Mass Effect Writer Reveals Discarded Ending Ideas

[Still Life]

Drew, nearly any idea would've been hated by fans, because fans are convinced their headcanon is what should be official canon and any deviation from that would be the "worst thing evar." Personally, I liked the ending. Yes, I liked the Starchild. I liked the "three color ending."

I knew from the get go that there would be a lot of angry fans, because everyone really into the series (inc. myself) had become quite emotionally attached to the characters and the universe. Mass Effect was usually always at its best when it was intimate with the player, but how can you possibly create a universally satisfying conclusion to the main narrative arc when the experience of role-playing as Shep had become quite unique to each individual?

That is a rhetorical question, by the way

 

[Animyr]

And still the ending is dependant on the fact that organics and synthetics can't co-exists, despite the fact that THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE QUARIANS AND GETH WERE DOING NOT 10 FUCKING MINUTES AGO. And you don't even get to point this out!

Exactly, it only started all of ten minutes ago. It's pretty naive to brush hundreds of years of being enemies under a few days of being allies because of a common enemy and think everything is going to stay copacetic. I don't know why anyone assumes that synthetic-organic relations are any less volatile than organic-organic relations, if not more so even, or that those alliances would even remain after the reason they were forged is gone and people can start focusing on their petty squabbles again.

Then again, the Geth only fought the quarians because of Reaper influence. The game goes out of its way to point out that the Geth on their own are actually rather friendly. So really, the reapers were perpetuating what they were designed to stop.

 

[Ren_Li]

The ending of ME3 wasn't the problem- it was the way it was implemented. It stepped outside the things which made the series feel like Mass Effect, it stepped outside it's own "rules".
If they'd had the ending as it is with the Extended Cut, and without the Catalyst AI- just simply leading into the Destroy ending, with holes patched and some answers as to how your decisions impacted the galaxy- that would have been a decent ending. The Catalyst AI does answer some questions- specifically, the ones brought up in the Leviathan DLC- but it was really, really badly implemented, and the Synthesis/Control endings make little to no sense in "game rules" terms.

My point is that where they took it was less important than HOW they took it there. In my opinion, anyway.

As for some of the ideas in the first post, properly developed and worked with some of those could have been interesting. The problem is, again, doing it "right". Twist endings aren't necessarily bad, but twist endings that are twists because there's literally nothing to point to it and it casually screws with the rules of the very universe are... very rarely going to work, and extremely difficult (if they're even possible) to do well.

 

[Ren_Li]

Then again, the Geth only fought the quarians because of Reaper influence. The game goes out of its way to point out that the Geth on their own are actually rather friendly. So really, the reapers were perpetuating what they were designed to stop.

...Er, that's not how it happened as I recall. The geth fought the rest of the galaxy due to Reaper influence. The geth fought the quarians- both times- because the quarians attacked them and the geth didn't want to be wiped out.
The Reapers gave the geth the technology to better fight the quarians in ME3 after the geth turned to them when a large number of their programs were destroyed, "narrowing their perspective" and ensuring "self-preservation took precedence". And the Reapers probably wouldn't care about the extinction of the quarians, as their numbers are too low to be useful as soldiers or for harvesting, and their reputation in the galaxy would make them largely useless as indoctrinated "undercover agents".
Even "indoctrinated" geth never went to war against the galaxy as a whole. Sure they didn't care about collateral damage, but they weren't trying to wipe anyone out- they were trying to aid the Reapers, who were more interested in harvesting and controlling larger populations.

That's getting off topic though, for which I apologise. (Also for posting twice.)

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I still think the whole "dark energy" thing would've been a terrible idea, and here's why I think that...

My writing is nowhere near any kind of tangible level compared to Mr. Karpyshyn here. But I've done enough research to know that you don't introduce something that major at the very end of a narrative. It's worse than a deus ex machina when you think about it, because instead of a random object showing up to tie up a narrative's loose ends, you have a random [semi-]new concept that can't go anywhere because it only showed up right at the end.

I guess it's whatever at this point. While I personally never had much of a problem (except for that goddamn kid; I DON'T FUCKING CARE! GO AWAY, YOU LITTLE BASTARD!), I know there are still a great deal of people who feel like ME3 personally spunked in their breakfast as they were eating it, so... yeah.

Well, the Dark energy already had set-up in Mass Effect 2 with Haestrom, while the Starchild...didn't.

 

[SageRuffin]

Well, the Dark energy already had set-up in Mass Effect 2 with Haestrom, while the Starchild...didn't.

Looks like I should've clarified on that.

The point I was trying to make that if something like the whole "dark energy" bit on Haestrom turned out to be as big a deal as it could've been, why do fuck all with it until the very last minute? As it stood, it was just there as some random handwave that got discarded as soon as it was brought up.

If there were more allusions to the whole dark energy theory as the series went along, hey, no argument.

Another thing: if BioWare went forth with the idea that the Reapers are living up to their namesake to prevent dark energy from tearing the galaxy apart, why do it specifically every 50 millenia? Also, wouldn't that only stall the spread, rather than stop it? Wouldn't be a better idea to destroy mass effect technology, since the over-reliance of it would've been what led to this mess? Why even leave all that just laying around if the Reapers concluded that using it would tear reality apart at the seems? How many licks does it take to get the Tootsie-Roll center of a Tootsie-Pop? What would the Reapers do for a Klondike bar, I wonder? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck Shepard?

As you can see with the previous paragraph before I started going off the rails, much like the Starchild, reintroducing the concept of dark energy that late in the series would have created more questions than it would answer.

 

[SageRuffin]

Eh. Shepard dying is not nearly the issue many people make it out to be. From a narrative perspective, it would have been better for Shepard to die, especially for a paragon Shepard. It would help with the direct parallel they were clearly trying to make between Shepard and Jesus, as well as a significantly stronger emotional impact. Not to mention it would offer a definitive conclusion to the story. It could certainly work with Shepard living, but the story would have been better served with their death IMO.

And yes, the Catalyst is problem #1 through 15 or so with the end of Me3.

I'm not even tripping about all that. If there was not at least the implication that Shepard could die, that's what I genuinely would be upset about. As far as the emotional impact of the death itself, I'm kinda the wrong person to talk about that; unless I can build my character from the ground up, of which a character like Shepard is definitely not the case (Hawke in DA2 is another example), my investment in said character is going to be somewhat fleeting.

Incidentally, what you said is part of why I slowly lost interest in the ME series after the first game. I'm not a big fan of religious references, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, unless that's what the game itself is about (i.e. Dante's Inferno or Asura's Wrath).

 

[LetalisK]

And still the ending is dependant on the fact that organics and synthetics can't co-exists, despite the fact that THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE QUARIANS AND GETH WERE DOING NOT 10 FUCKING MINUTES AGO. And you don't even get to point this out!

Exactly, it only started all of ten minutes ago. It's pretty naive to brush hundreds of years of being enemies under a few days of being allies because of a common enemy and think everything is going to stay copacetic. I don't know why anyone assumes that synthetic-organic relations are any less volatile than organic-organic relations, if not more so even, or that those alliances would even remain after the reason they were forged is gone and people can start focusing on their petty squabbles again.

Then again, the Geth only fought the quarians because of Reaper influence. The game goes out of its way to point out that the Geth on their own are actually rather friendly. So really, the reapers were perpetuating what they were designed to stop.

Even if we accept that the Geth's disposition will remain static, which is a huge assumption by itself, we still have the other side of that equation: everyone else, in particular the Quarians. Even under good circumstances, the friendliest of alliances eventually end, so I find it a huge stretch to expect the Geth-organic alliance to be any different. That's not to say this makes the Catalyst correct in his conclusion just because his premise is true.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Retroactively crowbarring in the idea that dark energy/eezo are related, and that biotic abilities are tiny ruptures in spacetime, so the Reapers are trying to both stop those that are causing the ruptures, and heal the ruptures. They come around, blast everything that is at or near the threshold for biotic manipulation, patch up what they can, then spend some time recharging (so to speak) in the void. Dark energy exists as a plot twist as something that happens alongside organic evolution, and is a warning bell for the Reapers that a significant amount of biotic activity has happened to start weakening reality, rather than a warning bell for organics that the Reapers are coming.

You wouldn't even need to change the endings, really, because with a little bit more explaining and worldbuilding, it would have worked. Synthesis was the combination of organic and machine evolution to the point where they can utilize Biotic-like abilities without the ruptures (at the same cost that it would have to happen unilaterally to all species); control just means you just force the Reapers to fix the holes without wiping everyone out, prolonging the inevitable; destroy becomes you allow organics to continue ripping apart spacetime to their hearts content, seeing how far they can push their own progression before cataclysmic circumstances; and we could even keep the "shoot the star child and make the stupid decision to just keep fighting" choice, for sheer bloodymindedness.

Yup. Head canon, now.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Really, Here's me thinking they had all of this planned from the start but just ignore me.

It still amuses me that there are two games called Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2. Not only does one have a subtitle and one doesn't (for whatever stupid reason) but the one with the word "origins" in the title actually goes chronologically after the one numbered "2".

Actually, while Dragon Age 2 starts at the same time of Dragon Age: Origins (begins with your family fleeing from Lothering due to the darkspawn invasion), the rest of the game post-prologue takes place at least a year after Origins. So Origins is, chronologically, still the first one.

OT: I love all the people who say that the Catalyst being The Crucible was thrown at us from out of left field, while still saying that dark energy being the source of everything would have been better. Because it isn't like they would have gone one+ games and two real-life years between mentioning dark energy and having it come up in the ending. Seriously, having dark energy be the reason for everything would have been just as bad, but for different reasons.

 

[Rastrelly]

'know what? NOW I'm pissed. When you make a TRILOGY, you think everything forward. You can switch details, sometimes major... But you DO think forward. For this is what usually make a good trilogy - there should be no details in part one which won't affect part three. And this is actually a confession. A confession of Mass Effect being just a cooked-on-the run crap. Thank you for ruining last elements of dignity I saw in this franchise!

Captcha: done that. Indeed, dear captcha, they done that indeed.

 

[smartalec]

I get the sense that Mass Effect wasn't intended to be a trilogy, originally. The first game feels very self-contained, and if you take away the sequel hook at the very end, it would be a complete story of a galactic invasion narrowly averted.

Think of all the things that ME2 had to retcon to get things moving again. The entire nature of Cerberus, for a start. Slightly ropy storytelling has been a constant of the series, and it's mainly been the character moments that were the glue that held it together. The only reason the cracks started to show towards ME3's ending is because the character-centric stuff wasn't there any more.

 

[MetalMagpie]

It still amuses me that there are two games called Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2. Not only does one have a subtitle and one doesn't (for whatever stupid reason) but the one with the word "origins" in the title actually goes chronologically after the one numbered "2".

Actually, while Dragon Age 2 starts at the same time of Dragon Age: Origins (begins with your family fleeing from Lothering due to the darkspawn invasion), the rest of the game post-prologue takes place at least a year after Origins. So Origins is, chronologically, still the first one.

Ah, sorry. I've never actually played Dragon Age 2, and I remember hearing in the promotion that it was going to be a prequel. Which I may just be remembering wrong...

I still think it's silly that they gave the second game a number rather than a sub. It's just looks mismatched. *is possibly slightly OCD*

 

[mjelaine]

Okay so Bioware were basically idiots and painted themselves into a corner from Day 1, is what I'm getting from this. Which.. does not help to restore ANY faith in Bioware whatsoever.

The most basic of basic things in writing is to have an ending. If you don't have an ending planned? You should PROBABLY not make that story into a game until you do.

What would've been wrong with the Crucible firing? We already learned that the Protheans didn't design it, and that countless other cycles had added tweaks and changed things and contributed. So what was wrong with it firing? It didn't have to destroy all Reapers everywhere. Just target all Reapers in the immediate area (likely the Sol system) and have that put enough of a dent into Reaper forces that they could then be driven off by the united species of the Galaxy. Or even have it destroy all Reapers everywhere. You would still have damages to every planet, not only from what had already happened but from the crash landing Reapers. You would still have struggled and fought pretty hard to get there. And you have this idea that there were these countless 50,000 year cycles, all these species that had been wiped out by the Reapers going all the way back, who had each added something that eventually (god knows how many cycles later) was finally able to bring it to an end.

That seems like a pretty damn satisfying ending to me. But maybe that's just me.

 

[TheRookie8]

I thought this would have been a better ending:

The Reapers are harvesting organic life and creating new Reapers because somewhere out in dark space, an even more destructive force threatens to end the universe. The Reapers were originally created by an ancient race to hold back this Apocalypse, but it became clear the Reapers lacked the numbers and strength to do so. So in a last-ditch effort to preserve all life, these Ancient sent out "seeds" to uninhabited galaxies across the universe that would then evolve into organic life...with the sole purpose to be used as fuel for the Reapers to continue their struggle against the universe-ending force.

Our galaxy is but one of an infinite number of galaxies used as "farms" for organics, and the Reapers continuously must harvest humans to create new Reapers so they may continue to force back the threat in dark space.

The Reapers created the cycle so that organics may thrive and grow to be harvested yet again, because the truth is that without a continuous resource, the Reapers will lack the sustenance they need to hold back Armageddon.

This is why organics would not "comprehend" the Reapers true purpose: They harvest the many and leave the few, or else all life would end. Furthermore, the Ancients who exist further out into dark space do not wish for the galaxies to realize that they were ultimately created to be destroyed, as then the numerous galaxies would rebel and grow beyond Reaper control, thus undermining the Reaper's true purpose and hastening the end of the universe. Hell, this would also explain indoctrination, because if the Ancients possess the means to create life, they also know how to manipulate and control it through the Reapers, too.

The end of Mass Effect 3 could then be Shepard making contact with these "Ancients" and being told the truth: That Shepard's world was meant to end so that they could live. You could even use the Starchild (if you must) as the person Shepard talks with...maybe because the true form of the Ancients would drive Shepard nuts, or because the Starchild represents Shepard's repressed stress and fear.

A Paragon ending would be Shepard convincing the Ancients to leave their galaxy in peace, rationalizing that they've earned the right to be left alone, and that there are plenty of "other" galaxies for them to harvest. The ancients would then respond:

"True...we have exhausted too many Reapers in the pursuit of quelling this insurgency...there are greater threats than you can imagine. We will leave your galaxy in peace...but you must not seek the darkness beyond."

So the Paragon ending would have resulted in less death, but at the cost of all life remaining within the boundaries of their own galaxy.

A Renegade ending would be Shepard "destroying" the Reapers remaining, but the Ancients responding with:

"If you destroy our forces, there will be peace for a few thousand years...but the time will come when we will need the sustenance you provide. For now, we will ALLOW you to continue your existence...but eventually you WILL end because we DEMAND IT."

To which our favorite Renegade Shepard will say:

"Yeah, I've heard that one before."

So the Renegade ending results in more immediate deaths in exterminating the remaining Reapers, but now the galaxy is free to expand farther into dark space, but now the Reapers still remain a lingering threat.

And if there must be a third choice (green, if you will), perhaps this can be a "Liberation" ending...but only if Shepard agreed to save the Collector base. In this ending, Shepard may choose to negotiate with (Paragon) or destroy (Renegade) the Reapers to give our galaxy a chance to continue living...but use the technology from the Collector base in ME2 to create a vessel to travel to the other galaxies across dark space, to rally other organics against the Reapers that still exist. So essentially, Paragons spit on their negotiations and Renegades still get to blow shit up, provided one very unethical choice was made back in ME2.

In any case, these three endings allow both a continuation of the characters we still all adore...but also expanding upon what might be happening outside our galaxy and making room for future installments. Even better, if enough of the other galaxies were successfully liberated to stop the Reapers permanently, then the Ancients and the "world-ending force" would then become the primary antagonists of future Mass Effect games. If anything, a force more destructive than the Reapers would be even more terrifying. And the War Assets we gathered could directly affect which characters in our squad were left alive by the end of all three endings.

...I thought about this way too much.

 

[Bluestorm83]

I think that the big problem is... they tried to give us all this reasoning and logic and origin and history behind the Reapers... and honestly, I don't think any of us really WANTED that. I mean, when we first met Nazara (Sovereign) in Mass Effect 1, he said to us, rather honestly, a few things about the Reapers.

1: We're going to kill you all. Nothing you can do to change our minds, nothing you can do to stop us.
2: You can't EVER even begin to understand us. Don't bother trying.
3: We're not at war with you all, just like how you're not "at war" with ants that you crush while you walk. You're completely below our notice.
4: And by the way, we are RIDICULOUSLY old, and we've done this literally thousands of times, if not millions of times, before. You're not special, it's happening again, die quietly.

And that's what makes a good Force of Horror. That's what the Reapers really ARE: Unknowable forces of horror. The Heretic Geth, who are LITERAL Killing Machines, worship them. They look like squid (which scare the shit out of me) and/or giant hands, as if metal deities are reaching out to choke the life from you. Why they felt the need to explain and rationalize them AT ALL, let alone making them the Universe's most annoying VCR, that not only blinks 12:00 over and over, but also kills everyone everywhere when it does, is beyond me. It's ludicrous.

All of the STORY that people really cared about was between the, for lack of a better word, mortal races of the universe. It was about all these different people and machines and... jellyfish, coming together, despite their differences, to stand against inevitability. For the first 299 hours and 45 minutes, the Mass Effect Series' big message was "We don't all have to be the same, because our differences give us unique contributions. We can all be free, and we can stand together even when we disagree on some of the most fundamental issues of being alive in the world. And that was GREAT.

Then the last 15 minutes said, "Nah, being different is wrong, we should all be the same, everyone needs to conform or die, give up what makes you YOU, become just another copy of ME, and also, SPACE WHITE POWER!!!!"

Wow. What a waste. What a squandered opportunity to be a major literary triumph that championed individualism, self determination, and equality. Instead, they tried to pole vault into high-brain Techno-human-synthesis, missed the bar, flew through Mrs. Johnson's kitchen window, landed on her stove as she was making breakfast, and then, shrieking in pain from the hot bacon grease on its face, Mass Effect 3 Ending pooped itself, and ran home crying.

Way to go. SO glad you didn't just give people something hopeful and rewarding.

 

[Animyr]

The geth fought the quarians- both times- because the quarians attacked them and the geth didn't want to be wiped out? Even "indoctrinated" geth never went to war against the galaxy as a whole. Sure they didn't care about collateral damage, but they weren't trying to wipe anyone out- they were trying to aid the Reapers, who were more interested in harvesting and controlling larger populations.

My point is that the Reapers are helping synthetics fight organics more effectively when this is exactly what they apparently exist to prevent. And really, the distinction between ?wiping out organic civilization? and ?wiping out all organic life? is not all that great. Doing either means that you had both the desire and power to commit mass genocide. The geth only came even close to having either thanks to the Reapers, who are supposedly the robot war prevention force. Hell, they were losing a war with the quarians, the gypsies of the galaxy.

Even if we accept that the Geth's disposition will remain static, which is a huge assumption by itself, we still have the other side of that equation: everyone else, in particular the Quarians. Even under good circumstances, the friendliest of alliances eventually end, so I find it a huge stretch to expect the Geth-organic alliance to be any different.

Exactly. The story gives no indication that organic-organic relations and organic-synthetic relations are substantially different. The Reapers are operating under the assumption that synthetics (exempting the reapers themselves, of course) consistently pose a threat to others on a scope that consistently exceeds that of organic wars, but there is no indication of that in the main story. Hell, the Krogans and the Rachni were more powerful and more relentless enemies to galactic civilization then the geth ever were, and in the case of the Krogan, the possibility that they will go to war again is hinted at far more heavily than it is with the geth or the quarians (who even without synthesis seem to be merging already).

 

[Vykrel]

this is the problem. they tried so hard to make the rabbit hole go deeper and deeper that they lost sight of things. all these "wacky" rejected endings are no more wacky than the one they went with.

the Reapers should have stayed at the top of the food chain. revealing them to be mere pawns in some space toddler's sick game was just insane. i remember hearing about how bad the ending was and thinking people were just overreacting. playing through the game, i expected a disappointing ending, which i can deal with.......... but good lord, the internet was not kidding.

it certainly shows that not everyone should write as they go along. its hard to use that strategy and expect things to turn out as well as Iron Man did.

 

[Bigsmith]

The whole 'dark energy destroying the universe' thing sounds an awful lot like the ending plot to Gurren Lagaan.

Damn, I was going to post in here just to say this. XD