To the People Who liked the Ending to ME3

[skywolfblue]

HELL no. Thats not a good ending at ALL. Thats just lazyness/failure on account of the writer. A good writer has a PLAN for his story. Something he wants to tell. And usually the ending is one of the first things, maybe THE first to be written.

If I as a story-consumer wanted to imagine my own story, why in the flying fudge would I BUY a product presenting a story for me?! I pay to be TOLD a story.

Frank Herbert is lazy? Dune series: ends with half the protagonists fleeing to an unknown system to start anew, the other half trying to rebuild a shattered empire while a threat they have not yet faced still lies on the horizon. Do the futars show up and wipe them out? Do they live happily ever after? It's up for the reader to decide.

Larry Niven is lazy? Mote series: end up with the moties being unleashed on the galaxy, sure they're using birth control for the time being, but how long will that last? It's again, up to the reader to decide.

I could go on and on, but the point is there are a myriad of great sci-fi stories with endings that have some reader interpretation involved.

 

[AD-Stu]

As MisterShine said, it's a subjective ending that is open to a lot of interpretation. The whole point is that you are suppose to make assumptions. Part of a good ending is leaving a bit of mystery for the reader/player to figure out/solve on their own.

HELL no. Thats not a good ending at ALL. Thats just lazyness/failure on account of the writer. A good writer has a PLAN for his story. Something he wants to tell. And usually the ending is one of the first things, maybe THE first to be written.

If I as a story-consumer wanted to imagine my own story, why in the flying fudge would I BUY a product presenting a story for me?! I pay to be TOLD a story.

Not necessarily - it's perfectly feasible to write a satisfactory ending that leaves questions unanswered or a mystery for the reader/viewer/player. It just needs to provides a sense of closure, an emotional release, and it should make sense in the context of the rest of the story.

An obvious but simple example is Pulp Fiction - we never find out what's in the briefcase. You could view that as a huge unanswered question, but the reality is it doesn't matter what's in the briefcase and not knowing doesn't detract from the ending (ignoring the fact that the ending is the middle in that particular case...)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

6. You're assuming it's London - I assumed Shepard was buried under a pile of rubble on the Citadel. I'm pretty sure we see at least a few arms of the station surviving the explosion.

Negatory good buddy. Rubble is CLEARLY stone and concrete, and you can hear wind, and I'm pretty certain at one point you get a glimpse of a building. May not necessarily be London, but London was the last place Shepard was in that looked that like. It is DEFINITELY not the Citadel, as the Citadel is not made of concrete, and there's no wind in space.

I'd like to add one other, if I may:

- How in hell is Shepard able to breathe on what must be the exterior of the Citadel without a helmet?!?

I can field that one. Something about Mass Effect fields being able to hold in atmosphere. It's plausible, given existing lore. Optics of it are a little strange, I agree.

 

[Noble_Lance]

Can you please explain why you liked it?

I liked it because it didn't tie up everything nice and neatly. My problem with games, especially epics, is that most of the time they always try to wrap up things too easily, to the point where I say wtf, how does that hero live in that world now that his purpose is fulfilled. But what I really liked was that the story ends with Shepard, sure you see the Normandy but aside from that and the Reapers either leaving or dying on Earth, you don't know what is happening because your avatar has died, and the only reason you can see it is that well your energy in most of them is going into these Reapers and merging with them.

What made you feel so satisfied?

Because I did have a choice. Sure it was push button, but there is a reason the game doesn't give you the option at the start to say, are you a Paragon, Renegade or Mixed and lock you into that choice. Because you can make choices. As a Paragon, if I decided based on the game and my decisions to say ef it, I want to control the Reapers, I can do it. If I was a Renegade suddenly realizing his life was ending and wanted to make one last ditch effort for atonement with my death, hey look at me save myself. What satisfied me is that it didn't try to make things happy, it made things at times hopeful. Sure my crew is trapped somewhere, but they are alive... sure the races are all scattered and alone, but they didn't die. It may take a few centuries but they'll be back to normal with everything.

Can you explain it without falling back to making assumptions?

I hope I did, I didn't make assumptions, I just interrupted things as I saw them.

Can you relate to the choices given and explain how they mattered to you depending on the end game choice?

I think so though I picked the Synthesis ending for my first playthough. I decided to save the Krogan, kill the Ranchi, and have the Geth/Quarians at peace. To me the synthesis ending offered the best way for the races to survive and advance. As we saw with Joker and EDI, they both retained their personality and behavior, they didn't transform into Reaper creatures. But I believe that as Synthesis hybrids the species will be able to survive. For example Joker and Kepler's syndrome I think it was, his transformation in theory could help him evolve and the new DNA could help his legs grow stronger. Or the Quarians who were using the Geth to fix their immune system more quickly, same thing only grand scale but the synthesis makes it happen faster, likewise the Krogan will be able to survive any side effects from Mordin's cure. At least mentally that's how I saw advancements occurring, but also it eliminates conflict with creations, because they'll be equal, even if humans are born or machines are created the humans will have the parts of a machine and the machine will have the personality/mental abilities of a human. [probably a bit too confusing in that last run on.]

Can you tell me the difference between each of the choices the end gives you?

Yes, but I have to make assumptions so I don't know if that's allowed in this question. In the destroy case, geth+reapers+ are dead, but the worlds live on. Control, toss up to either we control the Reapers or Shepard gets controlled. Synthesis, i don't know see above and maybe something else.


EDIT:

If Given the choice would you

A) Want a Different ending
B) Want an Epilogue without changing anything in the Ending sequence
Probably this one most likely, or C.
C) Leave it as is

Follow up question, Why?

I should have made a Poll >_>

 

[pearcinator]

The only reason why I liked the ending was because it didn't feel 'real'.

I liked it because I think Bioware has made everyone believe that the ending was real and all the rage it has caused it exactly what Bioware wants. The last 10 minutes of the game seemed so Un-Bioware. It was like magical where things weren't explained because magic doesn't need any explanation.

I read the Indoctrination theory but I am still not convinced that either the endings or the Indoctrination theory are the 'real' endings. Of course, if I am wrong and the ending(s) were legit then I will probably rage too.

 

[SpaceBat]

You're assuming it's London - I assumed Shepard was buried under a pile of rubble on the Citadel. I'm pretty sure we see at least a few arms of the station surviving the explosion.

Shepard is practically at the centre of the crucible, which is the only section to immediately get completely demolished in the following explosion. There is absolutely no way that Shepard would have survived there, not only because of the explosion, but also because whatever technology allowed him to breathe up there, it would have shut down the moment the entire thing blew up, causing him to choke if he somehow survived getting blown to bits. Surviving a possible crash to earth is out of the question as well.
Not to forget that there is no wind on the citadel/crucible and the material Shepard was buried under.

 

[MorphingDragon]

ME3s ending made my dick rockhard.

 

[Steampunk Viking]

As an addendum to Boag's post...leaving aside personal feelings about Star Baby, choices taken into account/not taken into account/themes employed and abandoned, can the people who liked the ending explain the following to me, using data actually provided for us in the game/lore and not their own speculation?

1. Why is Joker fleeing? How is fleeing consistent with his character? How did he know to flee?
2. If Garrus was shown in a pool of blood at my feet, why is he exiting the Normandy on the garden world?
3. How does Hackett know Shepard is on the Citadel? Radio chatter indicated no one made it.
4. How does Anderson beat Shepard to the Crucible? Anderson entered the beam after Shepard.
5. The ending shows us all the relays exploding. We are to understand from the Arrival that this obliterates the systems containing them. Did Shepard just wipe out dozens of densely inhabited systems?
6. If you got the Rubble Shepard/Wake Up Breath ending, how does Shepard go from standing on an exploding Citadel to waking up in a pile of concrete rubble in London?
7. What is the wisdom in creating a synthetic army to wipe out advanced organic life every 50,000 years to prevent a synthetic army from wiping out advanced organic life? Why couldn't your synthetic army fight against the hypothetical bad synthetics? Or warn the organics? Or do ANYTHING ELSE?

I can make my peace with the Star Baby ending if so much of the stuff surrounding it didn't make no sense at all.

I've given a lot of thought to this ending and the indoctrination theory sounds most plausable. From what I've read of the novels, Reaper indoctrination is subtle and Retribution tells exactly how it can happen - anything from assuming direct control (Hah, meme) of the subject (in the case of the Collectors, Husks and Paul Grayson) or by commanding the body's motor and chemical functions (in the case of Saren, The Illusive Man and, again, Paul Grayson). The latter of the two is done usually only when the subject is particularly strong willed, and Shepard is exceptionally strong willed. If a subject is sufficiently subdued, the Reapers can assume direct control of the host - in Paul Grayson's instance, this was done by red sand, but Shepard lost a lot of blood and this may have dampened his resolve enough to be influenced. His dreams may have been attempts to control his actions through guilt.

Now, it's possible that Harbinger didn't kill Shepard on purpose. Maybe he injured him sufficiently enough to influence him through indoctrination - let's not forget that EDI was made from Reaper tech and James goes on about an annoying humming sound which may have been implanted, albeit unintentionally by Cerberus. EDI may not even know about it, her files were blocked. Hell, let's get even more involved, maybe the Reapers wanted the Illusive Man to bring him back as himself without any safety control protocols Miranda suggested, why? Because that threatens THEIR control over him.

Now you can start getting weird - Garrus may well have died in Shepard's eyes, this is what the Reapers want him to see, they want to break his will to go on, it makes him sloppy and makes him more suggestable.

The Reapers want Shepard alive. Why? Because he's a natural leader and a paragon of his species. Why wouldn't they want to kill him? Because they want to assimilate that quality. I believe the Reapers (or Catalyst) believe they are doing right by immortalising technologically advanced species to save them from themselves - even today, technology can be our downfall, we've lost many aspects and instincts from the convenience of modern technology and have created more problems even now (Global warming? Flooding? Sound familiar?). They are seeing it as preserving us in Reaper form. They're AI, they have no concept of pain or suffering.

So prehaps Shepard never made it to the Citadel. That's not possible you say? What if the Shepard could control the beam from London via the device he fell in front of. Maybe Anderson and the Illusive Man are representatives of Shepard's split mind, Anderson being the paragon side and the Illusive Man being the renegade side. But like EDI and the Geth, the Reapers favour self preservation.

Now here's where my theory gets REALLY radical - to simulate Shepard's indoctrination, Bioware plays mind games with YOU, the player, yup, that's right. They bathe Anderson's option in red and the Illusive Man's in Blue, with an inbetween option too. Why? Because Anderson's choice will kill the Reapers. Here's the low down:

Destruction option: Reapers are destroyed, their self preservation tactics have failed and Shepard breaks free from indoctrination. Shepard activates the Crucible to do what they planned it to do all along, but without enough scientific help, it wipes out organic life too. Shepard may survive and wake up on Earth.

Synthetsis option: Reapers convince Shepard to step into the beam and alter the Crucible to scatter his genetic code across the galaxy, infecting all organics with Shepard's cybernetics, which are likely infected with Reaper code by this point, thus giving the Reapers direct control of all organic life forms, and allowing them to influence us to whatever degree they wish.

Control option: The Reapers disintergrate Shepard's genetic make up into code and upload his personality into their programming, giving them a major boost in their intelligence and making Shepard's being into their new leader. Shepard leads them away... for now at least.

The difference between organic made Synthetics and the Reapers is that the Reapers are programmed to keep order in the galaxy in their own, twisted way. Same as the Illusive Man really. Every race in Mass Effect believes that their opinion is right, it's a running theme. Why would the Reapers be any different?

As for the Mass Relays exploding, I have a theory on this too. In Arrival, the Mass Relay blew up a star system because an asteroid was plowed into it. The Mass Relays were likely used in the Crucible's plans to spread the waves it sends out rapidly across the galaxy, maybe it compressed the energy somehow and therefore resulted in smaller explosions to the one in Arrival. Let's not forget the Crucible is a Dark Energy weapon and Mass Relays utilise Dark Energy, so maybe they amplified it's effectiveness destroying them on the way. Also, there are star systems that don't have Mass Relays in them, so it's very possible Earth was destroyed.

As for Joker fleeing - if I saw a wave of Dark Energy and didn't know it's effects, I would run too. He has EDI to save afterall.

So there you have it - my incredibly long winded theory that (I think) somewhat answers your questions.


EDIT: Left a couple of bits out...

First of all, notice Shepard doesn't have his armour on when he wakes up from Harbinger's attack.

Secondly, if you ask why the Reapers needed their ground forces, it's simple. They are like the Collectors, they do the fiddly bits the Reapers are too big to do themselves, such as create new Reapers. They needed Saren and the Illusive Man as well. Helps spread their destruction faster too.

 

[Realitycrash]

Geeze, another ME3 thread? Damn, how many this week alone, 10? 15? A DAY?
I haven't played ME since the first installment, and whenever I see one of these threads, I just go "...Nah. I think I don't want to be associated with anything that makes me a "Mass Effect-player" right now".

 

[SpaceBat]

ME3s ending made my dick rockhard.

Sequelitis much? Can't blame you, they're pretty awesome videos,

 

[Steampunk Viking]

Scratch my previous post, prehaps EA are trying to indoctrinate us, the fanb- ASSUMING CONTROL.

 

[Hyper-space]

What made you feel so satisfied?

You will have to explain the question, was I satisfied with the ending story-wise or emotionally?

Emotionally, I feel my ending (my Shepherd died, so did Anderson and I choose to control the reapers) was made that more poignant by making the intentions of TIM the most humane one. Continuing the cycle of destruction that brought me here, but ultimately fulfilling my intentions (killing the reapers) didn't make sense to me.

Can you explain it without falling back to making assumptions?

What kind of question is that?

Can you relate to the choices given and explain how they mattered to you depending on the end game choice?

My choices had an indirect effect on what happened concerning the fate of Earth, Shepherd, Anderson and so on.

You see, I knew that they wouldn't be able to tie ALL the trillion of important decisions together in the ending so that the choices would have a DIRECT effect. Writing something that could include that many variables in a single ending would have required them to release it as an expansion pack due to the time and money required. Making a game where there are at least two options for most decisions already double the amount of work that has to be done.

All the choices that I made had an INDIRECT effect on the ending and what lead up to it, which is the best one could hope for.

Can you tell me the difference between each of the choices the end gives you?

In my run, I had two choices:

Control the Reapers, thus validating what TIM had intended to do, but ultimately doing what I felt was the right thing.

Or.

Destroy the reapers as I had intended, but in doing so continue the cycle of destruction that had consumed so many lives.

These two choices actually made me think about what I was doing, making me question whether or not I did the right thing. Most of the time the choices were painfully grey, like two bland puddles of water with nothing else to it, this however provided me with a conundrum that felt like an ocean of justifications. There was a bit more to it than that.
EDIT:

If Given the choice would you

A) Want a Different ending
B) Want an Epilogue without changing anything in the Ending sequence
C) Leave it as is

Leave it as is, I would not want this medium to descend into mob-rule where if something doesn't fit the general preference (goody goody happy endings and such), people would demand it to be changed. Its a double-edged sword that would do more harm than good.

 

[Steampunk Viking]

The funny thing is, by biting into this and raging about it, the ending theory isn't the interesting part of the Mass Effect 3, it's the theory I have behind the whole rage thing in the first place.

Want to hear my theory?

Whereas with people who liked the ending for their own reasons, everything is hunky dorey. With the amount of raging there has been, I can sum up the whole thing very simply (sorry Omega 616 for quoting you specifically, the only quote I could find off hand to emphasise this point, not saying anything bad about you!):

There has always been a little bit of mystery there and a little bit of interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the fact.

Hey, this thread again ... what we up to now? 20? 25?

http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=26382038

 

[AD-Stu]

6. You're assuming it's London - I assumed Shepard was buried under a pile of rubble on the Citadel. I'm pretty sure we see at least a few arms of the station surviving the explosion.

Negatory good buddy. Rubble is CLEARLY stone and concrete, and you can hear wind, and I'm pretty certain at one point you get a glimpse of a building. May not necessarily be London, but London was the last place Shepard was in that looked that like. It is DEFINITELY not the Citadel, as the Citadel is not made of concrete, and there's no wind in space.

I'd like to add one other, if I may:

- How in hell is Shepard able to breathe on what must be the exterior of the Citadel without a helmet?!?

I can field that one. Something about Mass Effect fields being able to hold in atmosphere. It's plausible, given existing lore. Optics of it are a little strange, I agree.

Given the number of other inconsistencies and lack of attention to detail though, which is really more likely? That Shepard survived the Citadel explosion and Bioware's artists took some liberties with the specific types of rubble and background noise? Or that Shepard survived the Citadel explosion, then a fall through the atmosphere (without a spacesuit), then hitting the ground, and just happened to hit the ground in London?

FWIW I just watched a video of the sequence again and I didn't see any buildings in the background (don't forget there are "buildings" on the Citadel as well, though admittedly nowhere near where Shepard was).

It makes me want to puke just thinking this, but if Shepard is indeed in London when we see him/her take that breath, then I think the most likely explanation really is the "it was a dream" one and what we're actually seeing is Shepard waking up after being hit by Harbinger's laser. Of course the entire ending through plausible and sensible out the window, so go figure...

Captcha: take potluck. How appropriate

 

[synobal]

I'm done explaining why I liked the endings to people who aren't interesting in listening but I can say that I felt the ending was fantastically done, even before I sat down and really considered it. I wasn't one of those people who jumped up and screamed, that's it?! that is it?! No I liked the ending from the moment I saw it and I came at them cold I didn't read any sort of spoilers online either.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm done explaining why I liked the endings to people who aren't interesting in listening but I can say that I felt the ending was fantastically done, even before I sat down and really considered it. I wasn't one of those people who jumped up and screamed, that's it?! that is it?! No I liked the ending from the moment I saw it and I came at them cold I didn't read any sort of spoilers online either.

Actually we've all listened to you, and heard your reasons. We just don't agree with you. I'm happy for you, that you enjoyed the ending. I wish I could enjoy it too. Believe it or not, I don't actively seek NOT to enjoy things.

 

[Phlakes]

Can you please explain why you liked it?

What made you feel so satisfied?

Can you explain it without falling back to making assumptions?

Can you relate to the choices given and explain how they mattered to you depending on the end game choice?

Can you tell me the difference between each of the choices the end gives you?

If Given the choice would you

A) Want a Different ending
B) Want an Epilogue without changing anything in the Ending sequence
C) Leave it as is

1. The Reapers are gone. All organic life in the galaxy is saved from being destroyed, and Shepard completed his mission.

2. Already done up there^.

3. Not sure what you mean by this.

4. Or this, unless you're just looking for a recap of what the catalyst said or something.

A) Nope.
B) No, the entire series has been Shepard's story, I'm fine with it ending with Shepard.
C) Sure.

Now, I'm not trying to say the ending was perfect, there are a lot of better ways to do it, but it wasn't bad. Wraps up what needs to be wrapped up (again, organic life being saved and all that) and leaves everything else open, which is perfectly acceptable.

 

[synobal]

I'm done explaining why I liked the endings to people who aren't interesting in listening but I can say that I felt the ending was fantastically done, even before I sat down and really considered it. I wasn't one of those people who jumped up and screamed, that's it?! that is it?! No I liked the ending from the moment I saw it and I came at them cold I didn't read any sort of spoilers online either.

Actually we've all listened to you, and heard your reasons. We just don't agree with you. I'm happy for you, that you enjoyed the ending. I wish I could enjoy it too. Believe it or not, I don't actively seek NOT to enjoy things.

The problem is that some people not only disagree with statements about liking the ending, but they act like the people who do like the endings are objectively wrong, that the endings are objectively bad.

Indeed and they seem intent on using straw man arguments to prove how terrible it is. Ask question you've already answered, and then regard you as if you're some sort of crazed fanboy when you don't see how right they are.

 

[FFHAuthor]

On a completely no sarcastic or trolling note (honest), I'm curious if being accepting or enjoying the endings doesn't step from an individual's play-style, Renegades preferred it, people who approached certain previous events in the series liked the ending because of the choices they made then and so on.

I wonder if taking the ending in context with your entire experience makes it more fitting for your game. I hear a lot of 'I liked the endings' but I guess I can't really contextualize it, the comments are purely about the endings, not about how they fit with how you played. My dislike of the endings seems to be pinned down to the out of character nature of what my character experiences in them rather than with them itself. I always approached the entire game with an eye to understanding and negotiating rather than just viewing dialogue as arbitrary and necessary for progression. The end didn't fit with what I had seen my character do before.