Mass Effect 3: Saving the Galaxy one last time

[Lambonius]

Finished it last night with a pure Paragon Shepherd.

Before you get annoyed at people who are irritated over the ending, I invite you to read this very well-written editorial that makes several (five, to be exact) VERY good points about why the ending was a let-down.

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

I think it's really important to note that none of those points is related to the fact that the ending was bittersweet or that [spoiler]Shepherd dies in every variation.[/spoiler]  I think most players were prepared for that eventuality, especially since it was alluded to all throughout the final game.  I certainly was expecting it, something akin to [spoiler]the amazing ending of Red Dead Redemption.[/spoiler]  But unfortunately, that's not at all what we got.

I don't HATE the ending(s)--in fact, I really like the general CONCEPT of how it ends, but I think the execution was really badly botched.  The intentional ambiguity argument really doesn't play here either, because that's not really the problem--it's the fact that [spoiler]player choice doesn't matter--the player in no way shapes the way the story ends, since all three choices have more or less the same result.  Additionally, the lack of an epilogue that wraps up the stories of the incredibly well-developed secondary characters is very disappointing, given the depth of writing throughout the rest of the series.[/spoiler]

If I had to make a comparison in movie terms, what most players were expecting (and really, I think, what we deserved after all that time and money invested in the experience) was a Return of the King style ending--and what we got was a bit more like the ending of the original Karate Kid.

[Bludshot]

Yes I have seen that article.

[spoiler]It's okay.  Although I really don't think it has any business being upheld as the pinnacle of why the endings are bad.  The only points I concede to him are the few little odd plotholes, like the squad back on the Normandy.  But really Mass Effect, and many games and movies for that matter have weird plotholes like that, but i do admit the logistics of the whole squad hoping back on the Normandy are pretty goofy. 
But all his other points are a matter of personal preference or just plain wrong.  He completely misinterprets the Catalysts methods, he is not killing organics so much as he is limiting there chances of creating a scenario were organics are wiped out completely.  Yeah, kind of messed up but to AI...godthing it might make sense.  As far as the whole decision thing I made a post about that earlier.[/spoiler]

I think we can all agree RDR's ending is one of those few endings that goes above and beyond most every other game out there.  However could you elaborate what you mean when you expected Mass Effect to end like RDR? Because to me they are apples and oranges, a story of personal redemption versus a larger than life hero saving the galaxy.

[Lambonius]

What I meant about the comparison to RDR's ending is that [spoiler]I completely expected Shepherd to die in the end.  I figured that was pretty much a given by the time I had made it back to Earth.  What I love about RDR's ending that definitely doesn't happen in the ME3 ending is that all the loose ends are more or less nicely wrapped up.  RDR's ending was emotionally powerful, well-written, amazingly fleshed out, and left me both totally satisfied, but also wanting more.  

Like I said, I like the concept of Shepherd sacrificing himself to save the galaxy, and I even dig the whole concept of the god-like being controlling the Reapers and the whole life cycle of the galaxy.  I can handle that.  What really bugs me is the fact that the supposedly "intentional" (according to interviews with a few specific Bioware representatives) unanswered questions really come off as badly thought-out plotholes.  Like it or hate it, it's hard to argue that the ending wasn't poorly executed.  The plothole of the characters appearing on the Normandy is only the most obvious plothole.  

The more serious one, in my opinion, is the fact that previously in the ME fiction, it is clearly stated that destroying the Mass Relays would be akin to creating a supernova, which would destroy the surrounding system as well.  So if all Mass Relays are destroyed, so is every major developed civilization.  So what the heck was the point?  Earth wasn't saved after all--in fact, the whole Sol System would have been destroyed, as would the Turian's solar system, Quarian's solar system, etc. etc. etc.  So no matter what outcome you choose, the entire galaxy is still destroyed.  Period.

On top of that, if you allow for retconning the idea that destroying a Mass Relay creates a supernova, you still have destroyed all intergalactic travel.  So all species are just stranded in whatever system they were in.  And it has been also very clearly stated in previous ME fiction that many of the species can't live off the same food supplies.  So apparently they all just starve to death?

I mean, how can you look at that and not see it as blatantly bad, lazy writing--did they really INTEND all of those catastrophic implications?  I doubt it.  It comes off as though these factors hadn't been considered, which makes the ending feel especially cheap.

The most glaring issue, however, is the fact that contrary to what was advertized, player choices really have absolutely nothing to do with what kind of ending you get.  Each ending has the same consequences--destruction of galactic civilization, the same as just letting the Reapers win.

It just doesn't make sense at all.[/spoiler]

[Bludshot]

Okay I see the connection you were making with RDR.

I guess personally I am just okay not knowing.  Honestly I don't look at the issues you mentioned as plot problems so much as just another story to tell.  I could be wrong but my impression was that such problems were reserved for another day, another game.  Shepard's story is over and it was always his story first to being with.

Now obviously if they make another game in the ME universe and never acknowledge those issues, then yeah, I'll be peeved.

[spoiler]Have you looked at the indoctrination theory?  I'm always down for fan theories, especially in sci fi.[/spoiler]

[Fierce Deity]

[spoiler]I think you guys need to see this video.

He makes a good point, which Lamb also pointed out. This whole time you've been trying to unite the galaxy, you instead (despite your best intentions) spiral the entire universe into complete and utter destruction. I'll admit, I made my Shepard a jerk. He might have killed a few people who deserved it, and might have undermined Udina's (lack of) legislative control, but he was always there to save the galaxy first and foremost. He saved the Rachni Queen, helped the Krogan overcome the genophage, and attempted to unite the Quarians and the Geth to coexist with each other. Never was I planning on doing anything less than what was good for the galaxy. Now, despite my choices that I have made for my story, my Shepard has single-handedly screwed over everybody that stood up for him. I'm sorry, but the reason I hate that ending is because it forced my hand. I would not have chosen any one of those three options. They were all evil in their own respects.[/spoiler]

[Lambonius]

[spoiler]I read up on the Indoctrination Theory last night, and yeah--it's an interesting idea.  There seems to be enough evidence that it could actually be valid.  However, if it IS true, it's almost MORE horrible.  I mean, people get upset at the idea of Day 1 DLC, but ENDING DLC??  I mean, that is the definition of screwing the consumer.  "Here, buy our game, but if you want to see how it ends, you have to pay an extra 10 bucks!"  Good Lord.  Now, I've heard some speculation that some sort of ending DLC might be free--and Bioware has made a lot of cryptic comments to the effect of "wait til you see what we've got up our sleeves in the near future."  But still, what about people that don't have online connections?  There are plenty of people who never buy DLC, and don't even have internet connected to their systems.  If the Indoctrination Theory is true, and there is further endgame material coming, I think the whole concept of being sold an intentionally incomplete game would leave a much worse taste in my mouth than even the current terribly executed endings.  Oy.  It's seriously lose/lose--JUST LIKE THE THREE TERRIBLE f***ing ENDING CHOICES.  Grrrr.[/spoiler]

(Posted on: March 17, 2012, 03:02:45 PM)

Check this out:

*Spoiler warning for those who haven't finished the game.*

http://kotaku.com/5894186/mass-effects-producer-promises-well-keep-listening-and-new-content-that-brings-closure

Now personally, I think the writer of this little editorial is misreading Bioware's comments on the matter, because all they say is that there is new content coming in DLC form.  They DON'T specifically say that it will [spoiler]bring more closure to the ending.[/spoiler]

So who knows?

[Bludshot]

[spoiler]I think you guys need to see this video.

He makes a good point, which Lamb also pointed out. This whole time you've been trying to unite the galaxy, you instead (despite your best intentions) spiral the entire universe into complete and utter destruction. I'll admit, I made my Shepard a jerk. He might have killed a few people who deserved it, and might have undermined Udina's (lack of) legislative control, but he was always there to save the galaxy first and foremost. He saved the Rachni Queen, helped the Krogan overcome the genophage, and attempted to unite the Quarians and the Geth to coexist with each other. Never was I planning on doing anything less than what was good for the galaxy. Now, despite my choices that I have made for my story, my Shepard has single-handedly screwed over everybody that stood up for him. I'm sorry, but the reason I hate that ending is because it forced my hand. I would not have chosen any one of those three options. They were all evil in their own respects.[/spoiler]

Yes Lamb I read that article and I did notice Kotaku seemed to misinterpret what Hudson said, honestly I would rather they just acknowledge the problems that arise from the ending in the next (non-Shepard) game they make.  Plus Hudson has made it clear this was the ending he and the ME team wanted to make, I doubt he'd hijack his own project for some extra profit, Mass Effect DLC has always been supplemental, never really crucial to the story as a whole.

To Fierce

[spoiler]To say complete and utter destruction is, I think,  unfair.  The entire game makes it clear that the Crucible is a last ditch effort in the first place, the game is also clear that the no one has any idea what it will do.  Liara and Hackett both express their reservations about the Crucible, but acknowledge the fate of the galaxy comes down to either detonating an unknown super weapon or succumbing to the actual complete, utter destruction via the Reapers.  The Crucible is devastating, and whether the Mass Relays do destroy nearby systems or not (I realize they do when destroyed, but since we are talking about space magic it is entirely possible the Catalyst destroys them in a less horrid way) it is still preferable to the alternative.  The big picture is that the cycle is broken and the species of said cycle can continue to exist.

I too had a renegade Shepard, but I think offering a paragon/renegade ending would be kind of silly, since we know that both options would save the galaxy, wouldn't we pick the one that better serves that goal? Paragon/Renegade options work in the past because the future was still an unknown, not so with the end of the trilogy.  You are correct, the endings forced your hand, I think that was the point.  It wouldn't be the first time.  For all of ME2 you had to work for Cerberus, something none of us would elect to do, but they were the only ones willing it help at the time.[/spoiler]

And hey, just remember:

[spoiler]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA[/spoiler]

[Fierce Deity]

To Fierce

[spoiler]To say complete and utter destruction is, I think,  unfair.  The entire game makes it clear that the Crucible is a last ditch effort in the first place, the game is also clear that the no one has any idea what it will do.  Liara and Hackett both express their reservations about the Crucible, but acknowledge the fate of the galaxy comes down to either detonating an unknown super weapon or succumbing to the actual complete, utter destruction via the Reapers.  The Crucible is devastating, and whether the Mass Relays do destroy nearby systems or not (I realize they do when destroyed, but since we are talking about space magic it is entirely possible the Catalyst destroys them in a less horrid way) it is still preferable to the alternative.  The big picture is that the cycle is broken and the species of said cycle can continue to exist.

I too had a renegade Shepard, but I think offering a paragon/renegade ending would be kind of silly, since we know that both options would save the galaxy, wouldn't we pick the one that better serves that goal? Paragon/Renegade options work in the past because the future was still an unknown, not so with the end of the trilogy.  You are correct, the endings forced your hand, I think that was the point.  It wouldn't be the first time.  For all of ME2 you had to work for Cerberus, something none of us would elect to do, but they were the only ones willing it help at the time.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I agree on ME2 forcing my hand as well. I never liked Cerberus, but like you said, I was just taking advantage of a bad situation. I learned to hate the Illusive Man on a fundamental level. I never felt like Bioware tried to glorify Cerberus while ignoring the fact that they were the "bad guys" in the first game. I took it as "know thy enemy" lesson. It only made me hate Cerberus more.

I do however think justifying the existence of Reapers by saying, "Organic species will build synthetic life that will destroy organic life, so pre-existing synthetic life should wipe out the organic species that are willing to build synthetic life" explanation is the textbook definition of a "copout". The other thing that irked me was that the three different endings are not that different, and even if one would argue that they are, the game hardly dwells on any one decision to show how the galaxy develops well after Shepard is long gone.

I am content on Bioware keeping this ending. If anything, I would prefer it, because in the history of gaming, I don't recall a team having to withdraw an original ending to appease their whining fans. I do however believe that they made a mistake with the ending, and I think it's a mistake they will have to live with. I do agree that it's about the journey and all of the steps up to the finale, but the ending was a letdown. Very few people will remember a game for a pivotal moment that happened about 4 hours into the game, but an ending is always something to be remembered in a game. So it was a very crucial element to the story. It's not something you can just brush off.

I also apologize if I'm being too over-dramatic with my analysis. A lot of it is stimulated from discussion and objective theories that try to make sense of something that is illogical.  I do like the game for its gameplay. The multiplayer is exceptionally fun. Also, the story up to the ending was pretty good as well. It provided closure to a lot of the fan favorites, like Wrex and Legion. I guess I was just hoping that the ending to the trilogy was going to be bigger than itself, not just three generic endings that allow you to imagine what will happen.
[/spoiler]

[Lambonius]

The idea that a game ending cannot be changed after the fact via DLC is silly.  Not only CAN it be done, but it HAS been done already, and this generation, too.  Bethesda got tons of flack for a poorly thought-out ending to Fallout 3, so they changed it in the Broken Steel DLC.  That is to say, they didn't completely rewrite it, but they changed some of its mechanics to fix a few glaring plot holes AND to allow the player to live to fight another day.

The precedent has already been set.  Bioware can turn this situation around if they deem it economically feasible.  They don't have to completely rewrite the ending (though personally, I wouldn't mind that,) but because of the mechanics of this generation's content delivery systems (i.e. DLC,) they have a unique opportunity to CORRECT their mistake here--at the very least by filling in some of the glaring plot holes via some well-placed tweaks.

They should take advantage of this opportunity, not shirk it.

[Datadog]

There's profit to be made off of a new ending DLC, so it will be done. I've never seen this huge a backlash against an ending before. Even Fallout 3, to some extent, provided more character-appropriate outcomes.

I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind actually going ahead with this ending. It seems like the kind of thing that couldn't even make it past pre-viz. I'm positive the whole development team hated it too. At least one person with a lot of money and power had to be convinced that this was the best ending ever. (Does Bioware have their own Illusive Man?)

[Fierce Deity]

I'm thinking there was a method to their madness. There must have been something about the ending that stuck out to the team. According to all of the PR and damage control Bioware has been releasing, it sounds like they were disappointed that the ending was rejected by their fans, but another part seems like they saw it coming. I just don't know if they have something up their sleeve. After From Ashes, they had announced that the next DLC was going to be focused on the multiplayer.

As far as rewriting the ending, I would think that inadvisable. The ending that Mass Effect 3 has is already out there, it can't be withdrawn. Sure, Bethesda added an extension to a pretty horrible ending with Fallout 3, but they didn't really fix the ending either, they just replaced one bad ending with another bad ending.

I do hope that Bioware does something, but changing the ending from what it is to something different would require a slick maneuver to say the least. Best of luck to them, but I'm also willing to just accept the ending for what it is. I just want to hear what Bioware has to say on the matter.

[Cez]

the second one had the god-awful planet scanning,

Whoever thought this was a good idea should be made to scan all the planets in a row while sitting on a pool of acid, naked, in Alaska. What a freaking annoying system!!!

[Blackthorne]

I don't see what the big deal is.  Sometimes life is one big disappointment.  It's what you get for buying a game from a conglomerate production company.  Basically, it's saying "Hey!  Thanks for your money, a*******!  That's life!  Sucks to be you!"

And you know what - they're right!


Bt

[Bludshot]

Well apparently they are going to do...something...with the ending. http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is-working-on-a-modified-mass-effect-3-ending

Did it ever occur to these people that a DLC ending might suck?  I see Broken Steel used as an example of a positive change, and in the sense it raised the level cap, added new perks and enemies, removed the feature of an open ended game from abruptly ending, yes it was.  From a story perspective it was bland and unnecessary.

So now they are going add 'closure' and I still don't understand what that even means, do we really need some uninspired epilogue paragraph that tells me Garrus went on to become a primarch and meet a nice turian lady?

[spoiler]Contrary to what seems to the accepted truth among these Retake Mass Effect people, I think Bioware is well aware of the problems that arise from the Mass Relays being destroyed, and their demand is that Bioware pull something technobabble solution out of their ass to explain it away?  And they want to PAY for that?[/spoiler]

[Datadog]

My problem with the Broken Steel DLC in "Fallout 3" is that I actually do like seeing a game have an actual end (an achievable goal that defines when I should actually stop playing), and the game doesn't offer much in terms of being able to player-author your own ending. The closest I could come up was walking back to Megaton, selling all my equipment and quietly retiring to my house with my dog.

As for ME3,

[spoiler]The biggest thing I expected out of the ending was a tally of consequences made by my choices throughout the series. It doesn't make sense that the game has been carefully scoring and calculating all my decisions up until the final, most critical, moment.

Otherwise, all three endings are the same - they still have Shepard mindlessly suicide-bombing the galaxy. That's a straight-up Renegade move. There has to be a better solution to that. In these games, there always was.[/spoiler]

[Lambonius]

I think the main thing that needs to happen is that [spoiler]they need to add some way for Shepherd to challenge the Star Child's "3-options-that-all-result-in-complete-destruction-of-the-civilized-galaxy" as being bullshit.  Even if Shepherd dies, which is totally fine (and honestly, expected), there needs to be a possible ending where all civilizations in the galaxy aren't wiped out, which is what each of the three current choices does.  As it stands, the only known survivors of the current Mass Effect 3 endings are the crew of the Normandy that we see exit the ship at the end.[/spoiler]

(Posted on: March 21, 2012, 04:42:18 PM)

I don't see what the big deal is.  Sometimes life is one big disappointment.  It's what you get for buying a game from a conglomerate production company.  Basically, it's saying "Hey!  Thanks for your money, a*******!  That's life!  Sucks to be you!"

And you know what - they're right!


Bt

Bt, I want you to imagine, for a moment, that at the end of King's Quest 5, just before Graham's family is rescued, Cedric's evil twin brother appears, kills Graham, destroys all life in all of the different lands of King's Quest, and then breaks each member of the royal family's legs so they can never make it back to Daventry.

(Posted on: March 21, 2012, 04:45:01 PM)

Oh, and also, you'd been playing King's Quest 5 off and on for the past 5 years.

[Bludshot]

I don't think the phrase "apples and oranges" has ever been more appropriate than for comparing Mass Effect and King's Quest.

[Fierce Deity]

I don't think the phrase "apples and oranges" has ever been more appropriate than for comparing Mass Effect and King's Quest.

Still, Lamb makes an excellent point. When disappointment strikes, do you know where you'll be? It's unavoidable, and it sucks all the same.

I don't see what the big deal is.  Sometimes life is one big disappointment.  It's what you get for buying a game from a conglomerate production company.  Basically, it's saying "Hey!  Thanks for your money, a*******!  That's life!  Sucks to be you!"

And you know what - they're right!


Bt

Luckily, I haven't bought Mass Effect 3 yet, mainly cause I was waiting for it to be released on Steam (despite the fact that EA is reluctant for the inevitable maneuver). But being a fan of the series and loving the quality of the first two games, I'm now stuck in the same ditch without a conclusion to my beloved trilogy. It's like Star Wars without Return of the Jedi, or Lord of the Rings without Return of the King. I already said I would accept the crappy ending, but it'd be nice to know that a better ending can come about, one way or another.

I only wish that Bioware can eventually provide a sale for their DLC. The amount of DLC for Mass Effect 2 is vast and unreasonably priced. I bought Mass Effect 2 for $5, and all of the DLC can easily exceed the original retail price of the game at $60. If Bioware made their DLC more appealing to buyers (not just the gamers), then they could probably get away with charging the players for a DLC that includes a "real" ending.

(Posted on: March 21, 2012, 09:57:46 PM)

[spoiler]This is an interesting read. Whether it's true or not, it begs the question, is it even worth trying to fix an ending when the team may have been undermined by a pretentious, stubborn lead? If this were true, the writing staff would be more the victim than anybody. Clearly, they would have been able to stop the crappy ending from being released, but they were ignored.[/spoiler]

[Datadog]

It's like Star Wars without Return of the Jedi, or Lord of the Rings without Return of the King.

It feels more to me like sitting through the entire "Lord of the Rings" trilogy just to see the ending to "Matrix Reloaded".

That article is an interesting read, however. Sometimes, development teams are at the mercy of one person. Just think of all the people who worked on "The Phantom Menace". Nobody would dare butt heads with George Lucas back then.

[Fierce Deity]

It's like Star Wars without Return of the Jedi, or Lord of the Rings without Return of the King.

It feels more to me like sitting through the entire "Lord of the Rings" trilogy just to see the ending to "Matrix Reloaded".

That article is an interesting read, however. Sometimes, development teams are at the mercy of one person. Just think of all the people who worked on "The Phantom Menace". Nobody would dare butt heads with George Lucas back then.

But don't you think in hindsight that it may have been a good idea? We might have been able to cut Jar Jar Binks out of the movie. Could you imagine what a glorious moment that would be for all of us?