Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

johnscott10 wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:minus the plot holes. Its still a fanastic game.... Unlike fear 3.

Ill agree to that, though I never played Fear 3

Fear 3. Is a crime against humanity and for ruining one of the best horror games. Never before was I so disappointed. (Game physics, slow-mo = pyschic powers when in fact it was stated that it was actually because he was given a certain type of steriods, then he was played with, they killed a major character, they made a romance with one of the fear members, WHO HAD DIED. They ignored fear 2 reborn with fettel and is his massive army somehow disappearing, If you want plot holes play Fear, fear 2, Fear 2 Reborn then play fear 3. Then you can talk about real plot holes. Fettel had an army, and when did everyone have any of stuff with archmacam? Their black-ops were slaughtered, they don't have the man power. They replaced it with mercs, yet all of them look and sound the same. Unlike in fear 2 where each one was a freaking menance you could hear them planning and they also provided some comic relief. Plus it wasn't scary, it was funny. Funny.... It turned into Scream and Saw. It was horrible )

Now back on to ME3
Me3 cannot be given the grim failure that we call fear 3. I am sorry but as an actual potential game designer. ME3 is still a great game.

Well, I don't really care about Fear 3, I haven't played Fear 3 and probably won't.

This thread is about ME3's horrible, nonsensical, ridiculous ending.

If you'd like to make a thread about how ME3 is a good game, because it is a good 'game', then go ahead; but that isn't what we are discussing in here.

Storytelling at particular points in ME3, I felt were poorly crafted, mostly in regards to the galaxy-saving-macguffin(unless it actually ended the way I said before, as in the macguffin was a lure to get all the galaxy's species military's in one place at one time); but overall I thought it was adequately strong.

Also, the opening sequence is very poorly done; and Reapers as big stompy robots... effective narratively and emotionally, doesn't really make sense with their fictional portrayal.

ME3's lack of any real difference between the endings was probably the biggest let down for me; the way it didn't matter what you did in any of the 3 games or how you played, you got pretty much exactly the same choice of 3 almost identical endings. Which had no relation to what you had done.

I was with the ending up until the - I quite enjoyed the sense of having fought to the very end and having given your all.



The first ending that I chose was the "best" option that I could for the character that I had been playing 3 games as but even then it was not something that I felt she would actually do. I'd avoided everything to do with discussions of ME3's endings, so I did not know anything about them other than people were apparently unhappy and I quite enjoyed the whole feel, even though it again made no sense.

Then I played through the whole ending section again (why not just put us straight in front of the colours again since the rest of the ending is irrelevant?) to see the other coloured endings and well... was less than impressed.

I think only people who played from the first ME to the last can understand why people hated the end so much.

Polvilhovoador wrote:I think only people who played from the first ME to the last can understand why people hated the end so much.

Probably quite true.

I played ME 1-3 as soon as they came out. I've preached that as soon as I beat ME2 it was the best RPG made possibly ever, and certainly the best in 10 years.

It was really just bs that all your choices are essentially irrelevant in the ending sequence. What you did really did not matter, and it all ended up being linear in the end because only ONE of those endings can really be true.

"I must send my synthetics to kill you so the synthetics you build will not kill you"

"But I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth! Synthetics and non-synthetics helping and living with each other after decades of war!"

"...now choose a color."

Asherian Command wrote:[quote.

Too many people are focused on getting that perfect ending. The best ending is having earth survive and the human race to continue. The entire point of the series was to defeat the reapers. Not have shepherd run off into the sunset with tali or who ever your romance was with.

That is extremely cliche to do to this series. I give them a thumbs up for actually taking the time to get away from the stupid over done endings of everyone is happy and the hero is still alive.

If you think you can write better than please send your transcript to Bioware. But they will probably say no immediately. Writing takes time and patience. The store for Mass Effect doesn't end with Shepherd, there are more characters and many more people's stories that haven't been told yet.

So my question is why all the hate? "Well the ending is bad! It didn't fix plotholes, it didn't let me have a hollywood ending, I wanted my crew back :( " Well Sadly mate its not in the game. Stop hoping for it, because Bioware has already said that won't happen. Its Their game. Not yours.

Is it a crime to like it?

How is it cliche to make a game have a happy ending? Having just finished reading mechanicum I really think you're creating some imaginary stereotype. I knew the game was dark and morbidly depressing throughout but I expected the game to lift you from the despair at the end; which is what they actually did. Only Shephard died in that ending. The problem was that they stripped any character from the final sequence. ME was a character story first and foremost. The fact the ending was totally stripped of those elements was instantly gaulling. Also Shephards death wasn't the problem; its how he died that was the problem. He didn't get a good death like Anderson. Instead he died for a silly and contrived reason which defied common sense. It became about abstract sci-fi which is not to everyones tastes at all; even if it had been good the detached manner in which it was handled just made the whole thing fall flat. This isn't about 'perfection' its about simply having a good ending. Plus, that ending is arguably just as cliche and was meant to reference various sci-fi films such as Star Trek or 2001 Space Odyssey. They certainly tried to capture the spirit of those films. Unfortunately, as i said before Bioware didn't realise that some sci-fi just isn't to everyones taste and shoving it in your face at such a critical moment as the ending was not going to go down well with most gamers. Hence the confusion and WTF response.

So what you're saying is that I as a consumer have no right to say I dislike certain elements of a game which I've paid money for? Unless of course I'am a trained writer from Harverd?

Hate doesn't come into it, disappointment is what comes into it.

I do love ME3 but that doesn't change my dislike of an ending that should have been epic and a satisfactory conclusion. If i don't get to be with Tali on Rannoch so be it. Also, I did this topic to ask people who did like the game why they liked the game. So far most of the posters are either one line statements that they liked it or simple slander against people who dislike the ending. What specifically are the reasons that you thought it was good other than a simple Shep got a good send off or this ending was meaningful, or well theres worse endings out there?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polvilhovoador wrote:I think only people who played from the first ME to the last can understand why people hated the end so much.

No you can easily criticise the ending on its own merits even divorced from the established events of prior games. Its as if they deliberately tried to make you go 'What? What? What? What?' as every scene past Andersons death just gets inexplicably weird or non-sensical. My first impressions were very much divorced from the whole moral contradictions and you can't convince the catalyst arguments I've made. I even sent a message to my friend in Alabama that 'the choices weren't the problem but the lack of an epilogue'; to which his response was 'f.a.g'. My biggest gripes were lack of an epilogue, the stripping of character and the unneccesary plot-holes especially regarding the Normandy. Better that they had all died. Seriously, I would rather have had everyone of them die getting to that beam than serve them up to prove some pointless half-baked sci-fi philosophy.

Shepard dying and having the Reapers emerge victorious would have been a better ending.

I can't believe someone would actually even attempt to argue that it is a 'realistic ending'. Really, introducing a super weapon in the third installment of the trilogy and then in the final 15 minutes introducing the god AI that created the Reapers is realistic?

A realistic ending would be:

1) Reapers winning.
2) Reapers being defeated conventionally.
3) Reapers being defeated unconventionally, without using a 'super weapon'.

As to it being a planned trilogy, well what exactly was the point of ME2 in the context of a trilogy? They didn't really add anything to the story.

Totalwar1402 wrote:* They wanted to reference that theme of sci-fi in films like 2001 A Space Odyssy, Star Trek the Motion Picture (esp) and the Matrix. God is a machine, trans-humanism etc. Casey Hudsons comments very much hinted at his desire to encourage speculation. He probably really believed he needed a cult ending to justify his game becoming a classic. Even if the theme goes over peoples heads, the sense you're doing something of collossal importance will still come through.

The plot of Mass Effect is one of tired space opera cliches. Having 1/3 of the endings be a preachy concept that was old when Cyberpunk was new isn't a winner either (Transhumanism isn't new, not by a long shot. And it's far from "only able to be understood by intellectuals.". The real strength of the Mass Effect series, in my opinion, was in the writing that went into the characters and the world. Things fit together so nicely, that the story flowed well, and the audience got to know and care about the characters in the game.

And there is a difference between "referencing a theme" and ham-fisting a round theme into a square hole. If this is what you truly think they were attempting, surely you must recognize that it was done about as poorly as possible.

Totalwar1402 wrote:*It wraps up the whole organic/synthetic dilema which has ran throughout the series. It is thus a suitable way to conclude the series.

It really doesn't, in fact there's no real "wrap up" to the endings at all, but I'll touch on this further down.

Totalwar1402 wrote:*it certainly amounts to a big shock. The shock factor works well in games like Halo and ME1 with the discovery sovereign is a reaper. Just as you thought everything was wrapped up OMG.

Again, there is a difference here. Take a horror movie for example. Horror Movie A has a genuinely creepy moment that scares the bejeebus out of you. Horror Movie B "scares" you by using a "jump scare". That does not mean Horror Movie B accomplished the "scare" anywhere near as well as Horror Movie A did.

So, shock from a well delivered story point is widely accepted as awesome. Shock from prematurely cutting the screen to black after a minimum of poor exposition is not.

Totalwar1402 wrote:*Bioware like to have a bit of morally grey in its stories. Having you find out the reapers were actually trying to do a good thing by keeping order in the galaxy is a big game-changer n more deep than the evil insane robots everyone assumes they are.

Sure, I get that. And it can be done quite well. But that isn't what happened here.

Consider one of the classic sins of bad writing, commonly found in pulp detective/mystery novels: Introducing a new character in the last few pages of the book without any real foreshadowing. Why is it bad? Because it's artificially jarring, makes little sense, and opens ridiculous plot holes. It has commonly been used to either get the author out of the corner they wrote themselves into, or to provide a "surprise" ending. Authors who use this "tactic" are not literary geniuses, and I'd wager you could objectively classify them as something other than "intellectual".

Essentially, what we have here is the literary equivalent of "surprise buttsecks", followed quickly by hipster "you just don't get it, and haters gonna hate", all done whilst wearing the biggest Troll-face in history.

I'm not saying that people simply can't like the ending. I'm saying the ending can't be defended as good. For example, I can't defend the movie Hudson Hawk as a good movie (it isn't), but I definitely enjoyed it (I love that absurd movie). There is an old adage that describes this phenomenon: "There's no accounting for taste." This also tends to be how a movie or book winds up as a "cult classic". It's pretty bad by objective standards, but there winds up being something about it that appeals to a small cult following and BAM! Cult Classic. A cult classic is pretty much mutually exclusive with good.

Which is why the "cult following" argument doesn't work here because, ask anyone, the majority of the Mass Effect series is pretty damn good.

Totalwar1402 wrote:*Since every character says bye to Shephard in a deeply mournful way then we can have a definitive quick-snap ending rather than drag out a long Return of the King style epilogue. It also allows the player more speculation on which ending they'll go with for the franchise.

Again, lets go back to the literary reference. There is a classic recipe for a good story. Start --> Introduction --> Rising Action --> Climax --> Falling Action --> Denouement --> End. Now there have been some wildly successful stories that do not follow this formula, but it is almost always a rare thing to see much of a significant shift be all that successful. Usually, one or two elements are removed or fiddled with. I kind of like to think of the whole thing like sex. You don't want the Climax too early. You also don't want your Falling Action or Denouement to come before the Climax, because either you won't really get a Climax, or the impact of the Climax will be minimal and unsatisfying.

And that's what it looks like Bioware was trying to do here. It looks like they were trying to give us the Denouement before the Climax, and cut out the Falling Action entirely. And it fell flat on its face for a large portion of their audience. It isn't edgy. It isn't "intellectual". It's just plain, bad storytelling. And it's made worse by the fact that Bioware has spent years and put out numerous games indicating that they know better.

Totalwar1402 wrote:*Too much dialogue explaining why your companions return to the normandy or why joker decides to leave will create bad pacing in the game. This stuff should just be taken out otherwise it will detract from the epicness of Shephard pulling himself through the mud to the final confrontation. They're clever kids they'll figure out a common sense reason like the catalyst discharge they heard would fry earth.

Not at all, and certainly not if it is done right. You are correct that not everything needs to be explained fully, but leaving unresolved plot threads is drastically different than introducing and leaving gaping plot holes that make no sense. And the lack of any sort of denouement regarding the characters in the game is, I think, a really bad idea.

You'll be hard pressed, I think, to find anyone who really thinks the ending is bad because Shepard dies (or maybe survives, if you got that extra ending bit). In fact, you wouldn't quite have the rage you have now if we'd actually gotten a little denouement. I'm not saying Animal House style, "Wrex went on to start his own demolition company, 'Wrexing Ball Incorporated'," I'm saying something, anything would have been better than "Rocks fall, everyone dies" or "the survivors lived happily ever after".

Um, Icycool, I'am speaking of a hypothetical defence in a detached manner. I in no way disagree with you that it was a bad ending or that trans-humanism is pretty simples when you get to it. But it isn't to everyones tastes; especially when its presented in that manner. I don't believe I said 'it can only be understood by intellectuals' since I was trying to avoid putting it in those terms. I was more refering to simply passively treating the game as a pure sentimental experience, how I viewed much of the game, (you don't save Geth coz theys got souls you saves them coz Legions cool n it nicest thing to do. Same with how Quarians=Tali ) vs dwelling a bit on the themes present in the game.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Um, Icycool, I'am speaking of a hypothetical defence in a detached manner. I in no way disagree with you that it was a bad ending or that trans-humanism is pretty simples when you get to it. But it isn't to everyones tastes; especially when its presented in that manner.

Right, I got that from your OP, but you also seemed to be truly confused why you haven't been able to find a sincere defense attempt. My point (sorry if it was lost in the wall of text above) is that there really isn't an objective defense for the ending. That's why you aren't seeing much more than some people saying "I liked it."

IcyCool wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:Um, Icycool, I'am speaking of a hypothetical defence in a detached manner. I in no way disagree with you that it was a bad ending or that trans-humanism is pretty simples when you get to it. But it isn't to everyones tastes; especially when its presented in that manner.

Right, I got that from your OP, but you also seemed to be truly confused why you haven't been able to find a sincere defense attempt. My point (sorry if it was lost in the wall of text above) is that there really isn't an objective defense for the ending. That's why you aren't seeing much more than some people saying "I liked it."

Then why would Casey Hudson and co have concieved of this ending as good? The rest of ME IMO was great or at the least easy to ignore (ME2 questionable relevence). I know from the artbook that they rewrote the ending sequences, do you think they simply rushed it and is why they haven't just made an actual defence of their work? Well, defence is the wrong term, surely anyone who has worked on something at least has some rationale or explanation to it that would suffice. Its more that Bioware had a chance to change the ending but instead built up hopes before basically giving us the finger and saying they had made art. Silence might have been better. Maybe none of the writers want to take personal responsibility?

daedalus-templarius wrote:"I must send my synthetics to kill you so the synthetics you build will not kill you"

"But I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth! Synthetics and non-synthetics helping and living with each other after decades of war!"

"...now choose a color."

The point is that only the Cycle races that work together manage to actually use the crucible.
It represents a difference that hadn't yet happened, thus allowing them to end the Reaper cycles and continue along their natural progression instead of the Reaper cycles...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:

Polvilhovoador wrote:I think only people who played from the first ME to the last can understand why people hated the end so much.

Probably quite true.

I played ME 1-3 as soon as they came out. I've preached that as soon as I beat ME2 it was the best RPG made possibly ever, and certainly the best in 10 years.

It was really just bs that all your choices are essentially irrelevant in the ending sequence. What you did really did not matter, and it all ended up being linear in the end because only ONE of those endings can really be true.

I can understand why the linear ending annoyed people but apart from that i'm not too fussed...

purplefood wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:"I must send my synthetics to kill you so the synthetics you build will not kill you"

"But I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth! Synthetics and non-synthetics helping and living with each other after decades of war!"

"...now choose a color."

The point is that only the Cycle races that work together manage to actually use the crucible.
It represents a difference that hadn't yet happened, thus allowing them to end the Reaper cycles and continue along their natural progression instead of the Reaper cycles...


fussed...

You're missing the point. The Reapers do not ever address the unification of organic and synthetic against them or even the unity of the galaxy. The one on Rannoch claims this has never happened, yes. Shephard breaks this yes. But the logical conclusion is never reached. The Reapers should have conceded they were wrong and simply withdrawn their fleets. Once they've accepted they are wrong any demands for control or synthesis are irrelevent. Why do you need to prevent natural hostility between organic/synthetic by combining them to eliminate difference if negociation and compromise work? The reapers do not say 'Organics and synthetics can get along. But would you pick these three colours if you don't mind.' What they say is 'an easier way of solving this inevitable problem is to simply remove it from the equation; a part of inevitable evolution.'

Also the point about the cycle races not uniting is a bad example. We only know what the Protheans did and jarik is DLC. The point of which was to show that lack of unity leads to failure and not that only a united race might have used the crucible especially since the crucible was the product of these hypothetical divided nations and all they needed was to 'plug it in' to the citadel.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:"I must send my synthetics to kill you so the synthetics you build will not kill you"

"But I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth! Synthetics and non-synthetics helping and living with each other after decades of war!"

"...now choose a color."

The point is that only the Cycle races that work together manage to actually use the crucible.
It represents a difference that hadn't yet happened, thus allowing them to end the Reaper cycles and continue along their natural progression instead of the Reaper cycles...


fussed...

You're missing the point. The Reapers do not ever address the unification of organic and synthetic against them or even the unity of the galaxy. The one on Rannoch claims this has never happened, yes. Shephard breaks this yes. But the logical conclusion is never reached. The Reapers should have conceded they were wrong and simply withdrawn their fleets. Once they've accepted they are wrong any demands for control or synthesis are irrelevent. Why do you need to prevent natural hostility between organic/synthetic by combining them to eliminate difference if negociation and compromise work? The reapers do not say 'Organics and synthetics can get along. But would you pick these three colours if you don't mind.' What they say is 'an easier way of solving this inevitable problem is to simply remove it from the equation; a part of inevitable evolution.'

Also the point about the cycle races not uniting is a bad example. We only know what the Protheans did and jarik is DLC. The point of which was to show that lack of unity leads to failure and not that only a united race might have used the crucible especially since the crucible was the product of these hypothetical divided nations and all they needed was to 'plug it in' to the citadel.

It's implied that other Cycles never united like this one did...
I can understand what you're saying though...

Crucible is the worst macguffin added to a series I've seen in a while.

"It's implied that other Cycles never united like this one did... "

So what is the difference? Mass Relays explode, fleets above Earth all starve if they aren't wiped out by Mass Relay explosion (because y'know, the Arrival DLC shows what happens when a Mass Relay blows up), all intergalactic trade ceases for the civilizations that managed to avoid the explosive death of the Mass Relays exploding.

Oh, damn, focusing on those plot holes again... pretty colors!

Ships still have ftl travel - just not as fast as the relays.

purplefood wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:"I must send my synthetics to kill you so the synthetics you build will not kill you"

"But I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth! Synthetics and non-synthetics helping and living with each other after decades of war!"

"...now choose a color."

The point is that only the Cycle races that work together manage to actually use the crucible.
It represents a difference that hadn't yet happened, thus allowing them to end the Reaper cycles and continue along their natural progression instead of the Reaper cycles...


fussed...

You're missing the point. The Reapers do not ever address the unification of organic and synthetic against them or even the unity of the galaxy. The one on Rannoch claims this has never happened, yes. Shephard breaks this yes. But the logical conclusion is never reached. The Reapers should have conceded they were wrong and simply withdrawn their fleets. Once they've accepted they are wrong any demands for control or synthesis are irrelevent. Why do you need to prevent natural hostility between organic/synthetic by combining them to eliminate difference if negociation and compromise work? The reapers do not say 'Organics and synthetics can get along. But would you pick these three colours if you don't mind.' What they say is 'an easier way of solving this inevitable problem is to simply remove it from the equation; a part of inevitable evolution.'

Also the point about the cycle races not uniting is a bad example. We only know what the Protheans did and jarik is DLC. The point of which was to show that lack of unity leads to failure and not that only a united race might have used the crucible especially since the crucible was the product of these hypothetical divided nations and all they needed was to 'plug it in' to the citadel.

It's implied that other Cycles never united like this one did...
I can understand what you're saying though...

Yes but its never made relevent to the ending or the reapers logic. You've done good and perhaps he says you've broken the mechanics of the reaper cycle; but that simply ignores the moral point that uniting the races and synthetics was about. The starchild only addresses that you've beaten all his efforts since you now have the chance to kill him so naturally using machine logic it is compelled to change tactics; the cycle has been broken. Thats not the same thing as having the whole premise of why the reapers have exterminated millions of civilizations systematically blown out of the water. Its like a Nazi ignoring multi-culturalism, or an atheist ignoring the second coming of the messiah. The reapers should have acknowledged something as important as the Geth/Quarian thing. You were supposed to morally defeat the reapers; not beat them conventionally then have the starchild suggest a new form of cycle to stop a non-existent problem.

SilverMK2 wrote:Ships still have ftl travel - just not as fast as the relays.

While this is true, I believe intra-galaxy travel would take years if not decades to move around. Those fleets may still starve because they can't get home that is if they weren't destroyed outright by the relay exploding.

Well I really believe that as is, the endings are not good. I think Bioware has a chance to make one of the best DLCs ever.

Think of the ending actually being unfinished. The indoctrination theory really helps shine some light into the plot holes and a lack of choices mattering. If you haven't watched the indoctrination theory videos, please do so now.

Now imagine a DLC coming out that expands on those endings:

They have already said that they are not using the indoctrination theory and the endings will not change. As far as I am aware they just expand on the blue, green and red explosions to tell you what happened to the rest of the crew and the rest of the galaxy.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Then why would Casey Hudson and co have concieved of this ending as good?

Look around. Do you see them putting forward a reasoned defense? Or do you just see them putting their fingers in their ears, saying "nah-nah, why you no understand art?"

SilverMK2 wrote:They have already said that they are not using the indoctrination theory and the endings will not change. As far as I am aware they just expand on the blue, green and red explosions to tell you what happened to the rest of the crew and the rest of the galaxy.

That's all anyone should ask, really. You don't have to change your ending Bioware, just fething finish it.

SilverMK2 wrote:They have already said that they are not using the indoctrination theory and the endings will not change. As far as I am aware they just expand on the blue, green and red explosions to tell you what happened to the rest of the crew and the rest of the galaxy.

They have neither confirmed or denied IT, stop spreading misinformation.

Amaya wrote:They have neither confirmed or denied IT, stop spreading misinformation.

So when they say there will be no more ending DLC, that's not a confirmation that there will be no more ending DLC?

From the ME3 Extended Cut FAQ:

What can fans expect from the Extended Cut DLC?

For fans who want more closure in Mass Effect 3, the DLC will offer extended scenes that provide additional context and deeper insight to the conclusion of Commander Shepard’s journey.

Are there going to be more/different endings or ending DLCs in the future?

No. BioWare strongly believes in the team’s artistic vision for the end of this arc of the Mass Effect franchise. The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned.

That's what Bioware said. The first tells us what the ending DLC will be and rules out IDT as IDT would need more than extended cut scenes to work (unless they're going totally half assed on it I guess) and the second question is directly pointed at the IDT as there's no other reason to provide that answer other than to disspell the idea. It's not misinformation to take Bioware at their word (the alternative is to just assume everything is a lie, but then I already thing everything they say is a lie ).

Cheers LordofHats - saves me having to look for the press release

LordofHats wrote:That's what Bioware said. The first tells us what the ending DLC will be and rules out IDT as IDT would need more than extended cut scenes to work (unless they're going totally half assed on it I guess) and the second question is directly pointed at the IDT as there's no other reason to provide that answer other than to disspell the idea. It's not misinformation to take Bioware at their word (the alternative is to just assume everything is a lie, but then I already thing everything they say is a lie ).

If I understand the argument correctly, nothing Bioware has stated precludes IDT. The Extended Cut Scenes could very much go down that road. However, I think that it is unlikely (more's the pity).

And as far as it not being misinformation to take Bioware at their word:

“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.”

“Along the way, your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios.”

YMMV.

IcyCool wrote:If I understand the argument correctly, nothing Bioware has stated precludes IDT. The Extended Cut Scenes could very much go down that road. However, I think that it is unlikely (more's the pity).

The premise of IDT is that the ending is a dream, which means its not the real ending. Achieving that would on its face necessitate more game play. Bioware has said they're adding cutscenes to make the ending more clear which is at odds with IDT. There's no need to add clarity to a fake ending. Bioware then goes on to say there will be no other ending DLC, which as a statement seems directly addressed to the IDT and dispelling it as an idea among the community.

I still haven't seen it, will do it at some point in the next couple of weeks.

However I did find it interesting to see two of games mags I read each month, both suggested although they loved the game, the ending was lacking, and one suspected it would cause friction among the fans.

Both reviews being released before the game hit. Three mags since release have pretty much said the same.

Lord Scythican wrote:Well I really believe that as is, the endings are not good. I think Bioware has a chance to make one of the best DLCs ever.

Think of the ending actually being unfinished. The indoctrination theory really helps shine some light into the plot holes and a lack of choices mattering. If you haven't watched the indoctrination theory videos, please do so now.

Now imagine a DLC coming out that expands on those endings:

Spoiler:

Control Reaper choice: Shepard is fully indoctrinated. You have to pick someone else to play the DLC with. One character, possibly the love interest becomes the new leader. You play that character with a squad and eventually fight a fully indoctrinated Shepard. I would love to see a rebuilt Saren (made by Cerberus) that is now good and helps the characters save Shepard since he knows what he is going through. This could work much like the old SNES game Crono Trigger where you had to play Magus when Chrono died. After all is said in done, Shepard is either saved through the choices of his friends or is destroyed. Choices lead up to a funeral after the reapers are defeated or Shepard being healed.

Spoiler:

Merge with Synthetics: Basically the same as Controlling Reapers, but maybe have Shepard become a really badass Husk. Maybe make it where Shepard cannot be saved at this point. In order to indoctrinate him they had to completely rewrite him into a Husk.

Spoiler:

Destroy Reapers: Shepard breaks the indoctrination. When all hope is lost, someone sees that he is still alive. Hammer regroups and destroys Sovereign. Shepard makes his way into the Citadel, destroys Marauder Shields, fights hundreds of Keepers, and makes his way to the crucible. The Crucible is detonated and sends out a EMP Pulse that shuts down the Reapers. Maybe the Sword Fleet gets away because Shepard warns them through the com system. Earth's tech is wiped out like what happened in Escape From LA, but the fleet is saved because of Shepard. Choices matter in the end. You get to go to Rio with James and Garrus drink rum and shoot Reaper Husk/sharks with Sniper Rifles, Sleep in a hut on the beach with your Love interest, and otherwise have a good time at the end. Maybe even Liara can clone a hot Prothean Babe for Javik? [/b]

I would definitely be ok with something like this.

However unfortunately, I don't know if this will be the case :(

Makes me very sad.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:SNIP

I would definitely be ok with something like this.

However unfortunately, I don't know if this will be the case :(

Makes me very sad.

Thanks for the support. I might go ahead and type this up better and send it to Bioware. I have seen that they want constructive criticism, so it might be a good idea to send it.


Also I have been keeping up with this whole extended cut dlc. There hasn't been too much since the 5th, but this is new for any who hasn't seen it:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/25/mass-effect-3-fans-stage-onoff-campaign/

I don't know if it will help, but I am willing to try.