suicide run, shouldn't appear. Before entering teleporter I saw Ashley lying on the ground, but in the end she was climbing out of Normandy. Apparently her plot armor can resurrect and teleport her. Replace her with other human crewmember, like Samantha Traynor, please.
Wasn't Yahtzee the one who said "But the cruellest thing you can do to an artist is tell them their work is flawless when it isn't"?
It seems everyone who feels most strongly about Mass Effect 3's "horrific" ending just say that it's really really bad (as an understatement) without ever providing a good reason why.Seventh Actuality said:
Sure, some people (like the person quoted above) have said that it had nothing to do with anything the series had previously established, but that's not a true reason - I would argue the complete opposite.
I've invested hundreds of hours into this series, and some moments (Mordin Solus' sacrifice, for example) almost brought real tears to my eyes. But when the ending rolled around - and I had all these expectations from reading online rants that it was going to be horribly bad - I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near as bad as people have been making it out to be.
Here's why.
The series had established that the Reapers periodically came and wiped out the most advanced civilisations in the galaxy, forming some sort of inevitable cycle. Ok. That much is easy enough to follow.
This means that, logically, the Reapers would return and repeat this process - but obviously it would be rather unsatisfying if BioWare ended the game following the same pattern they'd established had be going on for millenia.
Instead, one would expect that Commander Shepard miraculously succeeds in wiping out every last Reaper and the galaxy lives happily ever after. That sounds like a terribly predictable ending, to be honest.
It was established way back in the original Mass Effect that the Reapers created the Citadel and the Mass Relays - that they used their own technology to shape the evolution of civilisation as they saw fit.
And since the Reapers are always presented as unstoppable ruthlessly thorough killing machines whose numbers are legion, it hardly seems plausible that they could be wiped out by conventional firepower.
See where this is going yet? BioWare have been setting the stage for some "Prothean superweapon" since the first Mass Effect. It has long been clear that the Reaper threat could only be vanquished by some method that had yet to be discovered. How fitting that it was a device that each extinct advanced civilisation had been incrementally designing prior to their downfall.
Such a device must somehow target the unique bio-synthetic nature of the Reapers, otherwise it would destroy all organic and synthetic life at the same time.
Such a device would also, logically, similarly affect all Reaper technology akin to the Reapers themselves - namely, the Citadel and the Mass Relays.
So let's reflect for a moment. The Reapers would wipe out all advanced civilisations in the galaxy unless this incrementally designed device - the Crucible - could be used to destroy all Reaper technology, including the Reapers themselves.
With the Mass Relays gone, civilisation on a galactic scale would be lost - in fact, any application of the term "galactic" would be ultimately irrelevant.
Back to Mass Effect 3. The final elevator rises - this unequivocally is the moment which fans claim the ending starts to sour.
A strange holo-boy explains to Shepard the choice that lies ahead. The "boy" itself is just a gimmick; a way in which Shepard interprets the information she/he is presented with.
The choice, then. Two paths diverge into binary opposite decisions. Blue or red. There is also potentially a middle option (resulting in the "green" ending), but that one wasn't available to me, so I can't comment on that.
The two options, then: blue - control the Reapers. Red - destroy the Reapers. Simple.
As Yahtzee stated in this article, despite Mass Effect's "customisable" narrative, it's still telling an over-arcing story over which the player has no control.
Impressive, then, that BioWare presents the player with this final choice.
In each of the three endings the Mass Relays are destroyed, but that is BioWare's prerogative. Just as the Illusive Man becomes the antagonist despite your actions on the Collector base in Mass Effect 2; just as representatives of each Council race are appointed to the Council regardless of whether you saved the original Council or not; just as Udina becomes the human councilor in ME3 regardless of whom you appointed in ME1; just as many plot events override your previous decisions, so too are the Mass Relays inevitably destroyed in Mass Effect 3. That is BioWare's prerogative, and anyone who would take that away from them should simply not purchase a copy of their game.
Besides this universal fact, however, the ending is tailored to each individual player - you can choose the fate of the Reapers, and depending on your actions leading up to the final mission (represented by your readiness rating), you can even choose who lives and dies.
As far as narrative is concerned, then, the ending is certainly consistent with the rest of the trilogy.
Now, narrative aside, I must say the final cinematic and the epic musical score that accompanied it is everything I could have wished for from the ending to a trilogy I've invested so much time in.
The post-credits scene puts the entire saga into perspective, presenting Commander Shepard's legacy as a story from an isolated civilisation much like our Earth's. The voice acting by astronaut Buzz Aldrin himself was the icing on the cake.
That is all. Thank you for bearing with me.
Actually, if you think about it it does make a lot of sense.blackrave said:
BioWare have stated that Commander Shepard will not appear in any future games set in the Mass Effect universe - with the existence of things like Mass Relays and the extranet (assuming Shepard survived ME3), it would be difficult to create a game without colliding with Shepard or the results of your actions in the previous games.
Destroying the Mass Relays - thus isolating every solar system - enables BioWare to make a future game set on a planet effectively outside of the trilogy's over-arcing conflict and consequences.
It also means that the player doesn't need to import a save to maintain their choices regarding the state of the galaxy.
The other possibility, of course, is that a future Mass Effect game is set long before Shepard was even born.
The article left me a bit disappointed. Saying that first they change ME3 ending and then cockheads will suddenly get to rule the videogame industry and the whole galaxy as a result seems too much like slippery slope argument.
As for the story, in games like Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol only the setting and the theme must remain unchanged. The story must follow the player's choices, otherwise he shouldn't be given those choices at all. It makes no sense whatsoever to play Mass Effect and get a Deus Ex's endings. Otherwise they could have had a pink pony fly out of the Crisible and hoof the Reapers to death and say that the fans must be happy with it.
As for the story, in games like Mass Effect or Alpha Protocol only the setting and the theme must remain unchanged. The story must follow the player's choices, otherwise he shouldn't be given those choices at all. It makes no sense whatsoever to play Mass Effect and get a Deus Ex's endings. Otherwise they could have had a pink pony fly out of the Crisible and hoof the Reapers to death and say that the fans must be happy with it.
hmmm...i'm not sure the "dangerous precedent" thing really makes sense.
There's an interesting article at pcgamer, called "what do game writers think of mass effect 3 ending" or something of the sort.
In it, Kasavin points out that this sort of thing, changing the narrative of a game post-release, has happened before; original fallout changed how a time limit affected the ending of the game, while fallout 3 changed the final ending with dlc, adding a whole new ending, and allowing the player to keep exploring the world.
Both cases it turned out just fine.
So it wouldn't really be a precedent, and i think trying to make a large portion of your fan base happy is a good idea - as opposed to say, ignoring them (a la George Lucas).
Now, like many of the writers in that article point out, it is a tricky business changing things post-release, since the narrative will likely be seen as canonical, and you want to listen to fans but still stay true to your own vision and all that jazz.
So the fact of making narrative changes post-release is not some sort of evil. If you screw it up, well, then it is no good obviously. But it can be done well.
There's an interesting article at pcgamer, called "what do game writers think of mass effect 3 ending" or something of the sort.
In it, Kasavin points out that this sort of thing, changing the narrative of a game post-release, has happened before; original fallout changed how a time limit affected the ending of the game, while fallout 3 changed the final ending with dlc, adding a whole new ending, and allowing the player to keep exploring the world.
Both cases it turned out just fine.
So it wouldn't really be a precedent, and i think trying to make a large portion of your fan base happy is a good idea - as opposed to say, ignoring them (a la George Lucas).
Now, like many of the writers in that article point out, it is a tricky business changing things post-release, since the narrative will likely be seen as canonical, and you want to listen to fans but still stay true to your own vision and all that jazz.
So the fact of making narrative changes post-release is not some sort of evil. If you screw it up, well, then it is no good obviously. But it can be done well.