Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

[samaugsch]

I love how the natural response to anyone who expresses indifference or disagreement with the idea of changing the ending to ME3 "just doesn't get it".

Well, yes. We don't get it. And some of us (such as myself) don't want to "get it", either, because apparently "getting it" means to just blindly accept that you're right. No one seems all that willing to accept a point of view that doesn't instantly translate to "SCREW EA THIS GAME'S ENDING SUCKS AND MUST BE CHANGED NAO".

No matter how good or bad the story was ended, changing the ending of a game post-humorously due to fan reaction sets a terrible precedent that I never want to see done, much less repeated (as it will be, if a title as big as Mass Effect does it then other games will feel obligated to). I won't deny it's a terrible ending (unless you buy the indoctrination theory in which case it's actually closer to brilliance disguised as a bad ending), and I won't try to claim that there aren't some valid complaints here. But think about it: do you really want people to be forced to change the endings to games because they don't meet with your explicit specifications? What happens when people disagree (as they do here)? Do the people who liked ME3's ending just get drowned out by the vocal ones and that's it? There needs to be a line in the sand, and I think forcing companies to change their games for reasons other than bug fixing is crossing that line.

If you're really so mad at EA for messing this story up, then do what you should have done years ago: stop buying their products. Boycott them. Hit them where it hurts, and you'll teach them to change their ways. Yet I've seen dozens of posts on this forum saying that people would happily pay for DLC that fixes the ending, proving to me that perhaps YOU (yes, you) are the ones who truly do not "get it". If you're willing to pay them to "fix" the ending, you're only encouraging them to do it again.

For the people up in arms, it's unthinkable that anybody cannot see how bad these ending are. They introduced a theme that superseded the original one of just stop the reapers and concluded it in 14 lines of dialog so I'm inclined to believe what they're saying. It gives no closure and does not wrap up many many lose ends. Largely the problem stems from the hologram kid apparently and there's a mod out there that just shows Shepherd and Anderson bleeding out then it cutting to reapers destroyed ending which easily was better than bio ware's own attempt to explain.

However here I was thinking that this entire time EA had just cut the ending that made any sense so people WOULD buy it as DLC and have been milking the bad ending as publicity ever since. It's the kind of thing they would do. My response like many others id assume, is to not pay for the game but I may just end up playing it plus DLC. Ill let you guess how.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that the people who said the endings were fine are either trolling or just don't give a fuck.

 

[samaugsch]

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

Because the endings aren't different at all apart from the colors of the explosions?

 

[shadowyoasis]

Spoiler

I loved the entire mass effect series. Read the books, comics, done it all. I'm completely fine with the ending. I'm not sure what everybody expected but it was the ending I predicted. I could see the writing on the wall fairly early on. A bit like Red Dead Redemption. Doom was in the air.

The fact that the "multiple endings" was a bit of a con is absolutely in keeping with Mass Effect 1 & 2. Maybe other people don't see it but each Mass Effect has been a series of bottle necks with some expansion of plot between each node.

No matter WHAT you decide the outcome for every single mission is basically the same. Everyone destroys Sovereign and Saren in the first game. Everybody fights the giant baby terminator in ME2. Everybody does the exact same story missions and the only variation is a bit of dialogue and the "concept" that you picked A instead of B. Killed Wrex? Fine, you get a different Krogan and a bit of different dialogue in ME2. Effect on missions and gameplay and the outcome of other missions? = 0! Nothing, nada.

The Blue Paragon/Red Renegade is the biggest con of all. You need to get person X to do Y. You can sweet talk them with Blue option, result = you get Y. You can intimidate them with Red option, result = you get Y. Where exactly is the massive change in decisions.

I know "the means" is the interesting part and no "the ends" but at no point as Mass Effect even shown anything but a cursory nod towards "multiple-choices". The impact of even the most important choices from previous games result in a bit of dialogue difference, and maybe a footnote in the codex or war assets. As far as concluding subplots I can't see a single thing they didn't answer. Not sure what closure people are missing but no story, film, book, or game is going to list what happens to every single character at the end of a series. Unless it's LOTR and that's the worst part of the books.

I love Mass Effect but I never played it for the "multiple-choices". That's fluff, a thin icing on very lovely cake. Anyone saying Mass Effect set an expectation of multiple endings or massive changes in plot due to choices made is a complete liar or a fool. They've always said this stuff and it's never been true before. It's like CoD going on about "loads of new weapons and perks" when it's the same stuff rebranded and tweaked a bit. They've said this stuff from day one and at no point has a decision made in ME ever made much difference to the major story line. At least not a single change to the chain of events.

I can only presume these people only played ME2, and not ME1 and believed the hype about carrying your decisions over to the next game. Coupled with the fact that the series is ending (sad face) and that it's pretty damn obvious only sad endings are going to occur (how many missions in ME end with "Yeah! Everybody is happy"??) that left them feeling sad. Unable to comprehend or reflect on this new emotion produced by art they had a temper tantrum. You know, like a child does if his hero in a film dies.

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.

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.

 

[samaugsch]

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

Because the endings aren't different at all apart from the colors of the explosions?

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day it will be true.

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA

 

[blackrave]

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.

 

[Gotham Soul]

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"?

 

[Extragorey]

The ending was terrible because it came right the fuck out of nowhere, had literally nothing to do with anything that had previously happened in this game or the first two and did not work on any level. It wasn't bad because it was too limited or bittersweet or artsy or complex or erudite or sad. It was just fucking bad, stupid, balls-out incompetent writing that would not be tolerated or defended in any other medium.

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.
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.

 

[Extragorey]

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.

Actually, if you think about it it does make a lot of sense.
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.

 

[TwistednMean]

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.

 

[toaster_pimp]

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.

 

[blackrave]

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.

Maybe
But "Mass Effect game is set long before Shepard was even born" would be without humans, or at least without modern humans, possible, but unlikely.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

You know what I dislike even more than the people pressuring for a different ending? The people whining about the people pressuring for a different ending.

This isn't fucking high school with a bunch of kids trying to pressure someone into smoking, these are grown people who are unhappy with the ending and are demanding something different. It's the developers fucking choice on whether or not to change it and if they decide to ignore their right to end their story as they see fit because of massive negative opinion than HOW IS THAT BAD.

Saying that because they have a right to choose the ending they should never change the ending from the ending they originally conceived because practically NO ONE liked it is idiotic.

 

[Jimbo1212]

I think people are pissed for a few reasons:

a) No matter what you did, you could change your mind at the end. This goes against all previous ME games eg. if you were a dick, your crew died in ME2. On that note, why was their not a bad ending such as the Reapers win?

b) The ending was far too brief.
What happened to everyone?
If the gates blew up, surely this would have taken out many planets...or did it? How did your crew get back onto the ship? What happens with them? Does civilisation rebuild the ME relays etc etc. You can have something open ended like the Matrix or Inception, but ME3 was just rushed.

 

[Extragorey]

Saying that because they have a right to choose the ending they should never change the ending from the ending they originally conceived because practically NO ONE liked it is idiotic.

Practically no one liked it? I liked it. If I did, many others did too. It's only the VOCAL majority of players that didn't like it. I can assure you, everyone I know who played the game liked the ending and didn't feel the need to express themselves as emphatically as those who seemed to hate it.

 

[wintercoat]

.

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.

Maybe
But "Mass Effect game is set long before Shepard was even born" would be without humans, or at least without modern humans, possible, but unlikely.

Could be set during the Human expansion into the Attican Traverse. Fighting Batarian slavers. Protecting colonies. Not long before, just a few years, at least while Shep was still a child. Then again, that would be pretty much Human only. So you either get Human only or no Humans if the game is set before ME1.

And it probably can't be set parallel to the games because anything big enough to base a game around would have more than likely been mentioned to Shepard at some point. It would be the same thing that Bioshock did with Bioshock 2, adding in key players that heavily impacted the setting but had no mention in previous games. It would create a sense of discontinuity, and considering the gaping plotholes that have been the source of so much arguing over the past couple weeks, that would be like shooting yourself in the head while stumbling around after shooting yourself in the foot. The best chance for a pre-ME1 game is before humans joined galactic civilization.

 

[satsugaikaze]

Could be set during the Human expansion into the Attican Traverse. Fighting Batarian slavers. Protecting colonies. Not long before, just a few years, at least while Shep was still a child. Then again, that would be pretty much Human only. So you either get Human only or no Humans if the game is set before ME1.

And it probably can't be set parallel to the games because anything big enough to base a game around would have more than likely been mentioned to Shepard at some point. It would be the same thing that Bioshock did with Bioshock 2, adding in key players that heavily impacted the setting but had no mention in previous games. It would create a sense of discontinuity, and considering the gaping plotholes that have been the source of so much arguing over the past couple weeks, that would be like shooting yourself in the head while stumbling around after shooting yourself in the foot. The best chance for a pre-ME1 game is before humans joined galactic civilization.

Or heck, the First Contact War. Plenty of narrative potential there.

It's been stated many times that there would be more Mass Effect games past the third one. Chronologically, who knows? But there probably will be a game set in a time past Shepard's story. Bioware will probably think of something.

I don't think that people demanding that the ending not be such a lump of shit is very far from the wavelength Fallout 3 was on.

See, here's an easy way to prevent this from happening in the future: When a developer is writing a game, they should rate everything they write on a scale from Shit to Ten. If you rate what you write anything less than Ten you rewrite it.

Sure, if you don't want any games with decent-quality narrative to come out anytime this decade.

See? Oversimplification, two can play at that game!

 

[Sanguinedragon]

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.

No girls in rage? lol, check the facebook page also
I would like to introduce you to my wife, I know heresy I have a wife and she plays games.. shocker. The whole go out get a girl sun thing has been done to death. Seriously.
I don't mean to be rude but if you don't understand why we are upset fine, but we don't need the over generalization insults.

 

[Jesus Phish]

Just finished the game today, after getting it on release, I didn't have a lot of time to play it.

Despite the collective internet doing it's best job to spoil the ending through endless forums and headlines and obvious statements against Bioware, I'm happy with how it ended.

I enjoyed all 3 games and I'll play through them all again.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Oh, and I guess you now like Deus Ex HR's ending too?

Heh...an intriguing point. But then people LIKED HR's ending...or at least more people complained about the out of character boss fights than the Endingtron-3000 (the identical thing to ME3)

I've come to the decision that MOST if not ALL reviewers on the Escapist are simply approving and giving a thumbs up to the ME3 ending to create outrage among the people who don't like the ending and creating big long comment threads and page views to boost their own standings on the site. I don't know how contributors get paid...but I think that it probably has a lot to do with the number of views.