Really wish the endings could at least be dependant on your effective military strength so all the choices actually count toward something. Even if there's just 6 endings, a bad one for 1k or less where everyone dies, and the reapers win, 1-2k they kinda take each other out or something, 3-4k you defeat them with a whole load of casualties, including shepard, some squad-mates and some main characters, 4-5k you save your squadmates and defeat the reapers, and 5-6k Shepard lives, there's a real good ending etc., and 6k+ there's a secret cutscene at the end as well, maybe showing a bit more about life post-reaper-threat... Maybe something even better for doing it on insanity with 6k+ EMS... But remove the crap that's currently there, re-write it as more of a war, where the fleets you've gathered actually do something, even if it's just in cut-scenes. This is what everyone expected from the ending, but what's currently there is just so unplausible, it makes no sense, and everything leading up to it makes no difference, if you make all the wrong choices, don't do ANY of the side-missions, you get exactly the same ending as if you did all the right ones. It made it all seem a bit pointless as none of it counted towards anything, where it did in the ME2 suicide mission, and everyone loved the game for that mission.
Am I literally the only person happy with the ending? I was glued to my TV from the moment I landed at the Cerberus base up until the scene after the credits. I chose synthesis, seemed like the "right" ending. I'm completely satisfied with how it ended, hell, it even surpassed my expectations. I think, not necessarily pointing at anyone in the thread, that the overall disapproval of ME3's ending is a colossal example of pure naivety. I've been a loyal fan of Mass Effect since the first game, and all I've ever heard about the ending was that people didn't want it to be a cut and dry good/evil decision based on all your past decisions effecting a single moment. That's ****ing ludicrous! There is no decision any sane writer could come up with that would account for every major decision they offered you in the universe. In my opinion, Bioware fulfilled their promise. Every major decision you made in both games had reaper-cussions (couldn't resist) in ME3. The Rachni, Geth, Genophage, every goddamn thing was either solved or ****ed based on decisions in ME3 and, more importantly, in the first two games too. I think the Eurogamer reviewed sums up some of my feelings: "As with any game that dares to be ambitious, deconstruct Mass Effect 3 into its constituent parts and of course there are flaws, but taken as a whole this is arguably the first truly modern blockbuster, a game that transcends the genre boundaries of old and takes what it needs from across the gaming spectrum in order to finish its story in the most compelling, thrilling, heartbreaking way possible." I hate to sound like a die-hard fanboy of something, defending it no matter its quality; but I feel like I've put as much time and effort into this series as anyone out there, and significantly more so than most. It seems like the entire gaming community has become so jaded, unable to be pleased. I don't know why, because being jaded is ****ing terrible. Learn to enjoy something based on it's own merit rather than by outlandish expectations you or someone else put forth. That being said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that. Just wish I could find someone who shared my sentiments.
So when are they going to fix that import bug? I have 2 shepards, one female and the other male, both with 2 different playthroughs. I have built some sort of connection with them and so I really dont want to try to recreate their faces. I've been boycotting the Story mode and playing Multiplayer until it gets fixed. Everyone is talking about how they didnt like the ending. I really want to know what happens in this game! I've been hold back from reading all the posts in this thread -__-
It's not about the past decisions kai, though they could have had a bit more representation than a number on a list of war assets. It's mainly about all of the questions and confusion centered around the final portion of the game, not to mention how the final choices conflict with so many of the trilogy's messages. The lack of closure doesn't help either.
I'm sure that they did this on purpose. No doubt they realized that this may be the end of their road sowhat do you do? Make a cheap ending. Later they will be selling expensive DLCs so you can have closure. They might make a new game in itself which just focuses on the ending. Bioware has convinced me that they will be milking a ton of money from this.
I think you're misinterpreting what the people who want a different ending want. To even say "want a different ending" gives the false impression that fans want just 1 mega ending that answers everything. No, that is not what fans want, in fact to boil down the opera of events that go in the story to one ending would be irresponsible. What fans want is are endings which produce a more satisfactory pay off for the time they invested in the game. Yes, it is assumed there will be the "reapers win" ending in which all life in the universe is destroyed and it is assumed the other side is "reapers lose". That was never a big deal and fans knew that was going to be the basic distinction. But a game who's claim to fame, as it were, was the multitude of meaningful choices that impacted future events. Any game can promise you that your decisions mattered but few games actually delivered on that promise usually making the choice tree limited to maybe 1 or 2 extra choices that converge back to a linear "this is how its going to be no-matter what you picked" ending. Mass Effect was different because although in essence the first two games always finished the same way there were major choices you made a long the way which carried through. Did you save the council or not in the first game? Which squad mate, Ashley or Kaiden did you let die and were they your romantic interest? Did you kill Wrex over the genophase stuff on Virmire? How about the Rachni Queen, that seemed like a pretty major decision to let an entire controversial species live or to be responsible for the extermination of that species. In ME2 it was all about the suicide mission. Did you select the right people for the right jobs or did you take too long to do the mission allowing your crew to die? Did you save the collector base or destroy it? These were major decisions that made each person's playthrough unique so that even when they had the same "general" ending to those games they felt like their experience was unique. Sure I defeated Saren or the giant human reaper like everyone else but in my game I did this this and this different than these people. So in Mass Effect 3 to go through this whole journey to get to an ending where none of your past choices really mattered (only manifesting as minor dialogue changes throughout the story) is a pretty frustrating experience to fans. Now, mind you I still find the game excellent and I enjoyed every part of it. I also understand the pressure of making a game and the time limits imposed on doing so. Sometimes things must be cut for the overall project to move forward. I don't know if BioWare had to cut things that might have made the fans happier at the ending or if they legitimately thought the endings they made were quality endings that summed up the series nicely. We can't know which case it was unless BioWare tells us so I won't start public outcry against them as money grubbing bastards unlike some others (though that's more pertaining to the Day 1 DLC thing which I've explained before is not the same situation as DLC contained ON the disc which needs to be unlocked)
The sole argument against this, and many people will be dissatisfied with it, is that was never what Mass Effect was about. Never. In Mass Effect 1, endings are practically identical aside from the council living or dying. This has little bearing on gameplay or story, and is for all intensive purposes an aesthetic and factual difference between playthroughs within your mind. In Mass Effect 2, you can live or die. However, dying is arguably not a true ending and almost more akin to a "game over" screen. Therefore, your choices at the end of the game are what to do with the collector base and who survives. Different shades of very similar endings. Finally, in Mass Effect 3, you are left with 3 endings. The repercussions of these endings cannot be shown because their implications reach hundreds, even thousands of years into the future. Let's say you chose to destroy the reapers and all synthetics. Your ending is ****ing different. The entire galaxy is devoid of synthetics at that moment in time, and the future will either be one where synthetics and organics can eventually live in peace or one where they continue to fight. Let's say you choose to control the reapers. You're now looking at a universe exactly how you left it, depending on what species you saved/allied with, as well as a universe where half synthetic/organic titans are controlled by the mind of the galaxy's savior. Finally, you can choose synthesis, where you rewrite the genetic code of the universe. I say, who gives a **** about the final cutscene. I know that my choices have allowed synthetics and organics to become one. Someone else's ending wiped out synthetic life all together. Similar to the ME1 endings; they seem similar, but one ending has the galaxy going on as it used to with alien species working together, while one was dominated by an all human council. I can't think of a better/less cheesy way to say it other than you know your ending in your heart/mind. Think of it this way: what if you only played ME3 once, and never looked up or read about the other endings? You'd think, "If I had chosen another option, my universe would be completely different than the one I ended up in!" I think people should be basing their opinion of the endings on where the fiction went, rather than what the final cutscene had to offer. Bioware said from the very beginning that Mass Effect was a more directed experience. They said there wasn't going to be completely opposite endings. You could never play Shepard as "evil", because that wasn't his story. It was the difference between paragon and renegade, not good and evil. Expecting their to be dozens of very different endings not only seems naive, but it is also exactly what Bioware has been warning us about for the past 5 years. I'm only so passionate about this because I love this series so much, and it's hard to see it take so much flak. There are people complaining, boycotting, even suing Bioware! And that ****ing disgusts me. People are crying that Bioware promised them more and request a new ending. I'm sorry, but **** those people. How can one demand that someone change the ending to a story? This game is as much a piece of art as it is a product, and asking Bioware to change the ending is like telling Da Vinci to edit the Mona Lisa. Nobody has that right. EDIT: For clarification, not trying to say ME has the same artistic merit as the Mona Lisa. I'm just saying that all art is subjective, and should not be compromised by what the masses demand. [br][/br]Edited by merge: I'm confused what decisions weren't represented. The Rachni resulted in a mission to free them from reaper control, and they aided in the construction of the Crucible. Saving Maelon's data allowed you to cure the Genophage then and there. Keeping Legion on your team and alive allowed you to solve the war between Quarians and Geth. Keeping Wrex alive gives you a benevolent Krogan leader open to peace. Even then, other decisions come down to a number of war assets, which directly affect the number of endings you have available to you at the end.
"Never what Mass Effect was about", you're right many people would be dissatisfied with that a long with the creators of Mass Effect who marketed the game based on the choices you are presented throughout the game and the weight they carried. One of the earliest commercials for Mass Effect was Shepherd over a planet listening to people screaming over his radio with the implication that you control how Shepherd reacts. First of all, I'm not sure how you define "ending". Yes the "save the council or let them die" choice is one of the last decision you make in the game but it is not "the ending" of you fight husk Saren and then the Normandy destroys Sovereign. As far as "has little bearing on gameplay or story" I'd say that choice has gigantic impact on story so lets not combine gameplay with story there. Sure in gameplay that choice doesn't matter as much since in future games all the same missions are present whether you saved them or not but story wise you have the Alliance being the new Council or the old Council. That's pretty significant story wise. Ok...not sure where you're going with this. The point is those "different shades" deeply impact the game. You are losing those characters from the game. Now how relevant that becomes is only apparent once ME3 comes out and BioWare in the interest of glossing over these divisions for the sake of not excluding people who didn't play the first two games decides that they'll just mention those squad mates or not mention them by dialogue or they'll replace them with another NPC meaning no harm no foul gameplay wise. I understand this but that isn't the same as saying those choices didn't matter. Story wise if a character died, THEY ARE DEAD. You won't see or hear from them again, that is a strong resonating factor to fans. How all of that applies to the "ending" of ME2 which like I said is always the same, kill the human reaper, humanity waits for the reaper invasion ending isn't the point. I said the ending is always the same but the differences or "shades" like you said do matter to people. Well see right here you're adding your own interpretation of what the ending means. Which is fine, you're fully within your right to use your imagination. But that is not what the endings showed. You're expanding past what the endings showed which is what fans wanted BioWare to do, at least a little bit of, which they didn't do at all. We're left with this feeling of...so is our hero dead...alive...how about my love interest? What about the other races? Yes it is obvious that if you go with certain endings that certain things are assumed to happen afterward but that is not showed by BioWare. You can't form an argument around what you imagine will follow no matter how likely and say well that's what BioWare meant. I say...a lot of people care about the final cutscene. Its the last in a saga. As Halo 3 did with the covenant and the flood, a final cutscene for the last game in a saga needs to blow down doors. Now in halo the story was completely linear, you had to do the events of each mission or else you would fail and have to start over. In Mass Effect the trademark is that you can go about things in a different way. Again, its not that the ending cinematic has to be some mega huge thing that closes all doors like you think people want. People want better representation of where their choices went. I think that most of this trouble over the ending wouldn't be nearly as bad if they even gave even like a text based followup on all your decisions and how they played out. You saved the Rachni queen, the rachni once again became a scourge of the galaxy 100 years later despite what the Rachni Queen told you. Just reading that kind of thing in text would give soooo much weight behind the decision you made. So maybe I shouldn't have saved that species even though it seemed like the right or paragon thing to do at the time. Or a text followup depicting shepherd and his love interest and how that went (depending on if Sheperd lives etc) So while yes, the writer can always make the claim, "well we left it ambiguous so you can fill the details in how you want", but that is the laziest way to go about it for the last in a saga. This is strictly an opinion but sagas should not end with ambiguity. That is sloppy writing and that is what angers fans the most. Again your missing the crux of the issue while hiding behind the guise of what BioWare expected. Fans can take the story any way their mind decides and that is fine. I'm all good with people imagining new and neat conclusions for stories. Everything that you stated was not explicitly in the ending you are assuming it based on the context of how you played the game. That assumption is fine but the point I'm trying to convey to you and is the point of the many thousands of fans who feel this way about the ending is that for a final game there shouldn't be a need to assume anything. There should be specific cause and effects given for every situation small or big the player had to make throughout the series. Is that asking a lot and perhaps an unreasonable request of a developer? Yes, but that is the crux of the issue. That unreasonableness of a request can be debated but not how much actually was in the endings. There's passionate and reasonable and then there is passionate and ignorant. Granted you have been pretty reasonable so far but no game is perfect. No fan is saying Mass Effect 3 is horrible. The problem is a specific part of the game, the ending. All games are allowed some level of criticism, nothing is sacrosanct. I don't know who is "suing" BioWare, that doesn't sound right, nor is anyone boycotting it, at least that I know of. There are petitions regarding the very specific point of changing the ending (implying all those people already bought the game, not boycott it). Unless you are referring to the day 1 DLC and people boycotting EA games because of it. If that is going on then those are stupid people who don't understand the difference between when a developer works on content after the game is all ready put on the disc and waiting for distribution from when DLC is put on the disc and just unlocked via code. One means a dedicated approach to pushing more content that couldn't fit within the design schedule and main process. The other is a purely monetary move to get more money over the cost of getting the game. I think DLC produced post production should be free or at least very cheap (and sometimes that is true) but I do understand that the developers still need to have their salaries paid for the time they put into the DLC. As for your last point, let's try to remain civil now. While I can't speak for every single fan, be it unreasonable fanboy or whatever, I can speak for myself when I say I don't expect them to change the ending. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a better explanation of what happens after the final cutscene as it relates to the choices your character has made throughout the series.
Unfortunately I can't find interviews explicitly stating this, seeing as there are hundreds, but Bioware has said from the very first game that Mass Effect is a directed experience, moreso than a lot of other RPGs. They said that Commander Shepard had a laid out story that each player would be able to "color" with their decisions, but ultimately every Shepard would have roughly the same story. So they fulfilled their promise, and I don't think it's fair when people accuse Bioware of lying and false advertising. Now, see, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Just like the ending of Mass Effect 3, the ending of ME1 is an illusion of choice and different story paths. The only differences caused by saving/killing the council in the first game are different war assets. Past that, almost all lines of dialogue are identical, and all cutscenes play out in the same way. But you think that it's caused your universe to be unique. Other than different character models, your world is no different than mine, and in a sense is as effective as simply changing the color of an explosion. It's no different, the only difference is that you knew there was another game to look forward to, where your choice would be represented (even though it really wasn't). Well then I don't get it. The ending to ME3 has shades as well. Destroy Reapers: Earth is destroyed Destroy Reapers: Earth is ravaged, still intact Destroy Reapers: Earth is preserved Control Reapers: Earth is ravaged Control Reapers: Earth is preserved Synthesis: Not only is Earth preserved, Organics now have half synthetic DNA, and it shows that in a final cutscene It's no different. People just seem to be getting upset because for the first time, they aren't guaranteed another game. I'm not interpreting anything. Those things are explicitly told to you at the the end of the game. You are told what will happen to the universe based on your decision. IMO, text based endings are the worst type of ending. Period. Bioware did that with Dragon Age: Origins, and you know what happened? It was practically the number one thing complained about the game by fans. They didn't want a text based ending. Other than that, how the universe ends up seems pretty apparent. In mine, the Geth and Quarians are able to live together on Rannoch. I'm not sitting here wondering whether they immediately go to war again or not, because I solved that issue. The Krogan are already on their way to rebuilding Tuchanka and repopulating their planet. I'm not worried their gonna try to dominate the galaxy again, because I put Wrex in charge. If my Shepard had lived, it's natural to assume Shepard and his LI lived their lives together and had children. You don't have to worry about whether they get divorced or something a couple years down the line. Mass Effect is not a game with one story arc. The Rachni, Genophage, Geth/Quarian war, all these story arcs have a beginning and end in the universe. The final decision is simply the end of the Reaper/Shepard story arc. I'd argue that almost nothing is left unanswered. Like I said, very few things are left up to ambiguity. The Rachni is the only plot device I can think of that isn't so clear, simply because it's an unpredictable race. But like I said, the universe is left a certain way at the end of your game based on who you helped, who you left in charge, who you allied with, who you destroyed. Do you really expect a cutscene that spans the next hundred years while the Krogan repopulate, gain respect in galactic society, etc.? And what of the love interest? What if they had you share a kiss with them at the end, to reaffirm their love? Well, who knows, maybe a week from now they split up, never to see each other again. What I'm trying to say without sounding facetious, is that people will always find questions to ask at the end of a saga. But, as far as I can tell, all major plotlines were addressed, dealt with, and have an explicit future told to you through the game. If there are other plots you feel aren't addressed by the game, feel free to voice them and I'm sure I could reference a specific part of the game that says how it ended up, with no interpretation. It may not be your sentiments, and I respect that, but I've spent time on other forums and especially the Bioware Social Network. The vast majority (I'm talking 95%) of people are so gung-ho about their hatred for the ending that they vow never to buy a Bioware product again. Just the other day, I witnessed a thread with 200+ unique replies saying the ending ruined the entire franchise, and made the games unplayable. Someone has already filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission about Bioware using false advertising, with plans for it to evolve into a lawsuit. Obviously, nothing is past the point of criticism. ME3 has too many load times, it's animations are laughable at times, it's a hotbed for glitches. But the complaints, the campaigns to bring down Bioware and "Take Back Mass Effect" are past the point of disappointed fanboy rage. Again, not pointing at anyone in this thread, because we're having a pretty civil discussion here, but there are thousands of people literally grieving over this. People are coming up with conspiracy "indoctrination endings" due to their delusional stage of grief. There are polls garnering tens of thousands of votes, deciding which fan-fiction ending should be the canon, fan accepted ending. It's just hard to believe that people would become so... relentless in their hatred and condemnation of a company because of how it ended a story. Especially when I'm on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.
Umm, shatakai and camel, pleez make yu wrds sharter fo me to read. I have a very short attention span -__- You guys can literally publish a book with your last couple of posts...
...I'm assuming you meant Shatakai and Pac. In which case my response to that is *please make your words shorter for me to read. I am an idiot. It's called a discussion, we don't have to dumb ourselves down because you have a short attension span. Just skim the posts for the gist of what is being said and move on with your day.
i think a simple ending would have sufficed. the fact that people can come up with such a convoluted theory for the ending shows how badly done it was.
It was a bad ending to a good series. Okay. The internet are completely over the top about it though. And 75 percent of the hate originated on /v/. Gamers are extremely self entitled nowadays. I've seen good, story orientated games with bad endings before, **** happens.
It's not really convoluted, just less... literal, or plain. The Crucible is older than anyone could have guessed, so it's origins and capabilities are as unknown as the Reapers. Reapers were created to destroy all sentient life every cycle, because no cycle had proven that it was able to operate peacefully between synthetics and organics. This was only a viable option, because the Reapers were seemingly unstoppable. Commander Shepard, or any organic making it to the Crucible shows that this assumption is no longer true, and so a new set of options are presented to the one organic with enough cunning, strength, and resolve to make it past the Reapers. I think it's better than a simple story where the Crucible is some gigantic gun that can shoot each individual Reaper out of the sky or something. One of the greatest themes of the game is fighting for something based on nothing but faith. Nobody knows what the Crucible even does through the entire game, but they placed the fate of the galaxy on it. It's a sort of allusion to, however twisted some people may make it, religion and people's faith to it is one of the strongest leading factors in our universe. I think that's why it's represented as a god-child, although I think the child part of it is simply a design principle within the Crucible, to communicate and display itself in a way that a specific organic could comprehend it. It reaches into Shepard's mind to extract language and a suitable image, and the image of the child was Shepard's most prominent recently. Makes sense to me, at least.