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.

What LordofHats said.

It's "confirmed" in the sense that they're going to do SOMETHING with it. On my own part, it was an assumption based upon looking at Mass Effect 2's "ending" being extended through things like Lair of the Shadow Broker and The Arrival.

That's a little different. We knew ME2 wasn't the end. ME3: galaxy got blown up.

They say they'll tell us more in April and I'm sure someone will throw a thread up with whatever we learn.

LordofHats wrote:They say they'll tell us more in April and I'm sure someone will throw a thread up with whatever we learn.

And RAEG! about it.

*cough*

Sorry. I actually am holding onto hope on this one... more MP DLC would be nice, but I know they're going to do 'something'... I just don't know what.

As stated before the ending doesn't really make much sense and the indoctrination theory has a great deal of excellent points.

Still, I'd think that if the indoctrination theory is intended, I'd think that they'd launch a free DLC a month after release (which is plenty of time for many gamers to complete the game). For that matter, I'd think the DLC would've been finished beforehand and that the entire ending fiasco is nothing more of a publicity stunt.

It could be that Bioware is waiting for fan reaction and is waiting to assess what the most popular demands are before making a DLC that caters to them.

Its a very convuleted situation.

Well, as I've said before, Prestly on the BioSocial forums said that they aware of everyone's concerns and are waiting for people who bought the game to actually finish it and experience the original ending before they say anything.

It is very likely that the Indoctrination theory holds true simply because the level of incompetence and carelessness represented in the final stretch is extremely uncharacteristic for Bioware.

Like, the pistol never having to reload cannot be anything but carelessness if it was intended as the actual ending, which is something I can't believe Bioware would really do.

I would bet that at this point they are putting the finishing touches on the free ending DLC that they've been working on before release and it is just a matter of days at this point.

Like, the pistol never having to reload cannot be anything but carelessness if it was intended as the actual ending, which is something I can't believe Bioware would really do.

I actually think they did that because from that point on Shepard moves in uber slow mo and can't take cover (and it wouldn't be a first time a gun went infinite ammo at the end in a game). And there's only like, 5? Enemies from that point on to shoot so they probably just never turned it off. After that moment you don't need a gun anymore.

LordofHats wrote:

Like, the pistol never having to reload cannot be anything but carelessness if it was intended as the actual ending, which is something I can't believe Bioware would really do.

I actually think they did that because from that point on Shepard moves in uber slow mo and can't take cover (and it wouldn't be a first time a gun went infinite ammo at the end in a game). And there's only like, 5? Enemies from that point on to shoot so they probably just never turned it off. After that moment you don't need a gun anymore.

No, because it makes no sense to have a pistol be able to reload but never actually have to do it because it has unlimited ammo in that "clip"

That is why its clear that sequence is a "dream", and Shepard is trying to be quickly indoctrinated instead of gradually over time.

Its not clear that the sequence is anything but what it is. Endless ammo just flips on at random, probably because on higher difficulties reloading will get you killed in that section cause there's no cover even if Shepard still had the option.

Dream is one explanation for the ending (though completely unnecessary to fix it imo) but frankly all the evidence of the dream can be explained alternately. Not to mention that if we accept the ending to be a fake one, then the whole thing is really quite elaborate for a fake ending, and yet still poorly written? That just doesn't track for me.

Can you elaborate?

Just based off the four big things:

The Infinite Ammo Gun I think is a plausible hand wave for game play purposes. Especially since after the initial husks and marauders who appear there are no more enemies to shoot so they just never bothered turning it off. Infinite ammo was also used at the end of CoD4, in MW2, and in Black Ops. There are surely other games as well.

The Tentacly Indoctrination Tentacles: For those who don't remember, these also appeared for scenes with Saren in ME1, yet no one ever suggested that Shepard was indoctrinated then. Of course I honestly found the final showdown with TIM fairly straight forward. He, while under Reaper influence himself, is using the research he gathered on Sanctuary to manipulate Shepard. In this sense I think there is indoctrination going on, but Shepard fights it off in the end.

Anderson's Death and Shepard's Wound: I actually don't really get this one. We don't see Anderson's wound. We only know its somewhere in his abdomen, unless my screen failed to render something. Plus, that right arm across the stomach model has been present in every Bioware game since KotOR. Its used by Miranda, Jacob, and Thane in ME3 itself.

The Renegade Ending: This one is confusing, but the Destroy ending also happens to be the only one in which Shepards body isn't outright destroyed or his mind ripped out of it. Plausibly, he's somehow able to survive without his implants (?). The concrete objects are also hand wavable, as slabs also appeared in the Citdel both in ME1 and ME3 when it was attacked by the Geth and Cerberus respectively. EDIT: Or he somehow managed to survive atmospheric reentry, again...

Again I'm never going to say the indoctrination theory is wrong outright, cause it honestly makes a lot of sense (and rejected it means everything that hints at it was just a coincidence and its a lot of coincidence). I'm just honestly having a hard time buying into it. I think the ending is just bad (I'm surprised no one other than me noticed that the infantry born Thanix nuke is used only once in the whole damn game and apparently no body thought to bring more of them XD).

I didn't reload for the entirety of ME1. Just saying.

My only argument FOR the infinite ammo thing is simply that in EVERY other moment of the game where they don't want you to shoot something... they take the ability to shoot away.

Every time.

So why would they suddenly change that now? It doesn't quite make sense.

If they wanted the scene to be MORE tense, they should have Shepard fumbling to reload. They absolutely LOVE to give you game-overs for stupid stuff that ruin the flow of gameplay (I'm looking at YOU Reaper on Rannoch!).

Seriously, they don't tell you that the targeter for that gun is cumulative. I died so many times to that stupid laser, just because I felt I wasn't getting the timing right. Then I look at the screen and realize when I stop sighting the laser down, it pauses the targeter, rather than resetting it.

In every other videogame with a laser-targetting device you have to hold the thing down the entire time, Mass Effect is the first game to do it differently. It totally blew the moment for me when I have that brief touching moment in the APC between Shepard and Tali, and then hop out and get obliterated by a giant laser.

So yeah... another example of a radical departure from the 'usual' of Mass Effect.

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:I'm looking at YOU Reaper on Rannoch!

Thank you! I thought I was the only one. And I died about 6 times before the last shot too.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:I'm looking at YOU Reaper on Rannoch!

Thank you! I thought I was the only one. And I died about 6 times before the last shot too.

That part is just badly coded, I think. There are so many bugs. When it goes slow-mo at the end, half the time the laser would bug out and not let me target the Reaper. I would hold the trigger down, press it repeatedly, aim it at every spot I could see, and it wouldn't matter. I got blasted by that Reaper so many times on the final shot because it wouldn't target that I nearly threw the controller at the TV. Bah!

I didn't even touch on the biggest hickup in the indoctrination theory: If Harbinger can blast Shepard with an indoctrination beam, why would he bother when he can just kill him with a death beam?

Shepard problem. Solved.

LordofHats wrote:I didn't even touch on the biggest hickup in the indoctrination theory: If Harbinger can blast Shepard with an indoctrination beam, why would he bother when he can just kill him with a death beam?

Shepard problem. Solved.

I think the idea is, that Shepard is one of the most powerful humans alive and the Reapers are impressed by what he achieved in the last two games. They'd rather have him join them.

Its this thing called plot armor.

If you think the backlash on this ending is bad, could you imagine the backlash if Shepard just dies and we have no idea what happens?

That's honestly not a hiccup at all because you can say that pretty much for the entire game.

Why didn't that Destroyer just blow up the Normandy along with the two transport vehicles? It was clearly visible.

Because that would suck.

I think the idea is, that Shepard is one of the most powerful humans alive and the Reapers are impressed by what he achieved in the last two games. They'd rather have him join them.

Harbinger spends most of ME2 trying to kill Shepard, though for some reason that's still a mystery wants his body intact. Harbinger kind of just dropped off the face of the galaxy in ME3 XD I popped over to TVTropes ME3 page to take a look at it, and its surprising how many times people keep listing that Harbinger had no lines in the game.

Karon wrote:If you think the backlash on this ending is bad, could you imagine the backlash if Shepard just dies and we have no idea what happens?

That kind of is this ending imo XD

But that hiccup is more an argument against the indoctrination theory in a sense because Harbinger blasting Shepard with an indoctrination beam rather than just killing him is a rather big plot hole itself.

That's honestly not a hiccup at all because you can say that pretty much for the entire game.

True. Like that reaper who passes up a perfect opportunity to shoot down the ship with Normandy slapped on the side in big letters during the very beginning of the game You'd think that would be at the top of the priorities list.

Why didn't that Destroyer just blow up the Normandy along with the two transport vehicles? It was clearly visible.

Yeah this. Though honestly I think this is less plot armor and an extremely transparent play on people's emotions. That scene was about the child so we could see how desperate the situation was.

EDIT: Of course, "plot armor" is itself a case of bad writing (A minor case).

There's no super-indoctrination beam. There is like super-indoctrination but it just turns you into a zomnbie, no weird alternate reality stuff required.

According to the in-game codex, Harbinger was one the Reapers attacking earth.

Yeah but you never see him until the very end when he starts machine gunning laser beams in a spiffy light show (and he never says anything). Hence why I say, dropped off the face of the galaxy, despite seeming so much more important in ME2.

Well, I guess that's because he's leading the attack on Earth and you leave earth.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well, I guess that's because he's leading the attack on Earth and you leave earth.

I suppose but I don't see why this is really a worthy discussion point, just something I thought was interesting and decided to point XD EDIT: Its not really something that bothers me, but apparently the folk over at TVTropes won't let go.

Actually the thread has been off topic for some time.
I came to see what all the hate is about with the ending. I still don't honestly understand it. Not liking it is one thing but raising $80,000 to change it? I'm embarrassed by that. I've never been embarrassed to be a gamer before...and to think from one of my favorite series too. A complaint was filed with the FCC: embarrassing. The ending didn't ruin the series for me, the way the fans reacted did.

Well technically the $80,000 was for charity

But yeah, I can think of a few big fan backlashes off the top of my head and none of them are as big as this one.

LordofHats wrote:Well technically the $80,000 was for charity

But yeah, I can think of a few big fan backlashes off the top of my head and none of them are as big as this one.

That charity distanced itself from the movement. They said it wasn't right for charity money to be contigent on some video game developer changing the ending to some video game. I'd want to distance myself from broiling massive nerdrage too. So the movement declared victory and went home.

Well sure, but think of the children Canuck

I personally found the PennyArcade article on that charity drive way funnier. Insuing a conspiracy between Childs Play and a bunch of internet nerds is so wonky I'm shocked they published it. Of course Retake Mass Effect is using the charity to push their agenda (while being idiots pretending Bioware/EA actually owe something) but at the end of the day I think I can be happy $80k found its way to charity.

LordofHats wrote:Well sure, but think of the children Canuck

I personally found the PennyArcade article on that charity drive way funnier. Insuing a conspiracy between Childs Play and a bunch of internet nerds is so wonky I'm shocked they published it. Of course Retake Mass Effect is using the charity to push their agenda (while being idiots pretending Bioware/EA actually owe something) but at the end of the day I think I can be happy $80k found its way to charity.

The best part is when some people learned their money wasn't being used to change the ending of a video game but help sick children they demanded their money back. This is why I support the reapers in the efforts to destroy all humans.

You know, I'm wrestling with the idea of BioWare "owing" things to their customers. I find myself thinking on one side of the coin, then coming up with counter arguments to my own thoughts.

On the one hand, I don't think any company that produces an artistic product in any form "owes" something to their fans as far as allowing them to have input in its creation, but I do think they "owe it" to their fans to at least make good on their promises. BioWare promoted the Mass Effect universe as one where choices matter, and your actions can have a massive impact on the world, but if the endings are literal on the disk, then they clearly did not deliver that. All of the endings are 99% identical and the 1% difference is color variation and what characters step off the Normandy at the end, or the inclusion of a tiny cutscene that you don't get if you choose the wrong option. On the other side, if the Indoctrination Theory is true, then they didn't deliver on their promise to release a complete game, and I think they are guilty of false advertising.

So, in a sense, BioWare "owes it" to their customers to produce the game they said they would produce, but they don't "owe" their customers a happy ending, and they certainly don't owe it to the fans to change the ending just because it wasn't bunnys and kittens and cake. If they had produced a game where my actions clearly mattered and I received closure on the various story lines within the plot, I would be perfectly happy with Shepard dead at the end of it all, and even happy with the galaxy in turmoil or near annihilation if there was something that definitively explained that, and gave me some closure. I'd have been OK with it if they had killed the entire Normandy crew, or if Earth had been destroyed in a cataclysmic explosion that destroyed the main Reaper armada as well, as long as some Epilogue told me what became of things after the whole incident, and closed the story, or perhaps if there were three or four different endings based on the choices I made ranging in severity of galactic destruction. Instead, the ending left so many unanswered questions and plot holes that I think BioWare did not live up to their promises set forth when the game was announced, and their silence after the fact makes it a hundred times worse.

As far as the charity goes, that was a blatant attempt to use the name of a large organization to further the goals of a movement, and personally I think it was a cheap trick. I'm very glad that $80,000 made its way to Child's Play, but I'm disappointed to see that it happened in the way it did. As for demanding a refund, it's your responsibility to know what cause you are donating to. Research where you are sending money before you send it, because once you part with it, it's gone and they don't owe you a dime.

Edit: The game also lacked a final boss fight, which I kinda find odd considering the other two games had prominent boss fights followed by hard story decisions that affected the outcome of the game. I think the absence of that kind of fight in this game was a little.....strange.