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.

So, just finished ME3 a few hours ago, figured I would chime in.

It made me sad, I'm not exactly sure why.
All the characters coming to terms with the fact that none of them are going to survive the final fight got to me a little, (esp garrus)
I think its just that the mass effect universe is big, and interesting, and had so much to it. The characters I found interesting,

I agree that a simple voiceover ah la deus ex would have provided closure. Even if they had added another 20 seconds of your crew finally having peace on some deserted planet I think would have been better than the implied ending (most tech destroyed and humanity is "trapped' again for long enough for shepard to become a legend?)

Not that I would want the universe to become drawn out, overplayed and halo-y, but it makes me sad to see any really really good series end. Yeah the combat wasn't all that special but that isn't really why you played it.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11036313

The new reaction is to not buy Bioware products. I will not be resubbing to SWToR because of the ME3 ending.

Bioware announced the free "Extended Edition" ending DLC

http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/05/mass-effect-3-extended-cut-out-this-summer/

Through additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes, Extended Cut will give fans “seeking further clarity to the ending of Mass Effect 3″ deeper insights into how their personal journey “concludes.”

The announcement of the content has been expected, as last month, BioWare co-founder Ray Muzyka issued an open letter to the community stating that news on more DLC would “arrive next month.”

He said the team was hard at work on “a number of game content initiatives” which would “help answer questions, and provide more “clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey.”

“We are all incredibly proud of Mass Effect 3 and the work done by Casey Hudson and team,”Muzyka said today in the press release.“Since launch, we have had time to listen to the feedback from our most passionate fans and we are responding.

“With the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut we think we have struck a good balance in delivering the answers players are looking for while maintaining the team’s artistic vision for the end of this story arc in the Mass Effect universe.”

Since the release of Mass Effect 3, the fan base has been extremely loud over what it felt were plot holes in the ending of the game, and many started petitioning Bioware to change the ending and even going as far as to file and FTC complaint.

When said backlash reached a fevered pitch, executive producer Casey Hudson told fans their concerns were“valid, and promised that BioWare was listening – and today it appears they were.

“We have reprioritized our post-launch development efforts to provide the fans who want more closure with even more context and clarity to the ending of the game,” executive producer Casey Hudson said today, promising the DLC was created in a way that “will feel more personalized for each player,”

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bioware added an FAQ about the DLC

http://blog.bioware.com/2012/04/05/mass-effect-3-extended-cut/

Well the FAQ spells it out pretty clearly. The ending we got is the end of the game. Period. This DLC will expand it and give extra context and closure, but it will not change anything.

So now I'm back to my original feelings regarding the ending of the game.

-Why can't I prove to the StarChild that he is wrong, and that Synthetics and Orcanics can and will work together as shown by the Quarian/Geth situation?
-Why is there no option to kill the Reapers and not the Geth/EDI?
-Why is the Illusive Man's solution the Paragon option and Anderson's solution is the Renegade option when that goes against everything we have known about both characters.
-Are you really telling me that this omnipotent super-computer's logical solution to the problem of Synthetics killing Organics is to have a separate race of Synthetics kill Organics? Really!? THIS is the WHOLE REASON the Reapers even exist?

If the DLC doesn't answer these questions, and fill in the plot holes about either life being wiped out by the destruction of the relays and/or a massive fleet being stuck in the Sol system with no means of sustaining them, then I won't be satisfied with it and I will be weary of purchasing future BioWare games until I know they aren't going to rape the series with an ending that seems to have been written by an entirely different development team.

Aldarionn wrote:
-Why is the Illusive Man's solution the Paragon option and Anderson's solution is the Renegade option when that goes against everything we have known about both characters.

Does the game actually tell us that though? I haven't looked at the ending in a long time, and while the colors match, nothing in the game really tells us one is paragon and the other is renegade. If anything, logic would support that Control is renegade and destroy is Paragon but the downsides to both options kind of break the peragade structure that exists within the game. Its possible that the endings aren't mean to fit into it.

-Are you really telling me that this omnipotent super-computer's logical solution to the problem of Synthetics killing Organics is to have a separate race of Synthetics kill Organics? Really!? THIS is the WHOLE REASON the Reapers even exist?

No to mention that the entire storyline of ME1-ME2 gets thrown out the window. The VI on Thessia does more than imply that the Catalyst takes an active role in shaping the course of history. Meaning, what's the point of Sovereign, the Collectors, etc. And if the Catalyst can effect the development of organic races as much as the Prothians seemed to think, couldn't he just keep them from developing synthetics at all?

The whole thing is just wtf?

Aldarionn wrote:Well the FAQ spells it out pretty clearly. The ending we got is the end of the game. Period. This DLC will expand it and give extra context and closure, but it will not change anything.

So now I'm back to my original feelings regarding the ending of the game.

-Why can't I prove to the StarChild that he is wrong, and that Synthetics and Orcanics can and will work together as shown by the Quarian/Geth situation?
-Why is there no option to kill the Reapers and not the Geth/EDI?
-Why is the Illusive Man's solution the Paragon option and Anderson's solution is the Renegade option when that goes against everything we have known about both characters.
-Are you really telling me that this omnipotent super-computer's logical solution to the problem of Synthetics killing Organics is to have a separate race of Synthetics kill Organics? Really!? THIS is the WHOLE REASON the Reapers even exist?

If the DLC doesn't answer these questions, and fill in the plot holes about either life being wiped out by the destruction of the relays and/or a massive fleet being stuck in the Sol system with no means of sustaining them, then I won't be satisfied with it and I will be weary of purchasing future BioWare games until I know they aren't going to rape the series with an ending that seems to have been written by an entirely different development team.

-That's just one situation. Shepard can't be there to stop every war. He could point out their original war means he's right.
-Why would there be? Other than you don't like that. It makes sense ALL synthetic life would mean ALL synthetic life.
-Irony. Also, they did not know the above condition.
-Yes. They don't kill all organics they just prune them. Make sure they don't hurt themselves with their own creations. They're also protecting themselves.

Those aren't plot holes. They're just things you don't like, there's a diffference.

LordofHats wrote:
Does the game actually tell us that though? I haven't looked at the ending in a long time, and while the colors match, nothing in the game really tells us one is paragon and the other is renegade. If anything, logic would support that Control is renegade and destroy is Paragon but the downsides to both options kind of break the peragade structure that exists within the game. Its possible that the endings aren't mean to fit into it.

Have you actually SEEN the ending? You don't choose the ending in a conversation option, you walk to a platform that has three paths. While the Starchild is explaining the three options, you actually get a snippet of film showing the platform you are supposed to walk to for each choice. In that snippet, the left path is bathed in blue light and you see The Illusive Man standing in front of a console struggling to control the Reapers. The right path if bathed in red light, and we see Anderson shooting a power conduit with a pistol and causing a huge explosion. The path leading to the beam in the middle is used to represent Synthesis, and it just shows the beam while the StarChild thoroughly explains why it's the best option.

When you actually make your choice, you are placed in the middle of all three paths, and the power conduit is bathed in red light, the control console is bathed in blue light, and the beam is kinda pale green. If you choose either Control or Destruction, Shepard does exactly what we saw Anderson or The Illusive Man doing, depending on which you choose, or if you choose synthesis he jumps into the beam and is disintegrated.

Clearly, the Control option is Paragon, and associated with The Illusive Man directly, and the Destroy option is Renegade, and associated with Anderson directly. The Synthesis option is Neutral and is associated with Shepard because he is already partly Synthetic, and it uses his essence to synthesize all life into part-organic-part-synthetic beings.

So yes, the game actually tells us this.

LordofHats wrote:No to mention that the entire storyline of ME1-ME2 gets thrown out the window. The VI on Thessia does more than imply that the Catalyst takes an active role in shaping the course of history. Meaning, what's the point of Sovereign, the Collectors, etc. And if the Catalyst can effect the development of organic races as much as the Prothians seemed to think, couldn't he just keep them from developing synthetics at all?

The whole thing is just wtf?

EXACTLY! The idea of the whole ending removes player choice from the equation. So is BioWare's message in this whole thing that choice doesn't matter? Is that their artistic vision, that no matter what choices we make in life, eventually it will all be taken away from us and we will all end up in the same place?

You know, I could accept that as a message if there was any kind of context that told me that's what the StarChild represented. Some kind of warning that that might be what was happening, or an epilogue that explains that we all make decisions, and they matter in the moment, but galactically speaking there is always something bigger and we are truly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Maybe this DLC will explain that, and if it does perhaps I can be satisfied with that as an answer.

LordofHats wrote:

-Are you really telling me that this omnipotent super-computer's logical solution to the problem of Synthetics killing Organics is to have a separate race of Synthetics kill Organics? Really!? THIS is the WHOLE REASON the Reapers even exist?

No to mention that the entire storyline of ME1-ME2 gets thrown out the window. The VI on Thessia does more than imply that the Catalyst takes an active role in shaping the course of history. Meaning, what's the point of Sovereign, the Collectors, etc. And if the Catalyst can effect the development of organic races as much as the Prothians seemed to think, couldn't he just keep them from developing synthetics at all?

The whole thing is just wtf?

That would be the Control ending. C'mon man, are you asking how they could control the development of organics? They do. That's what the entire serious is about! The Mass Relays and Citadel ensure organics always evolve along the same technological lines. The Reapers make sure that when that cycle reaches its conclusion they reset it.
That's why the destruction of the relays and citadel frees the galaxy.

Aldarionn wrote:Clearly, the Control option is Paragon, and associated with The Illusive Man directly, and the Destroy option is Renegade, and associated with Anderson directly. The Synthesis option is Neutral and is associated with Shepard because he is already partly Synthetic, and it uses his essence to synthesize all life into part-organic-part-synthetic beings.

That's what I said... (well its what I meant anyway...) That's also the problem. Anderson is about as close to a paragon as one can get. The Illusive Man is pretty clearly Renegade. So then the question becomes why is the renegade guy by the blue light and the paragon guy by the red light? EDIT: And the respective options they represent seemingly reversed? Sometimes people read into things that aren't there. The colors could very well just be colors. Not intended to be paragon or renegade. What other colors are they going to use? Pink and Violet? Given how wonky the rest of the ending is, its possible the people writing it overlooked the implication.

None of that addresses how Shepard is magically transported to the Citadel and then somehow returns and survives the crash...which you'd think would involve going through the atmosphere...

Further clarity of a gak sandwich ending.

Great.

The ending turned me off of the entire series; so bad.

I'd say the red one is genocide and is pretty renegade. Once again it's supposed to be ironic. It's also realistic. I play a pretty straight paragon but if there was an option to kill the reapers and leave my new EDI and Geth friends alone I would have done it without hesitation. Anderson was unaware of that complication (but may have done it anyway).

TIM was unaware that the blue one involves your death. This sacrifice is rather paragon. He's big on other people making sacrifices (but his own?)

In the end, it was all in Shepard's head - and just a flash at that. TIM said he wants control and Anderson wants their destruction and shepard imagines them doing that. The extra layers the Ghost Kid adds to those decisions is good writing. It would have been overly simple otherwise.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
In the end, it was all in Shepard's head - and just a flash at that. TIM said he wants control and Anderson wants their destruction and shepard imagines them doing that. The extra layers the Ghost Kid adds to those decisions is good writing. It would have been overly simple otherwise.

Where are you getting this notion that it was all in Shepards head? That was what the Indoctrination Theory was about, and the FAQ pretty clearly disproved the Indoctrination Theory. If the ending is all in Shepards head, then.....what? Shepard just dies and the fight continues? If it was all in his head then none of it actually happened and the Reapers are still ravaging the galaxy. How does that even make sense unless they intended to continue the ending with DLC, which clearly they do not.

That's kind of my point (somewhat). The endings don't fit well into the paragon renegade scale. I'd argue the colors are just colors and were never intended to refer to the scale.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:In the end, it was all in Shepard's head - and just a flash at that. TIM said he wants control and Anderson wants their destruction and shepard imagines them doing that. The extra layers the Ghost Kid adds to those decisions is good writing. It would have been overly simple otherwise.

Bioware has pretty much confirmed that it was the real ending. If they were planning some master trick ending they'd have announced it by now (honestly they'd have probably released it by now).

The ending is very out of whack with the rest of the series no matter how its looked at. Frankly, any inconsistencies don't need actually explanations because the simplist and clearest one is: Bad writing. Its honestly responsible for more problems in media than people think, but audiences have a habit of explaining it to themselves and filling in the blanks to make it make sense.

Aldarionn wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
In the end, it was all in Shepard's head - and just a flash at that. TIM said he wants control and Anderson wants their destruction and shepard imagines them doing that. The extra layers the Ghost Kid adds to those decisions is good writing. It would have been overly simple otherwise.

Where are you getting this notion that it was all in Shepards head? That was what the Indoctrination Theory was about, and the FAQ pretty clearly disproved the Indoctrination Theory. If the ending is all in Shepards head, then.....what? Shepard just dies and the fight continues? If it was all in his head then none of it actually happened and the Reapers are still ravaging the galaxy. How does that even make sense unless they intended to continue the ending with DLC, which clearly they do not.

No, that one second showing Anderson shooting the controls is Shepard imagining it (and showing the player how to do it). That's Occum's Razor. Or it could be like: a-super-indoctrination-beam-hypnotized-you-and-you-spend-the-last-20-minutes-of-the-game-in-the-matrix-except-that-was-a-different-movie.

I find the notion that the colors are just colors to be a little absurd. The entire series was built around the Paragon/Renegade scale using those particular shades to identify which is which, and the ending platform is very clearly divided into a red section, a blue section, and a pale green section, and when you make your choice the energy wave has the same coloration. If they didn't intend to have the colors represent which option fell on which end of the Paragon/Renegade scale, then why have the colors at all? It seems very clear to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
No, that one second showing Anderson shooting the controls is Shepard imagining it (and showing the player how to do it). That's Occum's Razor. Or it could be like: a-super-indoctrination-beam-hypnotized-you-and-you-spend-the-last-20-minutes-of-the-game-in-the-matrix-except-that-was-a-different-movie.

Oh, no I see what you mean now. I thought you meant the whole ending sequence was in Shepard's head, my bad. Yeah, clearly the little snippets are just imaginary and used to show which person supported which choice.

LordofHats wrote:That's kind of my point (somewhat). The endings don't fit well into the paragon renegade scale. I'd argue the colors are just colors and were never intended to refer to the scale.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:In the end, it was all in Shepard's head - and just a flash at that. TIM said he wants control and Anderson wants their destruction and shepard imagines them doing that. The extra layers the Ghost Kid adds to those decisions is good writing. It would have been overly simple otherwise.

Bioware has pretty much confirmed that it was the real ending. If they were planning some master trick ending they'd have announced it by now (honestly they'd have probably released it by now).

The ending is very out of whack with the rest of the series no matter how its looked at. Frankly, any inconsistencies don't need actually explanations because the simplist and clearest one is: Bad writing. Its honestly responsible for more problems in media than people think, but audiences have a habit of explaining it to themselves and filling in the blanks to make it make sense.

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't endorsing the indoctrination theory. I hate that gak. I was talking about that one second showing TIM grabbing the cables is just Shepard thinking about it and the very definition of "not a big deal". It would make less sense to have them the other way around. TIM always wanted the power Anderson always wanted victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldarionn wrote:I find the notion that the colors are just colors to be a little absurd. The entire series was built around the Paragon/Renegade scale using those particular shades to identify which is which, and the ending platform is very clearly divided into a red section, a blue section, and a pale green section, and when you make your choice the energy wave has the same coloration. If they didn't intend to have the colors represent which option fell on which end of the Paragon/Renegade scale, then why have the colors at all? It seems very clear to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
No, that one second showing Anderson shooting the controls is Shepard imagining it (and showing the player how to do it). That's Occum's Razor. Or it could be like: a-super-indoctrination-beam-hypnotized-you-and-you-spend-the-last-20-minutes-of-the-game-in-the-matrix-except-that-was-a-different-movie.

Oh, no I see what you mean now. I thought you meant the whole ending sequence was in Shepard's head, my bad. Yeah, clearly the little snippets are just imaginary and used to show which person supported which choice.

Yes, and I like how they are not what you expect.

Oh I totally get that. What I don't understand is why giving one person godlike power and absolute control over a race of organic-harvesting super-machines is the Paragon option, while liberating the galaxy by wiping them out is Renegade. I guess I can understand that Genocide is bad, but they weren't even humanized in any way throughout the series like the Geth, and they were only ever depicted as this massive destructive force that for their own reasons harvested all advanced life in the galaxy.

It just doesn't make much sense to me.

The Indoctrination Theory has not been disproven until the DLC comes out and/or Bioware officially states that it is incorrect.

As it stands, it is the only theory that makes any sense. Nothing else explains the ending and the oily shadows that appear during your dreams in greater frequency.

I think the problem was that they really want to force you to take the Syntheis ending. The thematic reasons for doing so are pretty clear, all three games have involved the battles/tensions of machine vs organics. Through the use of this plot device the problem is solved, thus providing, at least from Biowares perspective total closure to their series. We can thus be sure that a ME4 will not feature this conflict at all and that everything will be closer to a Dues Ex scenario with trans-humanism being much more the norm than it was in the previous trilogy. The trouble with it is that it goes against the games concept that tolerance and understanding are whats important and allow peace. Not 'we must evolve or we die' to paraphrase the illusive man. SImply put: the plot device to resolve the games central conflict is at odds with the moral of the story.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The Indoctrination Theory has not been disproven until the DLC comes out and/or Bioware officially states that it is incorrect.

As it stands, it is the only theory that makes any sense. Nothing else explains the ending and the oily shadows that appear during your dreams in greater frequency.

I wish that were true but they say it will only be cutscene content and that they have no desire to change their ending due to artistic considerations. That, I do believe, amounts to a thinly veiled ' you' from Bioware.

Again, they can't admit it now if they're planning a big surprise reveal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZOyeFvnhiI&feature=related

Aldarionn wrote:Oh I totally get that. What I don't understand is why giving one person godlike power and absolute control over a race of organic-harvesting super-machines is the Paragon option, while liberating the galaxy by wiping them out is Renegade. I guess I can understand that Genocide is bad, but they weren't even humanized in any way throughout the series like the Geth, and they were only ever depicted as this massive destructive force that for their own reasons harvested all advanced life in the galaxy.

It just doesn't make much sense to me.

As a Paragon theoritically you'll not use your god-like powers to use the Reapers to wipe out organic life again.
There's no "wrong" choice. Some people won't bat an eye at the collateral damage of wiping out the Geth and EDI to stop the Reapers. If so, shooting up those cables is the perfect choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Totalwar1402 wrote:
I wish that were true but they say it will only be cutscene content and that they have no desire to change their ending due to artistic considerations. That, I do believe, amounts to a thinly veiled ' you' from Bioware.

I think this sums up the whole thing for me. Bioware says this is the ending, their artistic choice. And some people hear it as "Bioware told me to just myself. p.s. I'm not entitled"
I don't get it.

The ending doesn't even make sense, especially the Destroy option where Shepard survives, how can anyone take it seriously?

Amaya wrote:The ending doesn't even make sense, especially the Destroy option where Shepard survives, how can anyone take it seriously?

It really doesn't. I still find it hard to believe Bioware isn't just pulling our legs here.

The current ending makes no sense whatsoever when you see Shepard gasp for air (heavily implying he is alive) at the end of the Destroy ending.

I really am confused. This whole fiasco is so uncharacteristic of Bioware when it comes to the Mass Effect series.

It's in no small part due to the fact that the ending was only done by 2 individuals not the entire team. One of the writers came out and slammed the ending on the Penny Arcade forums before deleting his comments in order to save his job.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

Amaya wrote:Again, they can't admit it now if they're planning a big surprise reveal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZOyeFvnhiI&feature=related

Huh, never heard the one about the eyes. It would depend on what you consider to be a cutscene for it to involve indoctrination; if they planned it from the beginning therefor aren't changing their story. Also, on that guys version of the epilogue I can actually see the blue aura of the conduit glowing blue on everything.

Amaya wrote:The ending doesn't even make sense, especially the Destroy option where Shepard survives, how can anyone take it seriously?

That's still a big sticking point for me. If the Citadel blows up, how does Shepard survive, especially since he was supposed to be killed due to his partial synthetic implants.

Amaya wrote:It's in no small part due to the fact that the ending was only done by 2 individuals not the entire team. One of the writers came out and slammed the ending on the Penny Arcade forums before deleting his comments in order to save his job.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

Well, in fairness if the catalyst exploding would have been powerful enough to take out Sol it might explain why joker fled the battle. If we assume that hammer pulled back with your companions they might have linked up with the normandy. Again, I really, really want the indoctrination theory to be true and have written far more than I should nailing my colours to the mast on that issue. But that announcement makes me question the validity of it and if the guy was a bioware writer then he either wasn't 'in the loop' about indoc and was told later; otherwise his comments hint that it was the origional ending.

Amaya wrote:It's in no small part due to the fact that the ending was only done by 2 individuals not the entire team. One of the writers came out and slammed the ending on the Penny Arcade forums before deleting his comments in order to save his job.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

All of this would fit SO WELL if they just followed the Indoctrination Theory. They would be called GENIUSES for doing this, and praised beyond belief.

The Theory just works so well with all the signs throughout the game I'm honestly shocked they really just aren't rolling with it.

Karon wrote:

Amaya wrote:It's in no small part due to the fact that the ending was only done by 2 individuals not the entire team. One of the writers came out and slammed the ending on the Penny Arcade forums before deleting his comments in order to save his job.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

All of this would fit SO WELL if they just followed the Indoctrination Theory. They would be called GENIUSES for doing this, and praised beyond belief.

The Theory just works so well with all the signs throughout the game I'm honestly shocked they really just aren't rolling with it.

The only reason they wouldn't want to is if they've prefigured the whole future of ME verse on synthesis and believe that it MUST be done and will not step down from it. Again to them it solves the verses syntheitcs vs organics problem.