To the People Who liked the Ending to ME3

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Who is "they"?

Putting up a general "they", attributing a bunch of silly behavior to them, and then tsking about how intellectually stunted their perspective is...that's like, the literal definition of a straw man, guy.

So let's put away the logical fallacy swords so we don't accidentally fall on them.

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.

Yes, some people do stupid things. Some people who disliked the endings say and do stupid things, and some people who liked the ending say and do stupid things, and some people like ham, and some people pee sitting down, and some people think "Friday" was a fun listen. There will always be "some people" to provide you with anecdotal evidence to support your confirmation bias.

I think there are some pretty rational, OBJECTIVE complaints about the ending. It's not 6 guys on a forum calling for Bioware to be lined up and shot. RPS has done an article about it. Penny Arcade has discussed it. Forbes has now put out three articles on it. The thread on the Bioware forums is now almost 1200 pages long, and remarkably civil. At last count a poll taken on the ending had over 50,000 responses, with 90% disliking the ending, and 2% supporting it. It'd be nice if we could all have our opinions, without one side being painted as fanboys, and the other painted as angry, entitled trolls.

 

[00slash00]

id like to thank all the people who wont stop whining about the ending. i havent played the game yet but thanks to you all my expectations are so low that i couldnt possibly be disappointed. that said, please shut up about the ending. you didnt like it, the internet gets it. you can let it go now

 

[FFHAuthor]

I agree, see my above post. The ending of everyone losing fitted my story perfectly, and I played mainly Paragon.

I suppose that's what has me disappointed, I personally didn't feel that it was what my Shepard deserved. I played Paragon as well and I always had a 'triumph over adversity and through all struggles' vibe with my character.

All my characters survived the Suicide mission, I saved Wrex, I made it through all those trials alive. I talked down Saren, I talked down Kaiden on the Citadel, I only lost people because of the inevitability of it through their own actions or choices. The only losses I had were the 'scripted' losses, if I could affect the outcome of what happened, I did. I lost Legion when he gave up his life to uplift his people, I lost Mordin when he sacrificed himself to cure the Genophage, I lost Thane when he fought Kai Leng to save the Salarian Councilor.

Hmm, my entire playthrough was filled with people living because I went out of my way to persevere and save them. The only deaths were because of their own desires to sacrifice themselves for a greater good...even Saren sacrificed himself in the end for a greater good...none of them seemed the kind to sacrifice themselves either...Thane, ruthless killer who abdicates himself of responsibility, Mordin who was a scientist who viewed the Genophage as a challenge and the 'best result', only Legion's sacrifice seems to be purely in character with his starting 'persona'.

Huh, that is interesting, my Shepard always fought to preserve people and to fight rather than submit. Evne if he couldn't fight something with weapons, he fought it with words.

I guess that's what makes it seem so off for me, in the end when my Shep killed the Reapers he just meekly accepted what was put before him rather than trying to change the situation like he did so many other times...Chose the Quarians in the war, Chose the Geth in the war, no...I think I'll end the war instead. Cure the Genophage and side with the Krogan who will take over the galaxy again, or keep up the genocide...no...I think I'll change the way the Krogan view the Galaxy so they strive to be members of the community rather than enemies. Even with Saren, accept his plan to make organics the servants of the Reapers, or fight him...no, I'll reason with him instead.

He always looked at the 'inescapable, black and white, this is the way it's going to be' problems and said 'no, I don't like those options...I prefer mine'.

 

[boag]

No, im not really a fan of music, and yes you have successfully derailed what was an honest question of understanding, and a third yes, I do get the Reference, which is wholly and completely IRRELEVANT TO THIS THREAD!

Just to hammer the point in, so that you dont make the Ignorant mistake again.

I wanted to gauge opinions on why people liked the ending, you from what I see from your posts, seem to have taken a PERSONAL OFFENSE to it, It wasnt meant to be an offense to you, there are other threads in other places that might be doing that, but this isnt one of them. I suggest in the future you learn TOLERANCE and CIVILITY, when voicing your opinion.

Wow, your quoting style is really annoying to follow. Not to MENTION capitalization random words, most people capitalize for emphasis, you seem to do it for fun

sorry that it bothers you, its the fastest way for me to reply without having to start tagging text left and right

Tomato, tomato. You say they are different, I say they are the same.

Whats the difference between "the ending is bad" and the worst ending ever"? Hyperbole, nothing more.
Indeed, Notice how I use neither of those statements in the Thread title or the Opening Statement


I'm off topic but you are still talking about Jimmy? Thanks for putting words in my mouth on that subject as well 'cos I had no clue what my point was.
Sorry that it went over your head, I would think of a simpler example, but I honestly cant think of anything right now

I didn't realize I turned into Liam Neeson and started to hunt people down. No need to get personal just 'cos you can't follow what I am saying 'cos I like to throw in off topic references.
Good for you


Why did the reference have to be obscure? There aren't many immensely bad things that have happened that are obscure.
Well the worst of the atrocities came at the tail end of the war, not at the beginning of it


It wasn't me who derailed it, I just make rather obvious off topic references, like they do on TV 'cos I find them funny and witty, it also serves to lighten the mood and not be so serious. What derails it is you asking what happened that was in 1939 when you knew it was the second world war!
welp, I didn't know the topic of a Videogame was such serious business that it needed moments of levity to reduce stress


Again, throwing personal insults around, where does that honestly get you?
Nowhere, which is why i havent insulted you, if you feel I did, then I apologize it was never my intention

Listen, there are plenty of threads (8 just on the first gaming escapist page) all talking about this very topic! If you wanted to gauge anything for whatever reason, wouldn't reading one the 8+ (there are obviously ones that have died and rightly so) threads be a big enough gauge? I can tell just from this site (and what has been linked to from this site) that everybody thinks the ending was bad.
If you assume I havent read or participated in those threads, then you assume incorrectly, furthermore, The reason I started this thread, was because whenever I asked or approached the Subject, none would give me a straight anwser.

Why do you even need to gauge it anyway? Some kind of research or something?
I do not want to gauge anything, I want know the POVs of other people so that my own perspective can grow

Like I said before, unless you want this asinine squabble to get further off topic, I suggest not quoting me again and just leave it at that. If you do quote me you don't have a leg to stand on when you say I am the one to blame for derailing it.

Hey, just because a topic gets derailed, doesnt mean it cant get back on track, I enjoy a good conversation, and this one has been very informative. We can continue if you like, but I would appreciate if you kept to the topic at hand.

 

[tautologico]

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?

I am not making this thread to bash or insult, or inflame, I just honestly want to know, how you relate to the ending, and why you like it and feel satisfied by it.

Personally, I'm wondering if there's a rebuttal to this: http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

How about this post by Gabe from Penny Arcade? http://penny-arcade.com/2012/03/14/mass-effect-3-ending-spoiler-warning

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

There's a lot of interpretation that I think Bioware wants you to do with the ending; that's why I think they left it so vague.

They're protecting organic life from synthetics in an admittedly evil and destructive way (hence we had to stop them), but they built in a contingency just in case a cycle becomes advanced enough to defeat them. Control them, destroy them, or Synthesis.

Synthesis, to me, means that they're taking the advanced technology that whoever built the Reapers (the first cycle, I presume) and doing... something with it. Indistinguishable from magic, but it's sci-fi super tech and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for a race's technology if I also believe they could build the Reapers. What it actually does... I suppose it, on some level, "huskifies" you in a way that isn't going to make you a mindless zombie. The reverse would be true for Geth and EDI. This calls the Reapers off because it was what they were more or less built to accomplish. Wait for a cycle advanced enough to defeat them, and let them survive and choose for themselves.

As for why the Reapers' main goal is stopping synthetics, I'd bet money that the first cycle had a significant AI problem and decided to "help" future life with Reapers. The fact that the only synthetic race presented to us is the Geth, and they're downright docile when left alone, seems to prove that our cycle is the one to break the cycle; we won't have problems with synthetics and the Reapers aren't needed for our "protection."

Control is an option they allowed for so that a new mind could oversee the Reapers. The first cycle knew that its viewpoints and truths would eventually become irrelevant, so they allowed someone knew to continue their work, someone who knows what's going on now as opposed to eons ago.

Destruction was allowed for because the first cycle guessed that the future cycles wouldn't feel safe without eradicating the Reapers. War isn't won until the enemy is dead and all that.

Shepard can breathe in space because... I dunno, there's a mass effect field around that area.

So, while it wasn't the best ending ever, it was still a decent ending for me. I have some problems with it (like my crew being more or less left for dead, but that's war, I guess), of course, but I like my interpretation of it and it caps everything off nicely for me.

Also, holy shit, Martin Sheen can ACT. The Illusive Man at the end was AMAZING.

 

[RJ 17]

I personally believe in the indoctrination theory, as there is a ridiculous amount of moments that hint towards it. Because of this, and only this, I really like the ending.

If the theory was proven to be wrong and the ending we got is simply the true ending, then I'm disappointed. Not foaming at the mouth as most people here are, but I'm simply disappointed that such an excellent series ends in such a disappointing and confusing manner. Of course, anyone who says that it's the worst ending ever obviously hasn't played a lot of games, but I still have to agree that it's a really weak way to end the series.

I finished it just a few days ago and to be quite honest, the thing that annoyed me the most wasn't the ending, it was the childish and stupid behavior of huge parts of the community (WE DEMAND YOU CHANGE THE ENDING TO OUR LIKING! MASS EFFECT 3 IS A HORRIBLE GAME, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I REALLY ENJOYED EVERY OTHER PART OF IT, THE ENDING SUCKED DONKEY BALLS. LET'S WHINE UNTIL THE END OF TIME ABOUT THIS AND NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER). I was really looking forward to talk about the game in general here, but I was disappointed to find out that everyone is fully fixated on the ending and has totally disregarded the other 39 hours and 55 minutes.


Anyway, I'll answer your question below.

Can you please explain why you liked it?
Seeing as I believe in the indoctrination theory, I loved that they ended the game in such a unique manner. While the reapers are your main threat, your main problem was indoctrination. Indoctrination is what caused all of those problems in the previous games and is the reason why you were so ill-prepared at the ending of ME3. The idea that your final battle plays out in your battered mind against the thing that you've probably been fighting against for so long (seeing as you're always close to reaper tech) sounded brilliant to me. Not to mention the fact that so many went ahead and picked the control option, proving the power of indoctrination, which in turn leads to the understanding of what all your indoctrinated enemies went through just made the idea even more lovely. That's why I loved it. I would have enjoyed a simple "crucible wipes out reapers, you and your mentor pass away while looking at their home for the last time" just as much though. The emotional ride until that very moment would have been enough for me.

My problem with the Indoctrination theory is if indeed Shepard is indoctrinated and battling within his/her own mind with the Reapers and given a choice that amounts to two traps or destroying the Reapers...why then do the Reapers fly away if you pick Control or Synthesis? Wouldn't they be all troll-faced, saying "LOLZ! SHEP CHOZE WRONG! U MAD?" and keep on the rampage? You can't survive the Control or Synthesis ending, there wouldnn't be any Shepard waking up, only he/she is Indoctrinated, and even if there were that means that the Reapers win. But that couldn't be the case seeing as how Star Gazer's telling the heroic legend of Shepard to his granddaughter during the final cutscene no matter which ending you choose...if Shepard picked wrong and failed, why would he be regaling the girl with his/her heroic triumph? Why wouldn't he...you know...be dead?

In truth, though, there's just as much evidence against my belief as a member of the "everything that happened on the Citadel actually happened" camp. Both sides have equally as much evidence to support them, however (I won't go into mine as I've done plenty to defend it already, even made a topic on it and I'm tired of typing it all out). As such, I'm content with the ending that I got as, like with thoe that believe the Indoctrination theory, I've managed to fill in the blanks with what I believe makes the story work. So in the end, it really doesn't matter which side of the theory debate you fall on as long as you've got what you need to be content.

That or you could just be a rager and just say "The whole game sucks because of the ending and I'm about to take Yahtzee's advice and go burn down EA's central offices."

 

[boag]

Can you please explain why you liked it?

What made you feel so satisfied?

The fact that it wasn't a "yay crucible wipes out the reapers, galaxy is happy again". ME3 was all about sacrifice, as you stand there on the citadel the fleet of the whole galaxy is being torn to shreds around you. You have to make do with the choices offered, or face complete extinction. The choice you make is not an easy one, the Galaxy ends up wrecked for many years afterward because the mass relays are destroyed.

Can you explain it without falling back to making assumptions?

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.

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?

Isn't this a bit obvious? The AI explains pretty much the result of each choice.
- Kill synthetics wipes out all synthetic life in the galaxy including the Geth and EDI. So you free the galaxy at a cost, but it won't last forever, eventually synthetics will again be created and the cycle will continue.

- Synthesis merges organic DNA with some synthetic. The reapers now ignore life, the cycle ends, but the reapers still live.

- Control the Reapers. You take control of them, either to rule the galaxy or take the reapers back into dark space forever. The cycle will continue, but at least you have your hands on the controls so you can be more selective. At the cost of: the reapers live, and you become the monster.

I can honestly see part of the sacrifice themes, Losing thane and mordin hammered that in, but I wasnt expecting the end scenario to be so terrifyingly gruesome, if my imagination is expected to fill in the blanks of the story, then my personal logic dictates a lot of it, or I can disregard it and have puppies and rainbows either way, I still would have liked an epilogue detailing some events to get an idea of what exactly it was I accomplished.

If you say my mission was to stop the reapers, then yeah that was pretty much the end scenario everyone knew before even buying the game, if you detailed to me that I wouldnt get to see what my final choice would entail, then I would have been a bit disappointed. Like I am now.

Still I can half agree with your POV.

Would it be too bothersome to ask, if you would like to see an Ending DLC added, or at least an epilogue?

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.
well, a lot of the post game scenarios that people are pondering have been making loads of assumptions, for example, I assume that since the Relays are gone, most of the Fleets will be stuck on the sol system

4. Or this, unless you're just looking for a recap of what the catalyst said or something.
its a simple question, i believe that none of the endings have any real difference, since the reapers are no longer a threat and the relays are gone, so I am assuming that i didnt have to make any real choices in the game to get the final scenario that would always be the same.


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.

Well like I stated before, I cant really make the assumption that Organic life will be safe, at least not the ones Ive gotten to know, since because of the destruction of the Mass relays, most are relegated to if not Genocide, to a very grim future.

 

[boag]

What made you feel so satisfied?

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

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?

from what I have gathered, lots of people have been "Filling in the Blanks" on what happens after the credits roll, I wanted to ascertain if people can come up with a description of what happens in the End without relying on suppositions, because personally I find myself digging into the Lore to try and make sense of it all and to reach logical conclusions of what happens to the rest of the Galaxy after the relays blow up.

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.

I would disagree, mainly because the entirety of the Game is pay off to the many decisions you made during the first 2, curing the Genophage, making peace between the Quarians and Geth, who is alive and who is dead, who helps you to build the Crucible and who doesnt, all these events are guided by the many decisions that the player takes

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:

given the difficulty to raise enough EMS to Get the Green Ending, where does it fall in your perspective?

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.[/quote]

You wouldnt prefer an Epilogue that Details how the end event affects the choices you made?

 

[II Scarecrow II]

Unfortunately this is mostly impossible. A big part of many endings are you filling in the blanks for yourself. I could guess or speculate on many of those based off of details, but ultimately they would be only conjecture and you will have to interpret events for yourself. Lots of things don't end with details spelled out for you.

Really? So I make a list of things that demonstrate:

1. Characters abruptly acting contrary to their established personalities.
2. Things happening out of sequence/unexplained events.
3. Things that are actually logically/rationally impossible.

And your response is "lots of things don't end with the details spelled out for you".

That's great. No, you're right. That's an excellent ending.

I agree, the problem is not that ending left stuff to the imagination, but rather that it left far too many gaps in the story that no ordinary player can piece it together to form a coherent idea. TO be honest, I wouldn't be overtly fussed with the three endings if it actually made sense, and a decent bit of epilogue at least filled in a few more of the blanks with a cutscene or even a wall of text explaining what had happened to the Normandy crew, the fleet fighting for Earth or even the rest of the damned galaxy! On my first playthrough, I went and switched from Synthesis to Destroy to see if maybe another ending explained anything better, but they were virtually identical, barring a different explosion and some green lines on Joker's face. Any of those endings would be fine if the consequences were actually visible, for example if you take the destroy option, perhaps Stargazer isn't talking to his son because they have all been wiped out by a new race of synthetics.

Individually, the endings for ME3 are not bad, it's just that there isn't enough closure for anything that we have done throughout the entire series.

 

[boag]

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.

Thats actually an interesting POV that I had never considered.

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.

Um, doesnt the Dune Series end with Children of Dune, where Pauls Son has become a Giant God Worm, and after a bunch of incredibly convoluted yet well crafted events he breaks the Future sight and dependance on the spice by making Duncans Heritage a part of every living being?

 

[tautologico]

Ok, some of my answers here. I don't love the ending, but I don't think it is terrible, and the problem to me is more in execution than in idea. I don't have a problem with the actual ending, I mean, just with the whole explanation for the cycle.

Can you please explain why you liked it?

What made you feel so satisfied?

I like the idea of the ending. The Reaper cycle was huge in importance and scale, in relation to individual beings. It had gone on for millions of years. It made much more sense that for the cycle to end, the galaxy had to undergo a radical change, instead of an "Independence Day"-like ending where the bad guys die and the good guys all hug and go on with their lives. This "Independence Day" ending would also turn the Crucible into the huge Deus Ex Machina it appears to be when we find out about it right in the beginning of ME3 (the Mars mission). The ending as it is defuses this quite nicely.

As I said, I don't exactly like how these ideas were executed, for two main reasons:

1) the reaper cycle explanation

If you understand this correctly, it's not as stupid as people say it is. Take a look at Gabe's (of Penny Arcade) post [http://penny-arcade.com/2012/03/14/mass-effect-3-ending-spoiler-warning] to see why the cycle makes some sense. Even then, it's still a weak explanation, and completely devoid of anything interesting to say about synthetic life or anything else. I thought Mass Effect treated the whole synthetic life stuff reasonably well up until the ending. Yes, they used some well-known tropes like the "robot who wishes to know what it means to be human", but it still was a bit better than I expected. Then they decided to make it the most important thing in the end, to make it the "theme" of the Shepard story, so to say, and used such a poor explanation for it. Not very good.

2) the tone shift

Yes, it's something that didn't bother me very much but the game suddenly changes tone drastically from a mostly-straight space opera tale to a much more symbolic and metaphysical stuff in the ending. This is further complicated by the fact that they don't do this latter stuff all that well. There are hints of this change in the game: the dream sequences (which unfortunately are quite generic and uninteresting), and some conversations with Garrus point to the general "the needs of the many over the needs of a few" theme that is there in the ending. You don't get to know how the characters end up, but you know the fate of the galaxy, and that's what was really at stake in the final battle, not the individual stories. However, they could have pulled off this tone change better, and maybe less people would be angry with the ending. (Not everyone though; I think many people were expecting the Independence Day ending.)

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

Follow up question, Why?

I should have made a Poll >_>

None of the above. I'd like overall improvements in how the story is told (nothing too dramatic, but little things that better pave the way for the ending) AND a better view on the whole synthetics-vs-organics instead of the simplistic reason for the reaper cycle.

However, in the end, I don't think this ending ruins what has come before in the games. I see it as a beautiful ending trapped inside a clunky execution. Overall, I'm satisfied with it, though I don't think is great and I do understand why some people don't like it.

 

[Exocet]

Leaving the plotholes, loopholes and other crazy space baby things aside, I found the endings "meh" at best simply because none of them offered satisfaction.
There is no end boss, the game just throws lazily at you a bunch of bullshit enemies that take a lot of fire.
Fight with Saren in ME1? Awesome. Feels easy at first, then cybernetic frog with rocket launchers. The ending? Sovereign dies, mission accomplished. There are more, but initial mission accomplished.

Fight with Reaper in ME2? Silly, but grandiose. It felt like an end boss, everything about it felt like an end boss. The ending? Collectors are destroyed, you know what the Reapers are planning and how they roll, mission accomplished.

ME3? Yeah, throw a couple brute, a few banshees and there you go, a final fight. Lame. The endings?
Either you kill an synthetics, but you'll die later on because more will be created. Basically, you win, but only for a given amount of time, also, your friend, and allies are dead. Have fun. Mission accomplished, but not really.
Or, you become the Reaper's master, and they still live. Mission fucking failed. Not only are they still alive, but you are now a monstrosity.
Lastly, organics and synthetics are fused. Reapers still live, all mass relays explode. Assuming those explosions didn't kill billions....WHAT? Mission fucking failed again, you died, Reapers are still there, but at least there is no more distinction between organics and synthetics. Yeah, that's all great, until you realise Space Baby is fucking stupid and uses circular logic, so the chances of Reapers coming back to kill everything is roughly 110% Oh, and galactic civilisation cannot communicate past their star system, because of a lack of mass relay. Cherry on top of the cake.


Either way, organic life is fucked, in 2/3 of the cases, your goal over the course of the triology to stop the Reapers from galactic genocide failed. Yeah, they leaves a sour aftertaste.

 

[boag]

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.

if the story ends with the Character, and stuff is supposed to be left up to the imagination, wouldnt it make more sense to have shep die along with Anderson and Scrub the Entire final choice? I would have literally preferred that.

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.

but you dont know what happens to them, you assume they dont die, but without and epilogue its literally open to personal interpretation what happens.

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.]

how do we know Joker and EDI havent been changed? I mean there is literally nothing besides a hand holding scene that gives any sense of a clue as to what happens

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.

This last question is an exercise in analysis, I havent been able do this myself, without assuming that everything the Kid AI said was true, I dont know if it was a bold face lie just to get me to choose one or the other, and the series had already preyed on my naivete a couple of times before.

Ok, some of my answers here. I don't love the ending, but I don't think it is terrible, and the problem to me is more in execution than in idea. I don't have a problem with the actual ending, I mean, just with the whole explanation for the cycle.

Can you please explain why you liked it?

What made you feel so satisfied?

I like the idea of the ending. The Reaper cycle was huge in importance and scale, in relation to individual beings. It had gone on for millions of years. It made much more sense that for the cycle to end, the galaxy had to undergo a radical change, instead of an "Independence Day"-like ending where the bad guys die and the good guys all hug and go on with their lives. This "Independence Day" ending would also turn the Crucible into the huge Deus Ex Machina it appears to be when we find out about it right in the beginning of ME3 (the Mars mission). The ending as it is defuses this quite nicely.

As I said, I don't exactly like how these ideas were executed, for two main reasons:

1) the reaper cycle explanation

If you understand this correctly, it's not as stupid as people say it is. Take a look at Gabe's (of Penny Arcade) post [http://penny-arcade.com/2012/03/14/mass-effect-3-ending-spoiler-warning] to see why the cycle makes some sense. Even then, it's still a weak explanation, and completely devoid of anything interesting to say about synthetic life or anything else. I thought Mass Effect treated the whole synthetic life stuff reasonably well up until the ending. Yes, they used some well-known tropes like the "robot who wishes to know what it means to be human", but it still was a bit better than I expected. Then they decided to make it the most important thing in the end, to make it the "theme" of the Shepard story, so to say, and used such a poor explanation for it. Not very good.

2) the tone shift

Yes, it's something that didn't bother me very much but the game suddenly changes tone drastically from a mostly-straight space opera tale to a much more symbolic and metaphysical stuff in the ending. This is further complicated by the fact that they don't do this latter stuff all that well. There are hints of this change in the game: the dream sequences (which unfortunately are quite generic and uninteresting), and some conversations with Garrus point to the general "the needs of the many over the needs of a few" theme that is there in the ending. You don't get to know how the characters end up, but you know the fate of the galaxy, and that's what was really at stake in the final battle, not the individual stories. However, they could have pulled off this tone change better, and maybe less people would be angry with the ending. (Not everyone though; I think many people were expecting the Independence Day ending.)

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

Follow up question, Why?

I should have made a Poll >_>

None of the above. I'd like overall improvements in how the story is told (nothing too dramatic, but little things that better pave the way for the ending) AND a better view on the whole synthetics-vs-organics instead of the simplistic reason for the reaper cycle.

However, in the end, I don't think this ending ruins what has come before in the games. I see it as a beautiful ending trapped inside a clunky execution. Overall, I'm satisfied with it, though I don't think is great and I do understand why some people don't like it.

Oh I Sincerely agree with most of your points, The moment the Crucible is introduced at the very beginning of the game I felt a bit let down, because I thought the main focus of the game would be to run around getting the magic pieces to make it work, I was kind of Glad that it needed the combined industrial might of the Galactic powers to get it finished, but was once again disappointed by the idea that The Alliance could complete it on its own without further assistance.

 

[tautologico]

Lastly, organics and synthetics are fused. Reapers still live, all mass relays explode. Assuming those explosions didn't kill billions....WHAT? Mission fucking failed again, you died, Reapers are still there, but at least there is no more distinction between organics and synthetics. Yeah, that's all great, until you realise Space Baby is fucking stupid and uses circular logic, so the chances of Reapers coming back to kill everything is roughly 110% Oh, and galactic civilisation cannot communicate past their star system, because of a lack of mass relay. Cherry on top of the cake.

No. Reapers will not kill everything anymore because every living being now is synthetic and organic, including the Reapers. The cycle does not exist anymore. The logic is not circular. The explanation is shaky and not very interesting, but it makes some sense, and the synthesis ending effectively ends the cycle forever.

Communication in the galaxy is not completely based on mass relays. Quantum entanglement communication is based on the quantum entanglement phenomenon and doesn't depend on relays. Deactivation of the relays probably won't kill everyone, a being with such power as to make them has to have built into them a safe deactivation procedure (bit of an assumption there, but a safe one).

Also, people still have FTL travel, so it is possible to travel to other places in the galaxy, although slower than before. Some quick calculations based on a diameter of 120 thousand light-years for the milky way and information from the Mass Effect wiki that says that a FTL ship can travel roughly 12 light-years in a day says that people can travel in their ships, from one point of the galaxy to the other, in about 27 years. A long time, but well inside a human lifespan, and enough to establish trade routes between closer places.

It must also be considered that after the whole thing the races in the galaxy have far more knowledge about reaper tech and it may be possible to recreate the relays in some decades (another assumption, also safe).

So there, it's not that terrible. People whose Shepard survived in the end can still hope he will find Liara someday

 

[FFHAuthor]

Thats actually an interesting POV that I had never considered.

Yeah...I try, sometimes I succeed. All I hear is 'the ending is great!' or 'the ending is awful', not giving any real context about how they played. SirBrighty's description of his playthrough begins to make people enjoying or accepting the end seem more reasonable, but it does make me feel that the end was geared towards resolving a 'loss and sacrifice' playthrough and didn't allow for a 'triumph over adversity' ending, tone wise that is.

 

[Seneschal]

sneeeep

When I finished the game, I just had a feeling that the ending could have been done in more detail, but it didn't bother me. It's only after I've read indepth analyses of the ending that I've realized just how much better it could be.

In theory, it's not a bad idea - the notion of sacrifice fits the tone of the installment. The mass relays were traps, no matter how helpful they are, and the citadel races were slowly advancing beyond them; let's not forget that Matriarch Aetheyta campaigned for building their own relays, which means that the principles of operation of the relays are understood, though not perfectly, and replacing them is feasible, if not easy. Also, the galactic races have an FTL propulsion method twice as fast as Star Trek's Warp drive, and you don't see Starfleet officials whining how they're all doomed to eternal isolation. The only reason the galaxy hasn't advanced beyond any of those technologies is that the relays were convenient. Removing them is a setback, but frees the galactic species from Reaper-mandated technological development, and makes them less complacent and more eager to try new methods of travel, possibly expanding the galactic community to all the systems that were bereft of a nearby relay.

I don't think the endings should be made happier just for the sake of levity - I think a tragic ending can be just as effective and provide as much closure and resolution for the player - HOWEVER, since we're talking about an interactive medium and a particularly choice-heavy game, it's silly to even generalize that all endings should be this or that. The problem is that the endings are so set in stone (regardless of past choices, preparation, EMS score and superficial differences in colour) that they rob the player of the feeling that it's his personal ending. Effectively, the game doesn't "end", it just stops.

As for the plot reveal in the last few minutes, it's thematically dissonant. It's not bad in any way - in fact, it's the plot of Battlestar Galactica, where it's wondrously executed! However, it makes no sense in ME.

 

[Exocet]

snip

No. Reapers will not kill everything anymore because every living being now is synthetic and organic, including the Reapers. The cycle does not exist anymore. The logic is not circular. The explanation is shaky and not very interesting, but it makes some sense, and the synthesis ending effectively ends the cycle forever.

Communication in the galaxy is not completely based on mass relays. Quantum entanglement communication is based on the quantum entanglement phenomenon and doesn't depend on relays. Deactivation of the relays probably won't kill everyone, a being with such power as to make them has to have built into them a safe deactivation procedure (bit of an assumption there, but a safe one).

Also, people still have FTL travel, so it is possible to travel to other places in the galaxy, although slower than before. Some quick calculations based on a diameter of 120 thousand light-years for the milky way and information from the Mass Effect wiki that says that a FTL ship can travel roughly 12 light-years in a day says that people can travel in their ships, from one point of the galaxy to the other, in about 27 years. A long time, but well inside a human lifespan, and enough to establish trade routes between closer places.

It must also be considered that after the whole thing the races in the galaxy have far more knowledge about reaper tech and it may be possible to recreate the relays in some decades (another assumption, also safe).

So there, it's not that terrible. People whose Shepard survived in the end can still hope he will find Liara someday

The space baby's logic is circular. Create synthetics to kill organics in order to keep synthetics from killing organics.
And why do you think Reapers would not come back after the green endings? If space baby killed trillions with only a flaky argument, what makes you think he wouldn't use them again? Hybrid life forms trying to get rid of one part of the DNA? SEND IN THE REAPERS!

To your second point, unless the quantum entanglement comm device can wisp up food and supplies anywhere in th galaxy, organics are fucked. Also, the relays exploded, we saw what happens during relay explosions. Saying "oh, but it's different this time!" doesn't make it true. The relay exploded with enough force to catch up with a ship going at FTL speeds and knock it out of space.
Next up, 27 years is a long time. Really, really long. A salarian could barely survive a trip across the galaxy, a human would see a fifth of his life gone. There is no way you can establish proper trade channels under such conditions.

You last assumption is WILD speculation, and I cannot argue against it, simply because there is nothing to argue with. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Either way, best case scenario, all the Turians and Quarians flying over Earth are dead from starvation, the Salarians are all dead due to their short lifespan. All the colonists that depended on off-planet supplies are dead. Oh, and Shepard is dead.
That makes for a lot of uncertainties and a very grim universe.

 

[Ren_Li]

Why did I like the ending. Hm.

Er, cue spoilers just so nobody can complain, although I'm sure everyone will be expecting it!

At first I didn't. I hated it. HAAAATE. But then I was browsing videos on it, and, well... There was one which completely turned my thoughts around by introducing a new perspective. I'd summarise, but honestly, it'd be better if you just watched it! Long story short, it discusses a lot of the "WTF?" plot-hole-ish moments in the ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDSwW7jflAQ

There were a few more. Like the fact that the only ending that accomplishes your goal is Destruction- but the God-Child tried to discourage you, tried to make it sound bad. Geth, EDI, and Shepard all die, for a peace which would not last? OH GEE RANDOM AI, LET ME TAKE YOUR WORD ON THAT. Additionally, if you take that option, notice how the God-Child immediately dissipates, and Shepard gets stronger by the second; no longer staggering, standing straight, standing strong, being focussed and determined. Hm.
The other choices, Shepard either attempts something which would not be possible, or basically lies down and goes "oh, synthesis? What the Reapers were trying to do all along? GOOD IDEA!" And if you do that, the God-Child watches, and appears to smirk.
Another interesting thing I noticed was the black tendrils at the edge of the screen- which is mentioned in the video- show up when Sovereign possesses Saren's corpse at the end of ME1.
And lastly, there's the "secret" ending, a ten-second (or something) clip which is only available if you take the Destruction path. It shows Shepard's body (at least, it's extremely likely to be Shepard) buried in concrete and rubble, taking a breath as soldiers advance towards his/her position. In other words, Earth- it's definitely not the Citadel or anywhere else.

Okay, in case you're not following what my point is... I don't think Shepard ever made it to the Citadel. Everything after the explosion is extremely WTF-ish. Basically, the end we're seeing? It's not the end. It can't be. I think Bioware is going to release the "real" end once the fans have had time to (hopefully) come to that conclusion.
Everything that happens after the explosion is the result of the Reaper's attempting to indoctrinate Shepard. They try to convince him/her that the answer to peace is NOT stopping the Reapers, they try to get him to agree with the Illusive Man, they try to dissolve his hope by watching his old friend and father figure die. Everything that we see is Shepard's "indoctrination", the Reapers attempting to take hold; his visions, what they want him to see, what he wants to see. The ending we see isn't about stopping the Reapers from destroying everything.
It's about trying to stop the Reapers from taking hold in Shepard's mind. The rest? I think that comes later. Hopefully when (and I honestly believe it IS a "when") Bioware releases DLC to finish this story, it will be free. Because I can understand why they would want to FORCE fans to wrap their heads around this before they continue, to literally have to overcome the "indoctrination", to make that effort themselves. And the only way to do so, that I can see, is to remove access to the "real" ending, the continuation, for a little while.

That's what I believe the ending is about. It's ballsy, it's clever, and it's a HUGE risk. But if I'm right, and if Bioware releases the follow-up to it (and that is good), then I'll also say that I LOVE it.

 

[Undeadpool]

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?

I am not making this thread to bash or insult, or inflame, I just honestly want to know, how you relate to the ending, and why you like it and feel satisfied by it.

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

Follow up question, Why?

I should have made a Poll >_>

I don't think interpreting the ending is "making assumptions." People behaving in ways that they shouldn't, concrete facts being incorrect, surrealism and bizarre imagery ALL point to it being a dream. I liked the ending before I heard this theory, but simply cutting out my ability to interpret the ending keeps me from explaining WHY I loved it.

But aside from that: I liked the ending BECAUSE it was so open to interpretation. And because I felt, and maybe this is personal, that that IS how my Shepard would go. The ending I chose wasn't the "happiest" one, which was my initial choice, but then I really thought. I sat and I thought about what SHEPARD, not me, would do. The fact that this game made me think "What would this fictional character do in this fictional situation?" is absolutely stunning. No game has ever done that before.