By John Walker on March 19th, 2012 at 6:15 pm.

The obsession with endings is a peculiar one. Perhaps it’s a result of having been indoctrinated by a lifetime of movies with “surprise twists”, or stories so poorly written that they rely on their final hook. But however we’ve come to this place, it’s one that fails to recognise the real pleasure of being told a story. Mass Effect 3 tells a story, and I’m here to defend it.
Clearly this post contains spoilers. All of them.
Another trap gamers have fallen into is the sheer disgust with which the notion of “being told a story” is met. The distinction with gaming, you see, is you get to make choices, and those choices have consequences, and thus the game is unique to us. That notion makes sense in a game like Minecraft, but applying it to narrative, pre-scripted projects like the Mass Effect series is just naive. Even in a game like Dragon Age, where our choices lead to what feels like a unique conclusion just for us, we still fought the same big dragon, still followed the exact same path, and merely received cosmetic differences, none unique but shared by tens/hundreds of thousands of others. And that’s great! Because BioWare had a story to tell, and they were going to tell it.

I feel like so many of people’s complaints about Mass Effect 3′s apparent lack of consequence would have been addressed by something as tacky as Dragon Age’s flash-card descriptions of what had happened to the characters in your party. Like an Eighties movie freeze-framing at the end and telling us who went on to discover a cure for cancer, and who finally settled down and had three kids, it certainly gives an immediately satisfying sense of closure, and perhaps would have dealt with a lot of the grumbling. But I’d argue it robs the player of so much potential for those characters. “Grunt went on to form a band, Grunt And The Tube Babies, who had 91 top ten hits in the Galactic Billboard, thanks to Shepard’s love and support.” I loved and supported Grunt! That means my choices were meaningful!

But here’s the thing: My choices did have consequences. So many, on so many of the characters, in so many ways. It’s just, those consequences occurred on my long path toward the ending. And, well, that’s bloody brilliant, isn’t it?
Many are upset by the final moments, a three-way decision that is not impacted upon by the rest of the game, as if this invalidates everything that came before it. But two things. 1) What about everything that came before it? 2) How is that decision not impacted upon by the previous three games?!

A choice I made wiped out an entire species. Unable to choose the Quarians’ wrath over the Geth’s capitulation, I was unaware that giving them the option to choose would mean seeing them wiped out of existence. Even less that Tali would throw herself off a cliff in understandable suicidal misery. And that choice, that decision to give the freshly sentient Geth my support, had one hell of a consequence on the galaxy. In that final battle the Geth fought alongside the Alliance forces, something that would have seemed impossible at the end of Mass Effect 1. The Quarian were all dead, every last one of them. My actions had consequences, and they were beyond huge.
I forged cooperation between the Krogan and the Turians. I’ve no idea if that’s a pre-scripted inevitability, or the result of my choices, and crucially I don’t care. As a result of what I did, however it came about, another remarkable change occurred in the galaxy. One with enormously far-reaching consequences. I saw the Salarians, albeit unwillingly, give the Krogan life. My involvement saw that real, extraordinary change occur, whether a race was broken free from a curse that would have seen them wiped out. I made the decision that even though there may be terrible consequences, this species deserved the right to breed.

Those are some of the massive consequences my actions had. Then there were the dozens and dozens of minor, more personal ones. The relationships I forged, the people I loved, the comments I made. They all influenced not only the on-going relationships with other characters, but so crucially, the moments themselves. By choosing to be supportive rather than strict, the instance of that conversation changed, the tone was a consequence of my actions, and the reactions of others were changed in context. Because I choose to shoot down the advances of Traynor, I didn’t have a sexual relationship with her. Because I opted to be supportive of Joker and EDI’s relationship, they found love. Because I said a kind thing, rather than a cruel thing to Liara, she felt good in a moment, rather than bad.
Characters I almost ignored, like James Vega and Ashley Williams, still were impacted by my presence in their lives, and mine was impacted by them. I encouraged Vega to join the N7. I teased Ashley when she was hungover, rather than admonished. And while all those things may have made no difference to whether the Reapers were defeated, of course they had consequences on my game. Consequences in those instances, affecting my story and toning my experience.

But what about those final three choices. Yes, of course, they were a strange way to finish. But to suggest that they were out of the blue is absolutely untrue. And to write off the “ghost boy” is to make the same sad mistake that so many do with the beach scene in Contact, when we see Ellie’s father. An alien/god choosing to appear in a meaningful form obviously does not mean it is that thing. The Catalyst appearing as that small boy could hardly have been more established by the game, via three separate dream sequences that demonstrated quite what a devastating effect his death had had on Shepard. He came to represent all the terrible deaths on Earth, and indeed throughout the galaxy, that Shepard was unable to stop. He haunted her dreams because he was the catalyst for her fear and drive. (Although you could argue that he himself did get used up in the reaction.) For the Catalyst to choose his form to appear to Shepard made sense – it was designed to create an emotional reaction in her, to represent the potential for gain after so much loss.
And then the choices themselves. Of course anyone is welcome to dislike the options, or dislike that they’re there at all, but to suggest they’re not relevant to the games isn’t fair. There was certainly a failure to properly define that it all comes down to the creation of Synthetics, and their eventual destruction of Organics, and I am confused by how an apparently ancient Synthetic race is the one arguing this. But as Shepard herself appeals, this is the result of an ancient race having lost its way. They firmly believe that what they do is for the good of the galaxy, and that they’re preserving these races in Reaper form, but they do not see how evil their actions have become. They’re wrong. But they’re wrong from a position of enormous power, and it’s a power that not only dominates the worlds of Mass Effect, but also the player. Those three choices – those are what you get, from a wayward god-like species that’s in control. Don’t like the options? Hell, maybe that’s the point.

My choice – to choose synthesis – was utterly and completely influenced by the three games I’d played. I had seen the potential, the evolution of the Geth into a race capable of independent choice, the relationship between an AI and a human, and the possibility of a massive uniting step forward from a repeating pattern that had gone on for countless aeons. It may be sci-fi hokum that it’s possible, it may spring from nowhere that a big wobbly green light could turn all robots and humans into robothumans. But I was cool with Mass Effect Relays transporting me millions of lightyears around the galaxy in only the time it took for one maddeningly unskippable cutscene to play through. I’m okay with made up sci-fi nonsense in my made up sci-fi nonsense.
The consequence of having played three superb games – games in which I’d felt relationships with characters like in nothing else I’ve played – played out in that choice.

I commented to others as I played the game over the last week how exciting it was that decisions I’d made five years ago were having an impact on the story I was being told now. My being able to continue a relationship with Garrus was a joy, and made a huge difference to how I experienced the game. The races I’d saved being present at the end, fighting alongside me, was more important to me than whether it actually made any difference to what happened.
I’ve played each game in the series once. At around 30 hours a time, that’s plenty for me. So I’ve not dissected them like a detached scientist, analysing which parts would have been the same no matter what I did. I find it so remarkable that so much of people’s fury with the game comes not in what they experienced, but what they learned about their experience after. For me, I filled up that bar with green, I made the choices that mattered to me, and in those final scenes I saw thousands and thousands of ships turn up to fight for Earth. That was my experience as I played, and I adored it. It was dark, brutal, often devastating. It was funny, silly and often heart-warming. In the end, it was the story of a small group of friends, and their particular experience of the end of the worlds. A story about the hope to be found in utter devastation.
The ending may not have matched up to your wishes. Despite my vociferous support for it, I can empathise with a number the arguments. But it was not a denial of choice or consequence – it was a series of three games about choice and consequence, the two happening constantly throughout. And good grief, thank goodness it didn’t fade to black and leave everything ambiguous, with just enough room for 900 more sequels.





19/03/2012 at 18:25 PopeBob says:
I’d say there’s still plenty of room for 900 more sequels. With (oh look, he lived!) or without Commander Shepard. Bioware (as silly as it may be to put the huge team of writers under a single corporate heading) is, indeed, intent on telling a specific story- and whether or not you believe that character died in the past is irrelevant to the story they intend to tell. (http://social.bioware.com/%20http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6589945/2)
19/03/2012 at 18:38 PopeBob says:
I’d also like to say that the ending could easily have been just as dark and just as poignant if the final decision/decision room was cut entirely. While fans would still dislike the final minutes, it wouldn’t be because of a ridiculous new character and a badly-applied “this was the theme all along!” pull. Just as many questions would be answered, just as many sad things would happen, but the illusion of choice in the three colors would be gone.
I tend to be in the camp where talk of the “Indoctrination Theory” is dismissed as fanwank, but if it ended up true I wouldn’t be upset.
19/03/2012 at 23:47 mahaiug says:
Cheap and practical game accessories! http://rurls.ru/5154as
20/03/2012 at 06:35 Calcographer says:
I’m right with you there. My thoughts were that they should’ve just cut it with Shep dying on the floor.
It would have a been a dark ending, and after all my Shep had fought for (or against depending on which one), I would’ve been ok with it.
It just felt so right up to that point, so painfully right damnit! Then the god-kid showed up with the “Hey dude, I made synthetics to kill organics, so they don’t get killed by synthetics…” to which I replied, “…lolcatwhut?”
20/03/2012 at 08:57 Lord Byte says:
The moment you walk through that beam it went from an awesomely crafted game to the matrix revolutions ending. But that wasn’t the only thing, then they just lost all continuity and mixed up scenes that made no sense and called it an ending (how is everyone on the ship when they were fighting with you on earth moments ago. Which jungle planet in our solar system did they crash onto? I don’t mind the gates “exploding” even though canon said that would wipe out every system near such a relay. (There’s dead reapers everywhere so building a gate from their reactors should be child’s play).
I think they just couldn’t think up a satisfying ending, went with an artsy “bad ending”, grafted whatever they could from the endings they tried up to then on it and called it a day.
20/03/2012 at 13:13 Zelius says:
“The moment you walk through that beam it went from an awesomely crafted game to the matrix revolutions ending.”
I didn’t like the ending either, but I have to say the final confrontation with the Illusive Man, as well as the last talk with Anderson, was in my opinion among the greatest moments of the game.
20/03/2012 at 00:18 Thrashy says:
SPOILERS!
…
Given that the Green Option implicitly makes Shepard into the ghost in the (pan-galactic, bio-synthetic) machine, it would be comically easy to make any number of neo-Shepards into the protagonists of future games, or turn him into a kind of god-entity. The sci-fi options are vast and infinite!
20/03/2012 at 22:28 Ruffian says:
I thought it killed him and the blue one turned him into ghost in the machine. It sounded like the kid was saying he would use you kind of as a blue print in the greeny. I could be wrong though. lol. sooo vague.
19/03/2012 at 18:26 noodlecake says:
Hear hear!
It’s nice to hear someone talk sense amongst all this irrational pedantry.
19/03/2012 at 18:58 BatmanBaggins says:
I’m glad you enjoyed the ending, but being critical of it is hardly showing “irrational pedantry”. Much of the criticism towards it has actually been quite rational indeed, which is why there’s so much to talk about in the face of how irrational some of the final moments are.
20/03/2012 at 11:25 PoulWrist says:
Being critical and demanding that it’s against the promised hype and filing lawsuits and demanding that the ending be rewritten is not “reasonable” .
20/03/2012 at 14:14 Styles says:
So you’re saying BatmanBaggins is responsible for that?
The hype was immense, and the ending was pathetic, and gave no closure. People are perfectly within their rights to complain when something is made out to be amazing and then delivers a giant dose of disappointment, especially when it has cost (in my case) $100.
A lawsuit is taking it too far, I agree, but I have no sympathy for Bioware or EA because everything including their own statements indicates that the last minute decision to make the ending vague and without closure was because they want to squeeze the franchise for more money in an MMO.
And NO….it was NOT a good story, because a good story is one that leaves you feeling satisfied. A good story gives closure.
19/03/2012 at 19:22 Zelius says:
Dismissing people who express dislike over the ending as “irrational pedantry” is in the same vein as saying anyone who liked it is a “fanboy”. Differing opinions happen.
Also, my largest issue with the ending is the Normandy escape and subsequent crash-landing. I don’t even care that the ending was bleak, or that there was basically only one outcome. But please tell me how that part of the ending made sense in any way, shape or form.
19/03/2012 at 20:40 liquidsoap89 says:
Yes but there are people that just disliked the ending and moved on, and there are people (MANY from what I’ve seen) who can’t go 10 minutes without making sure that everybody in the world knows they didn’t like the ending.
“THE ENDING RUINED THE WHOLE SERIES!” “WORST ENDING I’VE EVER SEEN IN ANYTHING!” “MASS EFFECT SUCKS NOW!” These are all the types of sentences that MANY people are saying, whether they genuinely believe what they’re saying being a whole different story.
I myself completely agree with John. To me the whole game was my “ending”. When somebody asks me what I thought of the ending, I think of all the events that led up to the credits. Not just the catalyst god child. *SPOILERS* Uniting an entire galaxy to defeat the reapers (“holding the line” so to speak), rekindling my relationship with past crew members (and a little more intimate one with someone in particular), getting rid of Cerberus once and for all, and then discovering that I could potentially stop war for good using synthesis… THAT was what happened in my ending. Not just me running in to a laser beam, but everything else as well.
I will lose a lot of respect for Bioware when they inevitably decide to make some DLC that deals with everybody’s complaints, so in the meantime I will continue to defend them for the brilliant finally to their brilliant trilogy!
Oh and how can people NOT like when the kid says “I want to hear more about the Shepard”! That was the perfect line to end my game on!
19/03/2012 at 20:53 Apolloin says:
I think the problem is that whilst the entire game runs the gamut from miserable abject and costly failure to big damn heroes the ending really only channels the former.
It’s fine that the series COULD end with the destruction of all life or the destruction of Galactic civilisation through the breaking of the Mass Relay network (and thus the ending of reliance on Reaper Tech) but the ‘Big Damn Heroes’ ending is missing. Now, the working theory is that it will be added via DLC later (there are many hints to that effect) but it is FAR from surprising that the current state of play has caused a shit storm.
19/03/2012 at 21:54 liquidsoap89 says:
I think part of what I liked so much was that you get to make decisions throughout the entire series, seemingly shaping the galaxy around what you say, but in ME3′s final act you don’t get a choice. Shit hits the fan, and it hits it hard. I think you saving the world by the skin of your teeth actually makes it have more of an impact. It makes it seem like the reapers really were galaxy destroyers… No matter how powerful you become, they’re still godlike. The same thing happened for me with the Illusive Man. *Spoilers* When I was talking to him at the end I didn’t have enough paragon points to talk him down, so when he goes to shoot Anderson (and then me) I HAVE to be a renegade! I DON’T get a choice there, no matter how good of a person I am throughout the rest of the series, if I don’t make that one final renegade decision… I lose. That made the stakes much bigger for me, and it definitely made my story have way more of an impact.
I almost feel that NOT getting to make certain decisions make the ending have more meaning overall than if I could have gotten a “everybody lives happily ever after” ending (which I surely would have gotten had it been presented, seeing as how I was as much of a paragon as I could have been).
19/03/2012 at 19:32 tobias says:
Pedantry is right. Also batbags, I think that what those of us who don’t side with the (seemingly) negative majority are depressed by is not by the level of rationale being employed- there clearly is a great deal of disturbingly deep, analytical thought brewing, as the lengthy conspiracies, theories and analyses of each tiny element of the ending and the lore building up to it attest- but rather is how that rationale is being directed. This was ultimately Bioware’s narrative, as John says, and for me it’s this bizarre combination of clearly intelligent people dissecting what is to them, a very important problem and mistake, combined with this infantile rage at what these same people thought was truly theirs, which I find particularly saddening. What exactly did people think they were playing?
That Bioware may shy away from making such a bold ending again for fear of enraging what I hope is just the vocal minority is also pretty worrying.
19/03/2012 at 19:48 Matt says:
“Pedantry” is such a hollow argument. If you want to criticise something, you obviously want to list all the reasons, even when they’re all packed in one moment. It also ignores completely whether the arguments are actually right or not. Attaching “irrational” after it is obviously equally hollow and ironic when you tend to simply ignore any issues, or in reference to being angry about crap, rather than just being emotional about the purty music…
Way to go coming up with any meaningful arguments instead of just talking about the opponents and attaching random, “cool sounding” tags. That precious pedantry is after all the only possibility for John to potentially gain some ground for the ending.
19/03/2012 at 19:59 Zelius says:
What you and others defending the ending seem to forget, is the fact that Bioware is guilty of false advertising. I present you this quote from Casey Hudson:
“It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C…..The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.” Source
In the end, we did in fact simply get ending A, B, or C, with only slight variations between the three. Mind you, that quote is from an interview which was taken after the game was already finished, so it wasn’t just a case of them changing their minds. And again, your opinion (and that of anyone else defending the ending) is just as legitimate as ours, but please stop dismissing our claims as pedantry.
19/03/2012 at 20:27 noodlecake says:
I’m not defending the ending. I’m defending creative freedom and the fact that the game was really fantastic. I found the ending to be a bit of a let down. The journey was amazing though. I also think that if people invested their time creating art rather than criticizing it the world would be a much richer place culturally. In the amount of time some of you guys have spent bashing this game you could have started to develop your own skills to make your own game which would obviously be much better than Mass Effect 3 based on how not very good most of you seem to think it is.
19/03/2012 at 20:43 Zelius says:
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, as I am not criticizing the game as a whole, nor have I ever done so. The game is amazing, but I find the ending illogical (especially regarding the Normandy) and severely lacking. Also, I do not appreciate the false advertising.
And what’s this about people needing to create art before criticizing it? That is such a non-argument. If I had the means to create games, I would. Even if I wouldn’t, that does not make my opinion any less valid.
Addendum edit: I also think you might have mistaken me for someone who is now actively bashing the game, and demanding a new ending. I can assure you that is not the case. I am merely stating my opinion and pointing out that the criticism isn’t simply pedantry.
05/06/2012 at 02:05 pretenderprofilergirl says:
They did NOT falsely advertise. Just because the ULTIMATE ending had three choices doesn’t mean anything. The end of the game, meaning how everything turns out, has MANY options.
****SPOILERS****
Mordin sacrifices himself for the Krogan… Or not. There is peace between the Geth and the Quarians in the end…. Or the Geth destroy the Quarians causing Tali to commit suicide…. The Genophage is cured… or it isn’t. All these choices affect the end of the game, how everyone lives after the end. They weren’t just talking about the BIG ending, but all the little ones, the thigns that made this game so great to begin with.You can’t just focus on the big picture, but all the minute details.
Anyway, I loved the synthesis ending… There should’ve been a little more detail on how everyone will survive, but other than that it’s great. I thought that the fact that form of the kid coming from Shepard’s head was pretty obvious. The catalyst was used by so many species over so many cycles that it couldn’t just appear in an originally designed form; it HAD to come from the head of whoever’s using it otherewise it wouldn’t work.
I would have liked an epilogue, but you don’t always get that in every game or every movie. You have to THINK about what could’ve happened to everyone. That’s kind of the point. Appreciate the game and all its details… Without them, Mass Effect wouldn’t have been the great series it was.
19/03/2012 at 21:02 Apolloin says:
The argument that the game is a creative endeavour which the creators are completely within their rights to control in any way that they deem desirable is really making a fundamental error. You’re lumping games in with films, books, music and other non-interactive artistic creations.
Games are much more interactive – especially a game like Mass Effect. The point of the series was to allow players to create their own version of the Shepard story. Should we really be shocked that those people feel a sense of ownership over the thing they’ve been nurturing for three games plus DLC? Bioware has been harping on and on about the fact that this is an interactive story as much as a Third Person combat game. Allowing the players to tell the story is THE POINT and, for the most part, they’ve totally pulled that off in ME3. Even in areas where it seemed that they had retconned some of the decisions to simplify the story tree there is usually some sort of way that a player can affect the way things turn out with some decision or some previous choice consequence.
And then the ending.
20/03/2012 at 05:59 stupid_mcgee says:
It also completely dismisses the fact that Mass Effect isn’t art for the sake of art. Mass Effect is a game, a product, that is meant to be consumed. This isn’t making a painting of a dog crapping in a soup can just because you want to make a painting of a dog crapping into a soup can, or because you think that such imagery has a some social message.
Typically, such a painting would have a hard time selling. You can still do it, of course, but you shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t do well financially. If you want to sell paintings, then perhaps you should paint subject matters and in styles that people do find appealing.
Likewise, if you’re going to make a game heavy on choices and how those affect further outcomes, then perhaps you should make the ending actually dynamic to the choices and decisions you’ve made. It would also be a good idea to show how those choices affect the world, rather than just having the player guess what happened.
Thing is: people like narratives. Which is, interestingly, one of the big attractions to conspiracy theories. What’s more exciting? That a bunch of nerds crunched data and ran experiments and the USA eventually got to the moon, or that it was all faked using secret bases and crazy technology/feats to fool the world! The truth doesn’t really entice. There is no real story. We studied hard, we did tests, we went to the moon. Sure, there’s anecdotes and such, but there’s no real meat to the story. The conspiracy is rife with narrative, unfolding and weaving in and out of various details and subplots. It creates a very rich storyline. One that is crazy and pretty dumb once you begin to apply basic logic, but it is a very compelling story compared the truth. Same with 9/11. Is it more entertaining to think that there were intelligence mistakes and simply a failure to stop the attacks, or to think that there were inside men, hidden gold, insurance scams, remote-guided missiles, secret relocation, etc. etc? One is a boring textbook, the other is an episode of 24.
Being left with a bunch of unanswered questions doesn’t provide narrative. It actually destroys narrative and leaves the consumer without a definitive sense of closure. Sure, you can imagine what would have happened, but people tend to want to know DEFINITELY what happened. And that usually means having the creator directly spell it out for them. That way it’s not just speculation, but defined canon. It’s why people hated the shit out of the end of Lost. I knew several people who absolutely hated the final season of that show, despite being huge fans for all of the other seasons. The vast majority of them hated it because it became apparent, and even JJ Abrams himself said so, that the writers didn’t really know where it was going and just kind of making things up as they went along. People were hooked on the concept that it was all some kind of big, crazy, convoluted, well-defined mystery of a plot, where you got see the all these Rube Goldberg-esque narrative machinations and plot twists being unraveled, but the truth was that it was mostly simple retcon and MacGuffins. The audience felt cheapened, and Lost forever has a tarnished reputation.
It’s not that these types of literary tools are bad, but that they can easily be abused and when it looks bad, it feels really cheap and reflects very poorly on the author. Christ, ask any old, hardcore Star Wars fan about midichlorians and watch as their blood pressure drastically rises.
I’m not a Mass Effect fanatic or anything, but it seems rather clear that something like this flowchart is much more preferable than how things actually ended up playing out.
19/03/2012 at 23:18 kyrieee says:
“This was ultimately Bioware’s narrative”
Yes, it was a huge collaborative effort, and in the end the lead writer supposedly disregarded anyone else’s input on the ending. Lets assume that’s true, and many of the people who worked on the game feel the same way as the audience, then where does that put us?
27/12/2012 at 11:45 dftaylor says:
I didn’t feel the ending of ME3 was particularly daring or challenging – it was just badly written and non-sensical. To defend it under the banner of creative vision is weak when it delivers a literal deus ex machina to conclude a vast, complex tale, especially when the machine’s explanations make no real sense.
To an extent, I’m not convinced BioWare is a particularly adept storyteller in any of its games. It’s been telling the same core story in all of its games for decades nearly. ME was the first of its games that I engaged with because I felt I was making a difference.
My issue with the ending wasn’t that i was robbed of choice, it was that the concluding beats were so underwhelming. I loved Shepard getting blasted and being mortally wounded, I’d have loved if the game had been brave enough to let him die and conclude the story with uncertainty about the world’s fate.
It’s fair that the whole final act is the ending to your ME story, but it’s not fair to criticise those who feel the finale diminishes that. Or to call them pedants.
19/03/2012 at 19:43 Juan Carlo says:
I agree. I loved the ending. It has some minor flaws in execution, but I think it gets most of the big stuff right. Enough that it might be one of my favorite video game endings ever (it’s certainly one of the more memorable).
But from posting on forums about the matter it seems that not only am I wrong to like the ending I’m also an idiot and a Bioware apologist. Go figure.
So, anyway, it’s nice to see a well reasoned argument in favor of stuff that the endings did right out there amongt the sea of fan hysteria.
19/03/2012 at 20:03 Caleb367 says:
That reminds me of that old adage – arguing on the internet is like the special olympics; even if you win, you’re still retarded.
HOLY HECK SPOILERS FOLLOWING
I’M SERIOUS
GO AWAY
I have mixed feelings about ME3′s ending. On one side, it’s not THAT bad as anyone seems to go nuts about; on the other, it’s far from perfect or satisfying.
Me, on my first playthrough (which I didn’t like that much, as expected: my first is always a speedrun to see everything, with the standard story, without importing any saves – in brief: not MY story, but a shorter pieceholder) I chose the “save everyone” ending, and you know why? ’cause I felt bad for the geth. That’s it. Catalyst saying I could have destroyed the reapers and all synthetic life? Hell no. Not after having chosen the geth and hoping until the last moment the quarians would see reason and break off their crazy attack. I was not gonna let that sacrifice go to waste.
20/03/2012 at 13:25 Aardvarkk says:
Yes, apparently I have ‘no soul’ for liking the ending.
19/03/2012 at 20:20 noodlecake says:
Oh God no! i hated the ending. But I enjoyed the game a lot up to that point. I think people went a bit over the top with their dislike and I do think it should be praised for it’s merits. Most people who dislike the end said the game was pointless and that demanded that it be rewritten which I think is too much. I also think that my original comment was definitely on the trollish side. I don’t normally troll but this and the dragon age 2 thing did bring that out of me.
19/03/2012 at 23:13 MarcusCardiff says:
@noodlecake
I can’t see how you and a few dozen Bioware apologists are correct and thousands of us are wrong.
Too many pompous assholes hating on people with legitimate grievances for my liking.
But the devs are always correct and we should just buy what they tell us and STFU, right?
20/03/2012 at 08:31 Kadayi says:
Irrational pedantry? Care to qualify that statement in some manner? Or should we assume you’re above such things?
19/03/2012 at 18:27 delta_vee says:
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
I respect what you’re saying – and if they’d ended it after that conversation with Anderson, I’d agree. The kicker of it all (like a horse kicking you in the stomach) is the inferred holocaust brought about from destroying all the relays. That’s the point which made me feel like all those choices I’d made along the way had just been ground into dust. It was a “nice job saving the galaxy, man, but better job destroying it” moment. After that, I felt sick (quite literally) and turned the game off in disgust.
If Bioware hadn’t put that part in, I think, then the uproar wouldn’t be nearly as tremendous as it is. It might have been disappointing, but I doubt it would have inspired quite the rage that it has.
19/03/2012 at 18:35 HermitUK says:
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS LALALA
Indeed. Aside from the fact that Arrival went to great pains to point out that Relays exploding kills all the things, without them all those alien fleets you brought to the final battle get to starve to death in orbit around Earth.
Nice job breaking it, Hero.
19/03/2012 at 19:28 Shadram says:
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER AND STUFF
I don’t really agree with this argument. Throughout Mass Effects 2 and 3 you frequently travel between solar systems without use of a Mass Effect relay, and as you hop in and out of them, EDI often says “Jump to light speed successful” or something like that. Sure, it might take them a long time, and it may be too far for some species to get home, but to say they’re stuck in orbit around earth seems incorrect.
19/03/2012 at 19:35 Robert says:
**********SPOILER************
Wasn’t the Arrival story specifically about thrashing a meteor against it, which is not necessarily the same as this?
20/03/2012 at 01:32 Enso says:
It’s most definitely different from this. I keep reading this over and over again.
Energy wave = signal to destroy/control/synthesize
Energy beam = Remaining energy sent to next relay
Relay Blowing up = Just the relay/machinery blowing up, none of the main energy remains.
To me, it’s a massive oversight of the critics of this particular aspect. Don’t they teach thermodynamics in secondary school anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_conduction
EDIT: No matter how many times I see this debunked, it comes back, sometimes just a few posts after.
20/03/2012 at 02:22 KaL_YoshiKa says:
You are correct sir…I just don’t understand this part of the argument.
So the people arguing about why the ending suck include as what boils down to as one of their reasons “A Meteorite impact is the exact same as a Magic Space Explosion”. This is much like the difference between switching on a Nuclear reactor with an electric signal and THROWING MASSIVE BOULDERS AT IT. But no the ending sucks etc. *sigh*
19/03/2012 at 19:57 timmyvos says:
There’s a difference between travelling between clusters of systems (mostly around the mass relays) , most of which are about 20-60 light years apart, a manageable distance for most ships and travelling the distances made possible by the Mass Relays, often in excess of a 1000 light years. The entire galactic economy, civilization, and supply lines in the Mass Effect series are based on the Mass Relays. Without them colonies will run out of food, Earth, and by extension the entire galactic fleet, will starve because of the huge amount of aliens and humans in its orbit without any land available for farming any time soon and nothing will get rebuilt because there simply is nothing available.
20/03/2012 at 05:15 KvP says:
Here’s what a writer from Bioware, Chris L’ettoire (sp?), allegedly said on the matter:
“As for colonization patterns, yeah, the bulk of the galaxy is toast. There are three basic types of world in the IP:
Homeworlds: Billions of inhabitants, too many to feed and maintain standard of living without massive resource importation. (Earth, Thessia, etc.)
Colony worlds: Millions of inhabitants, self-supporting but may lack heavy industry or R&D capabilities. (Terra Nova, New Eden, Illium)
Mining worlds: Hundreds or thousands of inhabitants, uninhabitable without regular imports of manufactured goods, O2, food, and so on. These worlds supply the resources that feed the homeworlds. (Therum)
What you’d realistically see post-relay is a massive die-off back to sustainable levels. For the mining worlds, nothing is sustainable – everyone dies. For the homeworlds, massive starvation and scarcity – a Malthusian crisis akin to what killed off the drell. Life becomes nasty, brutish, and short as people fight over the leftovers. The homeworlds have all the tech, but they’re mined-out – there’s not enough to start again from scratch. If they use up what they have, they’re not getting back into space on their own.
The colonies fare the best. They can feed themselves and maintain their level of technology (possibly barring a few key industries). They’ll certainly lack for brain power (the most prestigious universities and corporate labs are on homeworlds), and the smaller ones will have problems with genetic diversity. They may not be able to get back into space for generations, but they’re in good shape to do it eventually.”
I don’t know if that’s legit but the in-game Codex goes into this to some extent. Conventional Faster-Than-Light (FTL) travel is limited by (1) Eezo supply and (2) “FTL drive discharge points”, which if I recall correctly tend to be magnetic fields around gas giant planets. If you don’t have one or both of either for long distances, FTL travel becomes really really dicey, and that’s the function that the relays provided in the IP – they’re mass teleporters. The Codex also states that galactic civilizations clusters around relays because of their convenience, but also because space is much, much more vast than it even seems in-game – it’s stated that about 1% of the galaxy is mapped. Without the relays, you’ve got thousands or millions of light years of empty space to get through before you hit your destination. For all intents and purposes, the kind of travel afforded by relays is technically impossible without them.
That’s all in-game sources, at least. Either they didn’t put much thought into the implications of the ending or they were, in fact, going for a primitivist “back to square one” ending (handwaving the certain doom that would befall so many fleets stuck in the Sol system, etc.) It sucks, but there it is
19/03/2012 at 19:36 Archonsod says:
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
Except all those ships have FTL drives, and the race that would have to travel the furthest has already spent three centuries living on the same ships they were flying.
Also it’s the release of energy that destroys planets when the relays go boom. Given that self same energy is what’s being used to enact your choice, I think it’s somewhat implied that it’s not going to wipe anyone out. Unless of course you opted to exterminate the synthetics.
19/03/2012 at 20:07 HermitUK says:
Problem is that Mass Effect FTL cores can move about 12 Lightyears in a day; Ashley mentions this in ME1, and it takes an evening for Joker to move the Normandy to nearby systems to reach the final mission relays in ME1/2. The Citadel’s original location was about 50,000 light years from Earth, meaning somewhere over 11 years to reach it. Assuming similar times to reach the home systems of each species, I doubt they’ll have brought that much food; The Quarian Liveships which grow most of their foodstocks didn’t join the Earth fleet, as far as I can see.
19/03/2012 at 19:59 Haphaz77 says:
Spoiler etc.
John and delta_vee make good points. The game itself is an ending of sorts – resolving the Geth/Quarian war and the Genophage and myriad other issues. If the game had ended with Anderson’s death I’d have been happy. But the Normandy’s end made no sense and the game opened more questions at the end, rather than answering them, ending the game on a sour note.
The real shame is that Bioware can (and has) done better – the ends of ME1 and 2 were brilliant. Judging from the latest info, there is no conspiracy, the ending was just rushed and not properly QA’d. Of course, its hard to admit a mistake and Bioware of course are free to do as they like. It just seems like an easy win to make a new ‘director’s cut ‘ and please the fans. There’s a lot of money in that for them (DLC sales, future sales) if they do. Just swallow your pride for a bit Bioware. Thanks!
19/03/2012 at 18:27 Iliya Moroumetz says:
I can see your point, sir, however, I would have to disagree about the ending on a creative level.
It’s bad. There is no way around it.
To introduce the Star Child/Catalyst/whatever, which clearly shows such pivotal importance to the existence of the Reapers, so close to the end, is bad writing.
Not to mention the ten minute monologue that accompanies it. Grinds the game to a complete halt and you can’t help but feel that you’re being talked down to.
It’s just like the scene with the Architect of the second Matrix movie.
As a side note; it’s also bad story telling to ruin the mystery. I can’t remember who said it, but if you explain something horrible and terrifying, it’s no longer horrible and terrifying. Sovereign’s spiel from ME1 was all the backstory on the Reapers we needed.
So, yeah.
And don’t get me started on the whole Indoctrination theories going around. But that’s another subject.
For what it’s worth, I wanted to spare the Geth, whom I was able to help reconcile with the Quarians, and EDI, so, I too took the Synthesis option. It’s a very unsatisfying conclusion.
I apologize for being long-winded, but it’s hard not to feel somewhat cheated on the closure you wanted so bad since Shepard offered Retirement, Old Age, and Little Blue Children after Lair of the Shadow Broker.
19/03/2012 at 18:50 PopeBob says:
B-but the syntho-organic leaves! Joker’s circuitry-riddled hat! Surely this is the greatest ending ever devised by man!
19/03/2012 at 19:05 Iliya Moroumetz says:
Joker and EDI’s techno-organic kids!
19/03/2012 at 19:38 Archonsod says:
spoiler
spoiler
spoiler
See, the reason people complain is because they just don’t understand the ending. By picking the synthesis option you reveal the true focus of the entire trilogy.
Joker finally gets laid.
19/03/2012 at 19:11 X_kot says:
While I don’t disagree on any particular point you make, I would like to mitigate the harshness of the critique by suggesting that endings are hard to write, especially when a lot of people have very high expectations. So many television shows have ended with what were considered disappointing finales (many already mentioned in this thread) primarily because it is impossible to satisfy the desires of such a large audience. It’s le petit objet a, a resolution that no write could hope to produce. I was quite content to see the ME3 ending as akin to how 2001: A Space Odyssey resolves: science-fiction that renounces plot coherence in favor of abstraction. It’s a risky move because it requires audience members to put aside their cognitive mapping of the story and experience something nonlogic driven.
19/03/2012 at 20:36 Iliya Moroumetz says:
Quite true. Endings are hard to write. However, they are not impossible. Bioware’s developed a pedigree of excellent writing of stories, and endings with proper closure, so, it’s becoming a bit difficult to excuse them when they’ve become known for writing good stories with good endings.
And while I see your point about 2001, I am not entirely sure that going for nonlogic and abstraction was the route to go for a franchise at the last minute. After all, Kubrick didn’t experience the blacklash that Bioware and EA are at the moment.
And, if doing this, as you say, was a risky move, well, it appears that the gamble paid off, but not in the way that Casey Hudson wanted. He said he wanted it to be memorable, and, unfortunately, it is.
19/03/2012 at 21:03 stahlwerk says:
Excellent call about 2001. The set up seems similar, indeed. I wonder if Bioware had considered going all out white-room-old-man-embryo-in-space, and leave it at that vagueness vis a vis the cosmic.
20/03/2012 at 08:30 Triangulon says:
The difference is that the ending to 2001 is explained in the book. The book and film were released together and were intended to compliment each-other. As Arthur C Clarke offered a reasoned approach to closing out the story, Kubrick was able to produce such an abstract ending to the film without leaving it impossible for fans to achieve a sense of closure should they so wish.
There is currently no such situation with the ending to Mass Effect 3.
20/03/2012 at 22:44 Ruffian says:
Endings are hard to write, damned hard. But you know what? they’re sure as hell not impossible and with a team of high quality writers, I don’t feel bad for them in the slightest. It’s nonsense to say that “endings are hard” as if they didn’t know there would have to be an ending from the second they decided it would be a trilogy five years ago. They’ve had plenty of time, and space to get this right. Endings are hard is not exactly a valid defense.
That said I can somewhat appreciate the choices they gave you, and what they were trying to do, but it was horribly executed. My personal end scene was somewhat alright but it was mostly because I played with edi and showing her and joker together at the end actually made some kind of sense, I can’t imagine how let down the people who didn’t use edi as a party member felt when joker stepped off of the ship with two random party members and it made not even the faintest of sense.
19/03/2012 at 19:34 Shadram says:
I didn’t feel that it broke the pace of the ending. It was more like the eye of the storm, a moment of peace and quiet while the battle raged on in the background. It certainly wasn’t a perfect ending, and I feel they could have achieved the same ending without the ghost kid (you had Anderson and Illusive Man there to argue destroy/control, and I’m sure EDI could have recommended synthesis) but it wasn’t as horrible as everyone seems to think. It certainly didn’t make me hate three games that I’ve enjoyed so completely.
19/03/2012 at 20:42 Iliya Moroumetz says:
While you have a point, I would offer that ‘eyes of the storm’ have their places, and in a place as tense as in the middle of the final battle, seems quite out of place. You didn’t see it in any of the other highly lauded movies that still have staying power long after.
And while it didn’t make me hate the entire trilogy, as some would think, given the reaction, it does, however, leave a very visible black mark on one of the greatest gaming franchises of the past few years. One that Bioware will probably never be able to live down.
19/03/2012 at 22:06 Shadram says:
And I’d argue that it was perfectly placed. You couldn’t end the series with a whizz-bang gung-ho ending, it needed that quiet, poignant moment, asking the player to make one more choice to end the game. I agonised over the decision for a long time before choosing, and it was everything that had happened before that made it so difficult. That wouldn’t have happened in the middle of a warzone with explosions echoing all around.
20/03/2012 at 02:44 Iliya Moroumetz says:
No, Sorry. I can’t see it that way. It was so ham-fisted that you could make a sandwich out of your hand.
19/03/2012 at 23:46 Arbodnangle Scrulp says:
The Catalyst ending was the least worst option so I took it, but with my teeth gritted.
Wasn’t there a whole subplot over the last three games, over the moral indefensibility of uplifting a race against their will (Salarians and Krogan)? About how meddling in the evolutionary process shouldn’t be done? And here I am doing it to the whole galaxy!
20/03/2012 at 00:28 Crimsoneer says:
There was also the continuous thread of “multiple diverse races cooperating is better than one united racist front”, as defined by your CO in ME1, Ashley, Cerberus, and obviously Javik in ME3 specifically stating that the Prothean’s lost because they were all too similar.
20/03/2012 at 08:12 f1x says:
What you said about mistery: thats usually talked around Lovecraft’s stories, he never describes literally the horror, only the sensation of horror produced, (sometimes even in a too hiperbolic way) thus, its your imagination that visualizes the creatures and the monsters
But after Lovecraft, there is been millions of visual representations of cthulu and none is as scary as you would picture it when reading a story from Lovecraft itself
SPOILERS:
Same happens with Mass Effect ending (and many other videogame ending) as you mentioned, they didnt need to just show everything, but they did, they shouldnt have made the child a “physical”/visible thing they could have just drop a “god’s voice” there or something, or just entirely cut that,
I mean it could’ve been much more easier (not saying that I can write a better story but just wondering)
with 2 possible endings (+ degrees of ending)
ending 1 – finishing after anderson dies, you just destroy the reapers with the crucible and depending on your choices, the races unity together in piece or the alliance just breaks after the main threat is destroyed (as its hinted through the campaign) also depending on your choices some companions live or die, there is more or less damage done to the galaxy, and it would be just like the end of Alien 1 and Aliens (2) threat is destroyed but the sense of danger and mistery continues, therefore the community will keep on building research around the misteries and the unresolved plots and theories
ending 2 – you just fail, because of your choices or the lack of war assets, but presented as for example “the illusive man in the end betrays humanity” and therefore the reapers win, the resistance is savage and until the last man standing (possibly with some cinematic of shepards companion heroicly standing until the end) but ultimately everything dies and the cicle starts a new,
a pessimistic ending, but also glorious and heroic sort of “Braveheart” / 300 classic history where the hero is betrayed but makes it definitely memorable unti the last moment, (the last conversation with Javik is sort of this style of ending)
19/03/2012 at 18:27 King Kong says:
you are the biggest fruit on the planet
19/03/2012 at 18:27 Crimsoneer says:
Hold on John, how did it NOT fade to black and leave the possibility for sequels? If you chose the correct ending, then Shepard is alive – SOMEWHERE – your friends are alive – SOMEWHERE – and the entire galactic fleet is stranded on earth. How is this not a big fade to black.
Also, the main problem I had was the huge lack of explanation for the ending. Destruction will destroy all the synthetics, included Geth and Edi…I’m sorry, small Godchild, it will do what? Why the hell does it do that? How? Did you include a frigging killswitch in everything ever? What about synthesis? What and how the hell did that happen? What does it actually mean for the galaxy?
rant over :P
19/03/2012 at 18:59 Mungrul says:
It didn’t fade to black. It popped up a reminder to buy more DLC. HUGE difference.
19/03/2012 at 19:25 LintMan says:
I saw this on another forum, but can’t find the original now:
Boy: “Can you tell me more stories about The Shepard?”
Man: “You’ll have to give me another ten dollars.”
Boy: “But I don’t have any more money, Grandpa.”
Man: “Then go to bed!”
19/03/2012 at 18:28 zeekthegeek says:
JohnWalkerMissesThePoint.txt
I think the most offensive thing is that they tell you constantly that your efforts matter and you gotta get the preparedness up, but there is literally no difference to the last act if you don’t. The same cheap cutscenes play and the same non-sensical deus ex machina (literally) takes all illusion of you having agency over Shepard’s choices away.
Here’s what I hate most about the ending three choices: none of them are something Shepard would choose to do. Shepard’s response in this situation is more likely ‘shoot the retarded god-alien-kid thing’.
And a slightly less important but still annoying thing: the background in the after-credits scene? Google Winter Space. They just stole an image off a wallpaper site, and photoshopped two silhouettes onto it. Cheap cheap cheap, for such a huge budget game.
19/03/2012 at 18:30 Unaco says:
Maybe it’s a lesson on futility. Maybe you missed the point?
19/03/2012 at 18:38 ezekiel2517 says:
So the entire ME saga, all about beating mind shattering odds against impossibly powerful beings, comes down to futility…
19/03/2012 at 18:42 Grygus says:
Did you play the game and see the ending?
Futility wasn’t the point. It could have been! That might been a good ending, actually.
But the cycle is broken. The Reavers lose. The Normandy escapes. Earth is saved. In some endings, Shepard even lives. If you’re trying to communicate futility, this is a poor attempt.
Unless you mean the futility of expecting sensible stories from video games. Then you might be onto something but it’s not a conversation I want to be in.
19/03/2012 at 18:58 Fox89 says:
Even if futility WAS the point I would have still liked the option to stay true to the principles that had governed me since I first set foot on Eden Prime. “No, your options all suck, I refuse even if it means the destruction of everything.”
Sure, maybe everyone would die. But at least I would still have my self-respect. …That’s just as important as saving all sentient life to some people.
19/03/2012 at 19:00 Zelos says:
Sorry, but everyone is dead as a consequence of the Relays exploding. There are multiple references to the consequences of that happening, and everyone is definitely dead.
On the upside, it means that everything was in fact just a story made up by grandpa at the end and that any idea of “canon” is thrown out the window because he can just remember things differently.
19/03/2012 at 19:12 Grygus says:
The Normandy is shown on a lush planet, with at least a few crew members very much alive, well after the local Mass Relay explodes.
19/03/2012 at 19:26 Phantoon says:
Yes, including members of your team that were with you on the final part of the final mission, in which case they’d have had no way to get back to the Normandy.
19/03/2012 at 19:57 Bobzer says:
Yes except now they are stranded on some lush world with no ship, limited supplies and no way to get back to their home systems due to the destruction of the Mass Relays.
They are stranded there forever, I guess they will have fun though.
19/03/2012 at 21:10 Zelius says:
Not to mention the idea that Joker saying “fuck this, I’m out” even before Shepard makes his choice, makes absolutely no sense. Joker, and every other squad member, would have been on or above Earth until the very end. I would have been fine with the ending if that blatantly illogical sequence wasn’t in it.
19/03/2012 at 18:41 essentialatom says:
zeekthegeekmissesthepoint.txt
Edit – Damn, beaten to it!
19/03/2012 at 18:28 Eruanno says:
So… how do you defend the part where Joker and the Normandy magically appears in-between two Mass Relays and crashlands on a jungle planet – despite the fact that he was at Earth, shooting Reapers with us only moments ago?
19/03/2012 at 22:40 jaheira says:
Do we know how long Shepard was unconscious before going up the beam of light?
19/03/2012 at 23:05 Zelius says:
That still wouldn’t make any sense, namely for these two reasons:
1) Considering everything they’ve been through, Joker and the rest of your squad would not simply abandon Shepard (or the entire battle for Earth, for that matter). It greatly devalues their characters. I honestly believe they would sooner sacrifice themselves trying to win the war, rather than try to escape.
2) Joker is still part of the Alliance, and the Normandy is still an Alliance ship, not to mention one of the most advanced ships in the entire fleet. Even in the unlikely event that Joker would attempt to escape, and convince your entire squad to escape with him, he would have been ordered to stay in the battle.
Edit: might as well add what I think that part signified; Bioware had left-over footage of the Normandy exploding, and didn’t want to waste it. They likely added it at the last minute. Note how nobody speaks in those scenes, which could be attributed to them already wrapping up recording sessions.
20/03/2012 at 00:54 jaheira says:
Zelius, I was asking a genuine question, not trying to make a point. I just couldn’t remember if we had any indication of how long Shepard was out. I suspect that if they do any DLC it may involve this period of time. Your points are valid, but stuff may have happened that we don’t yet know about.
By the way, was it you who was doing that survey about DRM on the forums? What was the result? (Ignore my wrongness if it wasn’t you!)
20/03/2012 at 01:43 Zelius says:
Indeed, that was me. Thanks for your interest! The result was that certain aspects of DRM will actually lead to players avoiding a product altogether, while not necessarily leading to an increase in piracy, but still leading to a decrease in potential profits. Aspects of DRM which were cited the most, were limited activations and the necessity to be online while playing (in the case of single-player games). That’s the gist of it, at least. The article I wrote is over ten thousand words long, and contained many other findings.
I’ve actually been asked to present my findings at a New Media conference soon, which I’m pretty excited about. I’m also thinking about translating the thesis into English (I wrote it in Dutch). When I do, I’ll be sure to link to it in the forums, in case anyone here is interested in reading the whole thing.
20/03/2012 at 01:54 jaheira says:
Nice. Good luck with that. Look forward to reading it (in English!)
19/03/2012 at 18:29 HermitUK says:
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. WARNING.
I recommend reading this article, which articulates the issues with the ending rather well: http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right
The overall impression, to me, is that the ending(s) was rushed; an impression backed up by The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3, which suggests they were still messing with it close to Gold date. It feels like they ran out of time, and had to run with whatever they had. It explains why the endings are so similar and reuse so many assets. It explains why events in the ending make little sense (The Normandy crash, teleporting squadmates). It explains why they didn’t have time to flesh out the Catalyst dialogue, which could have cleared up some of his incredibly vague and nonsensical statements that Shepard takes as fact.
I think a lot of players will accept the ending, or agree that while the ending was a bit odd the game was great. And those folks will move on. The problem BioWare has is that the core fanbase seems to be the most vocal and the most upset (And I’ll readily admit I’m among that number). This is the same core fanbase that they’re hoping will buy the DLC they peddle in the final textbox.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved 98% of ME3. Everything up to the final elevator was brilliant – heck, the showdown with The Illusive Man would have been a fine moment to end on. And I’ve already started a new ME1 game to see how some different choices carry over the entire series. It’s just a shame the closing moments don’t stack up with the rest of the game, or the series in general.
As for the “Indoctrination” theory, don’t forget that The Final Hours makes clear that the plan WAS to have Shepard fall under Reaper control at the end, as late as November 2011; in other words, at least some of potential clues throughout the game probably were meant to foreshadow this, at one point. And when they finalised the ending at the last minute, they didn’t have the time to remove all those hints and clues.
I really like the idea of a battle against indoctrination – it’s been shown time and again to be one of the Reapers’ strongest weapons, and there’s a lot you could do with the concept.
But I don’t know if it would gel well with the game they finally released. If Indoctrination had been the ending presented in the game, great. But now, if they release DLC which reveals the final section never happened, then the current ending becomes invalid. It means ME3 is a game without an ending, rather than a game with a bad ending. In some ways that’s worse; it leaves anyone who is unwilling (or unable) to get that additional content with no resoultion at all, rather than simply an unsatisfying one.
19/03/2012 at 19:27 Phantoon says:
Speaking of The Final Hours, there’s a design note that literally has “LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE!” written on it.
Then they went with that, rather than tying the ending in some sort of neat bow.
20/03/2012 at 00:13 tyren says:
I’ve read that article and I agree with pretty much every point it makes. Honestly though, I’d be a lot less frustrated if Bioware hadn’t flat-out said that THE ENDING SPECIFICALLY (not “the whole game as the end of the franchise,” the end of ME3) would be significantly affected by our choices throughout ME3. It gets discussed on the second page of this article, read the first several paragraphs:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2
Bearing in mind this interview was made in December, when the ending was already finalized, I feel safe in saying Casey Hudson was knowingly lying through his teeth when he said “At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.”
19/03/2012 at 18:29 PleasingFungus says:
Here’s a question for the comments thread: can you think of any other game in recent history with an ending that has inspired nearly this much controversy and argument and interest?
For better or worse, I certainly can’t.
19/03/2012 at 18:34 Eversor says:
Can you name a game that allowed for such continuity across the trilogy and shaped up based on your decisions, thus causing you to be emotionally invested in the characters you chose to help? I can’t.
A better comparison would be a TV series. Battlestar Galactica, The Sopranos, Lost etc. “What does this have to do with games”, you might ask? Writing. Bad writing ruins a story. Badly written end ruins a well written story.
19/03/2012 at 18:46 John Walker says:
No it doesn’t ruin the story. It may spoil the ending for you, but if you were enjoying the story before then, then you enjoyed the story!
19/03/2012 at 18:50 Grygus says:
That is true, but I do not recommend good stories with bad endings to my friends, so it does make a difference. When someone tells me watch the first ten episodes of LOST and then stop, they are telling me that LOST sucks.
19/03/2012 at 18:55 Fox89 says:
Very true. Ever watch the anime ‘Death Note’? There are 30+ episodes to that. As far as I’m concerned; it ends at episode 26. Terrible endings can, perhaps not ruin, but severely damage your experience of the fiction as a whole.
19/03/2012 at 19:08 Eddy9000 says:
John I thought you were the literary theory man of the group, wasn’t it you who wanted to ‘bring back Barthes’?
Our experiences change dynamically given the emergence of new information and experience, ‘you enjoyed it at the time’ doesn’t matter, because we are not ‘at the time’ anymore, experience of past events changes dynamically with the context change caused by future experience. You cannot ‘enjoy something at the time’ because that experience of the present is set in the context of past and future experience. So the ending spoils the experience of the narrative, and any future engagement with that narrative. What I enjoyed at the time I no longer experience as having enjoyed because of the new context set by the shitty ending. So now I’m carrying a spoilt experience of 90 hours of game-play and have little desire to engage with it again in a replay, which was something I was looking forward to.
19/03/2012 at 19:35 Red_Avatar says:
I cannot agree with Eddy more – and I’m surprised John actually believes what he says is true. To make the frankly bafflingly ignorant statement that because you enjoyed the story up till the end, you enjoyed it, is staggering.
A great mystery book can leave a very sour taste if the ending makes no sense (Stephen King ahoy) – a book you’d never recommend because you felt the ending was a rip off.
Or a TV series that ruins the entire solid premise by having an utterly baffling ending.
Would you honestly say you’d watch or read either of those knowing the ending will just be a painful disappointment and reminder of what could have been?
It doesn’t matter that you enjoyed it as you were playing it because that’s not how our brain works. If you bite in an apple and enjoy it until you discover its inside is filled with maggots, would you honestly say you enjoyed the apple? Don’t be daft …
19/03/2012 at 19:51 Eversor says:
This, precisely. I have five different Shepards that have gone through different variations of the story. After finishing ME3 with my first Shepard, I didn’t want to replay the game with another of those five. I saw no point. The end soured the experience so much that it was difficult to motivate me to even attempt to play through again, and believe me, I tried. I got past Mars and stopped. I knew how it will all end. I knew all I do will be ultimately meaningless in front of the Reaper god’s merciless dictate.
This is opposed to ME1, where I replayed the game three times with the same character, and ME2, where I instantly replayed it with the SAME character, doing the absolute SAME choices. There was nothing like it with 3.
Javik’s memory shard is an appropriate metaphor to this whole ordeal. “If you could relive it all, knowing how it ends… would you do it?”. Like him, I am very reluctant to do so, and it’s all because the last ten minutes that are like a spoonful of tar in a tub of honey.
19/03/2012 at 19:59 Juan Carlo says:
I don’t see what BArthes has to do with this. Yes, he believed that Our experiences change dynamically given the emergence of new information and experience, but the conclusion I think he would draw from this claim, in this instance, would not be that the ending to the game would ruin our past experience with the narrative. Rather, his basic idea would be that we never would experience the same ending twice–mainly because our contexts/experiences are continually changing so we are, quite literally, different people viewing the content via different “filters” at different times in our life.
So if anything, I think the main idea we can get from Barthes in this situation would be that if you don’t like the ending now, try it again in 2 years. Even if you still hate it then, your experience of it will be a completely different thing than it was the last time you watched it. It will, basically, be an entirely “new” thing to you–at least in terms of the subtle ways that you are interpreting it.
19/03/2012 at 20:23 Eddy9000 says:
I just used that as an example of Johns literary theory interest (thought I remembered him saying it in an electronic wireless podcast, whatever happened to them?) rather than Barthes theory having relevance in this case, was interesting to hear what you said about it though!
I’m a psychologist so I’m coming at it from systemic and narrative theory, broadly under social constructionist thinking.
19/03/2012 at 19:38 Phantoon says:
John, I still reserve the right to hate the Star Wars Prequels and say that they cheapened my enjoyment of the original movies.
And I also reserve the right to hate the ending of Battlestar Galatica, which was completely terrible, and ruined my enjoyment of the series. In that way, leaving things open ended would’ve been fine. We didn’t need to know everything- some mysteries had been pushed along too long for there to be a meaningful answer in the end. Sure, the same could’ve been true of Mass Effect, except that this was just badly written the entire time.
Introducing the final boss in the bridge to the second act of the third game is not good writing. Deus Ex HR’s bosses sucked because they didn’t fit and had no introduction.
Grandpa storytime is also not good writing.
And having the last two words in your game be “downloadable content” is a load of Horse Armor and is completely unacceptable.
19/03/2012 at 19:52 Juan Carlo says:
BSG is the ultimate argument, though, for how a subpar ending does not necessarily ruin a well constructed narrative. Regardless of the ending, most of season 2, the beginning of season 3, and even a large part of the middle of season 4 of BSG are still awesome–ending or no, mainly because they are just really well constructed episodes of TV.
Of course, I don’t think the ending to BSG was as bad as many say, but that’s probably a topic for another time.
Point is: I think the same is true for Mass Effect. It’s constructed mostly like a TV series–i.e. episodically. So even if you really hate how the series wraps up, I still think you can enjoy many of the earlier missions for what they were on their own.
19/03/2012 at 20:10 Kadayi says:
@Juan Carlo
You remember the brave human resistance guys at the beginning of Season 3? Turns out they were in fact all Cylons. Remember how the President was dying, but then was rescued by the miracle baby blood? But said same blood couldn’t cure anyone else a few episodes later on? Remember how Callie had been making moon eyes at the Chief for a couple of seasons finally nabbed him? But then it turned out that the baby wasn’t really his (because he was apparently a Cylon all a long) and in reality she’d been banging Hot dog instead? Remember how basically you were invested in humanity being on the run, but the writers killed off pretty much all the human characters or revealed that they were in fact Cylons all a long? Great writing? More like Ret-con city.
19/03/2012 at 19:39 LintMan says:
“No it doesn’t ruin the story. It may spoil the ending for you, but if you were enjoying the story before then, then you enjoyed the story!”
Perhaps for you, but I disagree. For me, a lousy ending (especially one filled with plot holes, bad/lazy writing, cliches, and ridiculous logic) totally and completely overshadows what might otherwise have been an enjoyable or even great ride up to that point. The annoyance I feel outweighs the earlier good moments, leaving my lasting memory to be a negative one.
19/03/2012 at 19:55 Kadayi says:
What has been seen, cannot be unseen John. A badly written ending inevitably colours an experience in its entirety. I absolutely loved the storyline of BSG through the first couple of seasons, but about midway through the 3rd the rot started to set in when it came to the revelation of the ‘final five’ (which was basically a plot cover to explain the lack of contract actors to fill as yet unseen Cylon roles) and trudged slowly towards a storyline that seemed to indicate that entire human apocalypse was pretty much a resultant of Dean Stockwell having Daddy issues and wanting to (literally) fuck with his creators on a galactic scale (and let’s not forget that ‘God did it’ in the finale). The whole thing turned from TV gold into TV lead over the space of a half dozen episodes. It’s impossible for me to muster the enthusiasm to rewatch it, given I know how it’s going to go and how disappointing that conclusion was.
With regards to ME3. Shepard dying wasn’t a big issue for me (the most heroic sacrifice is self sacrifice after all). I wasn’t even that unhappy with the 3 choices option. However the escaping Normandy footage was frankly risible (as was Buzz Aldrins godawful grandfather speech), and a poor substitute for some form of aftermath vertical slice montage showing how Shepard’s decisions throughout the game(s) play out under each of the three choices, as well as the fate of his companions. A challenge? Certainly. But nothing that other games haven’t done before.
19/03/2012 at 20:04 Sarkhan Lol says:
“No it doesn’t ruin the story. It may spoil the ending for you, but if you were enjoying the story before then, then you enjoyed the story!”
I understand what you are saying and disagree completely. Endings are not separate from the stories they crown. The ending is part of a story as well, and a critical part at that. If I’m eating a delicious meal, and then my last bite contains a solid spoonful of dogshit, then sorry, I did not enjoy that meal. If a massage ends with me being shot in the foot with a nailgun, I am not relaxed and fully satisfied.
That’s an extreme comparison, the sort of hyperbolic nonsense you generally see from fans angry about Tali’s stock-photo picture, but one that hopefully illustrates the point. We’ve all seen less than stellar, possibly even flavorless endings. No big deal. It takes a very, very badly written and ill-considered ending to retroactively bring down an entire storytelling experience, but it can and does happen. If I was enjoying the story and well-invested into it before then, so much harder and further does that ruin hit. It can taint everything that came before it if it’s drawn the player/viewer/reader in enough til that point. (Hello, Ego Draconis.) More precarious still, ME is a series, and it stands or crumbles on the merits of all its components.
It’s not the sudden railroading into three identical conclusions. I was satisfied with the culmination of choice up til that point. So what if they promised something different? I never believe anything developers tell me, and neither should you. But these conclusions were so forced, arbitrary, disconnected and senseless that they lost all meaning. I was told the ending was bad, and I thought I, a connoisseur of bad games, was ready for it. Man, was I wrong.
It’s not the tone. I love bleak. The Witcher series and STALKER both had quite bleak endings (at least, my Witcher 2 did,) and I thought they were terrific, ladybirds and all. Mordin died in my playthrough. My favorite character, dead, and I thought it was fitting and well-done. I don’t want a ‘happier’ ending, and neither does a good portion of the discontented audience who stayed with this series. Just one with a degree of literary competence that doesn’t engender wild theories about how it was all a dream because, and this is the really telling part, that would be preferable to what we actually got. ME3′s ending isn’t bad because it’s unhappy, it’s bad because its terrible, jarring, nonsensically bad writing that seems to bear no logic or relation to the series as a whole. It’s trying to be clever and deep at the expense of anything and everything else. See also: The Matrix 3, which ME3′s conclusion rather strongly resembled, for me. You can fudge a lot of things and get away with it, but not on this scale. Remember the last third of Indigo Prophecy? Of course you do. How could you forget?
However, I’m glad ME3 had the ending it did. Not because I can find any merit in it, but because of the hilarious responses it’s generating. Marauder Shields is the funniest damn thing to come out of a video game in ages. LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE is a pretty damn versatile catchcry. Watching screenwriters and PR people dissect and analyze things is fascinating. The support group is working overtime, and, like the Daleks, a greater good has come from a terrible evil. It gives me a strange and unsettling kind of hope.
One day, my sweets. One day.
19/03/2012 at 20:04 copernicus_phoenix says:
Wind rushing through your hair. The adrenaline coursing through your body. The experience of weightlessness. The majesty of the world, spread out beneath you. All very enjoyable.
It seems almost churlish to complain that someone has tampered with your parachute…
20/03/2012 at 00:21 Zelius says:
This is the best analogy I’ve seen on the subject.
20/03/2012 at 07:33 Kadayi says:
You win the internets today sir.
19/03/2012 at 21:03 Matt says:
Yes, everything that comes before will always “exist”, but a serious enough flaw makes a whole work unsuccessful. You can still refer to anything unspoiled as doing things right, and wishing more of that, but the thing itself will always be unsuccessful. If you have a movie with only a few good scenes, you won’t call it a good movie. You might want to have more of the director in the vein of the good scenes, but you won’t refer to it as one of his good movies.
Endings that rewrite the entire premises are especially problematic, because that is what everything hinges on. And you want to see everything in context and not just “imagine” another context.
19/03/2012 at 21:28 Werthead says:
This doesn’t really make sense. MASS EFFECT 3 is a whole game that can be analysed as a whole, with the ending included. When you look at art, you look at it as a whole piece, whether it takes ten seconds to look at a painting or five years to wait for a computer game or TV series to be finished. What the ending could have done, if the ‘indoctrination theory’ is correct and if this was handled better at the end, is make replaying the game before it have much greater resonance and meaning. For example, as I spoiled myself on the ending I had great fun spotting all the references and mentions of indoctrination, questions over Shepard’s rebuilding by Cerberus, questions that he ‘might just be a VI in Shepard’s body’, the weirdness of the dream sequences and so on. All excellent little touches that might be missed given the stuff going on elsewhere.
However, the ending was not handled correctly. Now replaying ME3, if indeed not the first two games, it will be impossible not to consider the fact that almost everything you’re doing is going to be undercut by a confused and nonsensical ending.
People aren’t irritated by the fact that the ending is ‘down’, they’re irritated because it doesn’t make any sense, at all.
20/03/2012 at 00:57 equatorian says:
Well, if that was true, you’d be okay with playing Amnesia only to learn that your kids had just thrown you a surprise Halloween party in the Gothic castle your mother-in-law happened to own, and all the monsters were basically your sons and daughters in state-of-the-art bedsheets?
Endings don’t matter much to the overall narrative if they’re average. But if they’re bad or great, it can shift your experience into a whole another spectrum.
(Nothing about ME3 here because I haven’t played it, I might end up liking the ending, but I take issue with the idea that the ending doesn’t matter if the journey’s been fun. Might’ve been true of the years of dump to C:>, but games and the gaming audience have changed since then.)
20/03/2012 at 09:16 Beva says:
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
20/03/2012 at 22:38 Sarkhan Lol says:
Gahahaha
19/03/2012 at 21:18 Consumatopia says:
I don’t think ME to BSG or Lost is a good comparison. BSG and Lost were “mystery” stories–viewers tried to find explanations for the strange things they were seeing on screen. Finding out that they were just making it up as they were going along completely ruins that (I didn’t see Lost, but I did see BSG, and, yes, dammit, it’s ruined by the way it ends).
ME, on the other hand, seems like its more about drama, characters and experience than ultimate explanations. The Sopranos is probably closer here–even if you think that ending sucks, it doesn’t retroactively ruin what came before it in the way BSG’s ending does.
20/03/2012 at 23:10 Ruffian says:
There was quite a bit of “mystery” behind the reapers.
19/03/2012 at 18:37 delta_vee says:
Not just interest, but reaction. And no, it’s not really precedented in gaming. Reminds me of riots after Rites of Spring or black armbands after Doyle killed off Holmes.
And regardless of anyone’s position on this particular issue, I think this is a conversation gaming needs to have – one about the boundaries of players and creators, and sorting out just how much an interactive story belongs to the audience.
19/03/2012 at 18:53 Grygus says:
I guess you slept through all the bitching about Dragon Age II, which was certainly not helped by another very bad ending.
I had partly the same problems with the end of Human Revolution, actually. All that story and choice-and-consequence boiling down to “push button, receive bacon” at the end. It didn’t matter what you had done, or why, or how. If you pushed A, you got ending A, same as anyone else who pushed A. It was like it wasn’t part of the game at all.
19/03/2012 at 19:10 Xocrates says:
While I haven’t played through ME3 to really make a comparison, I would like to present a short defense for DX:HR and why it’s different.
1) that game was about that final choice. The entire game was built around the theme of transhumanism and the final choice was simply “where do you stand on the issue”. Even if it was lazy, thematically it made sense.
2) HR gave you mostly choice on how to approach a problem, not what the solution to the problem will be. Even the ones where you did choose the solution didn’t have any far reaching consequences. Yes, you got to choose whether a couple minor characters lived or died, but that’s about it. You certainly didn’t have the option to cause the extinction of an entire race.
3) At the end of the game you knew exactly what every character would be doing (i.e much. the same they were doing before, since, again, none of your decisions had far reaching consequences). So you had all the closure necessary.
20/03/2012 at 23:17 Ruffian says:
I agree with you simply based on the fact that dxhr was a game about our world becoming one in which the push of a button could alter everything. It was the central theme of the game. it was about transhumanism. ME was also, but the concept simply wasn’t adressed enough or in the same way throughout.
19/03/2012 at 22:41 Hoaxfish says:
Yea, while they follow a similar “3 choices, pick 1″ set-up, I’ve seen a lot of people stand up for DE:HR (and DE1) in the comparison, simply because it essentially caps the story, which each option based on the themes running through the whole game, the various character motivations, the sort of “prolog” play-out, etc… ME3 on the other hand cuts a lot of it free before you reach the point of “choice”, leaving it to feel much more “clinical” and unrelated the rest of the game, and series.
19/03/2012 at 18:30 Fiyenyaa says:
You may see the entire game as the end of the series. I can see that, to an extent.
What makes that argument invalid for me is the way that the final choice makes any of these resolutions gained through the final game essentially meaningless because they shift the galactic paradigm by such an insanely large degree. They absolutely did fade to black with ambiguousness, because nothing whatsoever about the last decision you make is addressed.
19/03/2012 at 18:30 Unaco says:
It ain’t about the destination, surely. It’s about the journey.
19/03/2012 at 18:38 Grygus says:
Sure, but if the journey ends in a cesspool you will forgive people for taking a dislike to it.
19/03/2012 at 18:41 bwion says:
If you have a great road trip that culminates in a car crash, then yeah, it kind of is about the destination.
(Note: I don’t know if I think the end of Mass Effect 3 is a car crash. I’m just saying.)
19/03/2012 at 18:47 Hanban says:
Sure, but if the journey ends in you getting stabbed in the eye you’re bound to be at least disappointed.
I can’t say I was furious over the ending, but disappointed certainly.
19/03/2012 at 19:12 Nick says:
In life maybe, not in storytelling. As in lots of things, people remember the beginning and the end more than the middle bit and having a bad one of either can be damaging, its pretty basic stuff, not leaving your audience wit a sour taste in their mouth due to terrible deus ex machina crap should be pretty obvious to a writer with talent and/or respect for its audience. Its the writing equivelent of sticking a middle finger up and saying fuck you.
19/03/2012 at 18:32 ShEsHy says:
You spent half the article defending what didn’t need defending. The majority of ME3 is a great game, it’s just the quality of the ending that is below average.
19/03/2012 at 18:48 Grygus says:
I’m of the opinion that the uproar exists because the rest of the game is so excellent and choice-driven.
19/03/2012 at 19:28 Snidesworth says:
This. Nobody is knocking the bulk of the game (though it certainly has a few problems). The ending is just truly and irredeemably awful, making the terribly written first couple of hours look inoffensive in comparison. Stressing that what proceeded it was good doesn’t improve it. If the whole game was shit then nobody would care, but such a wonderful experience is capped with such an awful ending people will be disappointed.
19/03/2012 at 18:33 S Jay says:
I still didn’t play Mass Effect 3 (because of Origin), but that seems to be a fair point of view also.
19/03/2012 at 18:33 Grover says:
Defending the ME3 ending: a Contrarian Devil’s Advocate game fit for Ivory Tower lovers “so beyond the common fan’s petty distastes” the world over.
19/03/2012 at 18:33 Xzi says:
“The distinction with gaming, you see, is you get to make choices, and those choices have consequences, and thus the game is unique to us. That notion makes sense in a game like Minecraft, but applying it to narrative, pre-scripted projects like the Mass Effect series is just naive.”
No, nope, nuh-uh. I have to stop you right there. Partially because it’s almost time for me to leave for class, but also because you’re dead wrong. Not only has the idea of choices with consequence been executed well in other narrative-driven games, but when an entire series like Mass Effect is both predicated and advertised with that as the focal point, that’s what we expect to receive as customers. So sue me when I expect Bioware to deliver on that point. Personally I’m not fond of being bent over a barrel, but if that’s your thing, I’m not here to tell you that you’re wrong. What I will tell you is that you can’t begin calling others naive for expecting to receive the exact things they were promised. Unless those making the promises are politicians. It’s a dangerous precedent to set for game developers, however.
19/03/2012 at 18:39 Eversor says:
This right here. Casey Hudson told us a week before release that the game will have numerous distinctive, satisfying endings, and that that there won’t be such a thing as “A ending, B ending or C ending”. “Sweet”, we all thought. What better way than to end series whose central theme was choice not only from a design perspective, but also reflected in its story? Choice to live on, choice to change, choice to overcome the shackles of pre-determination.
And then we played the game. In the last ten minutes, we got mad. Because those last ten minutes were completely against all of what was promised and what the series were about.
Sorry John, I disagree and remain rightfully pissed, because I was falsely advertised something that I never got.
19/03/2012 at 18:35 ezekiel2517 says:
I like 98% of John Walker. It is a shame that last 2% will be my freshest memory and will forever spoil the rest.
19/03/2012 at 18:36 Grygus says:
Much like BioWare’s ending, I am shocked into comment after seeing something of lower quality than I have come to expect from the name. No offense meant, but this argument seems poorly thought-out to me.
You start out by burning straw men – nobody with any sense has claimed that Mass Effect 3 as a whole ignored decisions – then you agree with the core problem: that the ending ignores this mechanic entirely. Surely the last ten minutes of a 100 hour story is not the time to change the very nature of the storytelling?
You then assert that the ending isn’t out of the blue, but I notice you never support that assertion; tell me how I should have seen that coming, please. Giving Shepard nightmares is brilliant characterization, as is his fraying temper as the game continues. Claiming that this reasonably points to a mystical ending in what has been a relatively hard science setting is purely hindsight. Tell me the moment you thought to yourself, “you know, the Reapers aren’t the real threat here.”
I do agree that the ending doesn’t retroactively ruin the series, but I do not see a logical argument that the ending isn’t bad; indeed all you seem to be saying is that it’s bad, but so what?
If you want to know why people are upset (because you don’t seem to entirely understand it,) this video explains it quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E
19/03/2012 at 21:39 newc0253 says:
I didn’t have a problem with ghost kid, nor his explanation of the cycle. Hell, I’m one of that narrow minority that actually liked the Architect in Matrix Reloaded and all that eternal recurrence guff.
But even i thought the three endings sucked galactic-sized donkey balls. And it baffles me that John Walker – the one RPS contributor i find myself in agreement with 98% of the time – contrived to find some satisfaction in these endings. The only way i could enjoy the endings, i think, would be to induce some kind of moderate brain damage.
Again, my problem isn’t ghost kid. It was always likely that the Reapers had some terrible hidden secret, and that this would be revealed very late in the game. Mass Effect 3, moreover, continued to hint at this and the Catylst’s mysterious nature. And on an intellectual level, i can even see that the game had also laid the groundwork for the Destroy ending, in that Reaper code had been incorporated into the Geth, into EDI and so on.
The problem, rather, is that the setup wasn’t nearly enough. It didn’t work intellectually, for all the gaping plot holes that have been pointed out. And it didn’t deliver on an emotional level. Not in the slightest. On my first playthrough i went for the Synthesis ending, not because i wanted to but only because it seemed the least-worst option after Control (basically validating the pro-human supremacy of the Illusive Man) and Destroy (which would kill all the synthetic life like EDI and the Geth that i’d worked so hard to promote and defend across all three games). But it felt phony as all hell – cheesy flashes of Joker and Anderson as i fall to my doom, but nothing of the core characters that i actually cared about – and it got worse when it involved the needless destruction of the relays and ended up with glowing green Joker walking into the sunset with his robot girlfriend. That was what i was dying for?
Fuck that noise. Like the ending to the Matrix trilogy in which Keanu agreed to a peace with the machines that presumably involved most of humanity still hooked up to battery farms, my Synthesis ending had just involved me forcing the entire galaxy to go half-synthetic, whether they wanted it or not, fuck free will and self-determination and all those other values my Shepherd had been fighting for. Not to mention the idiocy of it, as though the only cause of conflict in the galaxy was that between synthetics and organics, right? I’m sure the half-synthetic Krogan are gonna be singing kumbaya with the half-synthetic rachni.
So i went back and replayed the ending and this time went with Destroy, which works on a more emotional level, save that i now have spent approx 100 hours building a careful symbiosis between Geth and Quarian that gets completely fucked over, because the Geth are dead and the Quarians are gonna die too because they’re now relying on the Geth to help them settle. And also killing off Joker’s chances of ever getting laid. This might have worked if there was kind of resonance to any of it, any depth. But i then i thought back to the FedEx quest i did for an Elcor diplomat earlier in the game and realised that that mini-auto-dialogue had more moment and more gravitas THAN THE ENDING TO THE ENTIRE FUCKING TRILOGY.
It reminded me of nothing so much as the contrived ending to Dragon Age 2, another Bioware title i otherwise love, in which my pro-mage Hawke spends the third act fighting all those folk who i’m fighting for. If John Walker can recall his irritation at that particular outcome, then he’s about a twentieth of the way to understanding the contempt that most Mass Effect fans have for the three endings.
19/03/2012 at 18:38 Sivart13 says:
The merits of this argument aside, I find it odd the proportion of “The ending is fine!” articles coming from game journos vs. game fans. Most major game news outlets published some sort of article defending Bioware’s amazing artistic choice, while most fans either said “eh, I liked it” or joined the thundering hordes.
I think it speaks to the lack of investment of critics in any specific series. When you’re playing a game a week, you can see an ending like this and say “oh, another Deus Ex ending, right”. But if this game is the one you’re most looking forward to this year, a bad ending stings much harder.
19/03/2012 at 18:56 Grover says:
Exactly, the game journos who play a new game every 3 days are simply never going to care as much as a true fan who pours themselves emotionally into a series for 5 years the way you would a great television show.
Is there no common man’s hero among the game journalists to stand up for the Retake Mass Effect movement?
19/03/2012 at 18:56 Grygus says:
That is a much better take than, “contrarianism generates hits.” Thanks.
19/03/2012 at 18:58 John Walker says:
What a peculiar thing to say. We’re people too! I’ve been looking forward to playing ME3 for a long time, and played it entirely in my spare time or when I should have been working
Also, there are plenty of “fans” saying they like the game, and plenty of sites arguing why it was crap, including this one.
19/03/2012 at 19:17 Grover says:
What planet are you from? The overwhelming fan response to the ending has been negative.
19/03/2012 at 19:21 Shroom says:
The mistake you are making there, Grover, is thinking that the loudest fans (i.e. the ones feeling they’ve been “betrayed” or some such) are the only fans. I’m sure there are many millions quietly fine with the way the game ended. Just because the minority cries loud doesn’t mean everyone shares that point of view.
19/03/2012 at 19:25 TsunamiWombat says:
I certainly do not challenge that people enjoyed the endings, i’m happy for them though I respectfully disagree. I challenge the idea that we, the Haters, are in the minority.
19/03/2012 at 19:43 mr.lutze says:
I don’t believe that’s true. Over 50,000 people voted against ending on Bioware forums survey. At first it might look like minority since 3,5 mil copies were shipped (that’s right – shipped, NOT sold). But apparently only 10%-20% players finish games they bought (google it) and Bioware excuse of not discussing the ending is that they wait for more people to finish the game (again, you can google it). So even if we assume that everyone from that group of people who even got to the ending registered on Bioware forums, found that survey, knew English enough to participate and actually voted, 50,000 is still disturbingly large amount.
19/03/2012 at 23:39 Zelius says:
@Shroom,
You’re also making a mistake in your reasoning. You assume that just because someone doesn’t speak out, that he or she must have liked it. I very much doubt that “millions” liked the ending, seeing as that would be about 99% of every single person who bought the game.
19/03/2012 at 19:47 Shadram says:
I liked it. I’d have done it slightly differently, but it wasn’t horrible. All the choices I made still had consequence, I just wasn’t told what every last one of those consequences was.
19/03/2012 at 21:59 Gira says:
Walker, around ten years ago the games journalist community at large were singularly dedicated to furthering the idea of player agency, ludonarrative, and non-linearity. These were considered the central tenets of good so-called “narrative” gameplay, and the idea that preset designer narrative should ever take precedence over player agency was frowned upon. Because, fundamentally, narrative is ancillary to what makes a game a game – that is, interactivity. Gameplay. Systemic interactions between various player and non-player variables resulting in ludonarrative. Generative stories were debated and proposed and worked upon and so forth, and we generally had an idea of What Was To Come.
But then you guys just kind of gave up? Now, every second article I read is about how BioWare Just Wanted To Write A Good Story and It’s Their Story, Not Yours and all this stuff that really should belong in fanboy critiques of films and books, not videogames. But here we are: sub-adolescent ham-fisted cliched sci-fi bilge is now taking precedence over the goal of player agency.
Why, Walker?
19/03/2012 at 22:18 Sivart13 says:
I don’t think games like Mass Effect really emphasize non-linearity or ludo-anything.
I love them more than anything, but they’re really just fancy shooty things (guns ‘n’ conversation) that do an excellent job of acknowledging certain multiple-choice questions you answer. Mostly thanks to a crack squad of writers inserting a whole bunch of if-this-then-that dialog cues.
I don’t think too many highbrow game journos have been aggressively pushing for more and greater high-production-value interstellar manshooters.
20/03/2012 at 08:59 John Walker says:
I can assure you that no such thing was the case ten years ago. I have been doing this job for thirteen years, and reading the gaming press for 25, and at no point has there been any such unified consensus. What is in fact happening is you are personally being affronted by a small selection of the press arguing for gaming as a means to be told a story, and then applying nostalgia to an imagined version of the past. Games get to be different things, and can be enjoyed for being different things. Never mind that to suggest ME3 doesn’t offer enormous degrees of player choice and narrative consequence is simply gibberish.
20/03/2012 at 09:16 LennyLeonardo says:
Ah. Classic John Walker reply. Well played, sir.
20/03/2012 at 10:26 Gira says:
Weak reply.
To deny that the emphasis on ludonarrative and player agency seems to have fallen out of favour in games journalism is ridiculous. Left, right, and centre, I see journalists arguing for the increasing dominance of designer narrative over player narrative. I see journalists suggesting games should Just Tell Great Stories, as if it’s somehow preferable for elegant, consistent rulesets to be bogged down with arbitrary narrative restrictions. I see journalists defending DXHR bossfights (and, for that matter, DXHR). I see people unironically praising BioWare as the Saviours Of The RPG, when they have almost singlehandedly presided over the dilution of the genre into meaninglessness.
But that’s beside the point: let’s presume for a minute that junk sci-fi is now the literary standard to which all media should aspire, and that BioWare genuinely writes Great Stories. Let’s move onto the fact that you honestly believe the Mass Effect games offer player agency, rather than, you know, the odd binary Moral Choice now and then, and a bunch of dialogue-centric fluff choices that have absolutely no impact on the gameplay in any way, and don’t even have that much impact vis a vis branching narrative. Let’s compare to something like Fallout – 1, not 3, since it seems it’s now en vogue for games journalist to ignore the existence of the first two – and the extent to which it offered both narrative and ludonarrative choice nearly at every possible juncture. I mean, people tend to defend BioWare by suggesting their form of agency is analogous to choose-your-own-adventure novels, but even those offered far more variation than in anything BioWare has done since probably Baldur’s Gate 2.
Why has this become the gold standard? Why has this become perfect marks? Can’t you see how lazy it is, especially in comparison to its forebears? How utterly devoid of any meaningful interaction it is? I’m not just talking about the endings – I think you’re right in suggesting expecting some kind of massive narrative payoff is naive, but I think we agree on that for entirely different reasons – I’m talking about the entire damn series.
And finally, you pull out the Gaming Can Be Anything argument just to cap it off. Well, no, they can’t. You don’t get to hold up a book and say it’s a movie, and then tell people that if you disagree it’s just because they’re too Clouded With Nostalgia. Games are ruleset-based interactions between player and non-player agents within a simulated or abstracted playspace. Can you honestly come up with another definition that doesn’t reply on soft fluff terms like “emotional experience”? And even if you could, why would you want to? Wouldn’t you prefer videogames to aspire to, you know, actually affording true compelling ludonarrative? I mean, if you can honestly get all the meat of the experience out of watching a game get played on YouTube, something is very wrong, and that’s where we’re at at the moment, to varying extents.
Demand more.
… stole John P’s line there. But why not? It’s perfect.
20/03/2012 at 11:27 Tubbins says:
Games like Deus Ex and Fallout are paragons of game design. They aren’t remembered as the greatest games ever made because of their stories or emotions or rich deep characters. It’s the gameplay alone that makes them great. The “rose-tinted glasses” argument fails before it even gets off the ground because nobody is remembering them for their graphics or sound or writing (even if they were a thousand times more well-written than any of the fanfic-level trash Bioware sharts out), it is the gameplay; gameplay doesn’t age, it is timeless.
I cannot get my head around the fact that game consumers aren’t demanding more of this and are happy with the non-interactive choose your own adventure movies that developers are serving up. Deus Ex, Fallout etc proved that perfection is able to be achieved and there is absolutely nothing stopping games in the same vein from being made except for the modern gamer’s constant acceptance of mediocrity.
20/03/2012 at 12:39 Runs With Foxes says:
And it’s not just an acceptance of mediocrity; it’s a refusal to engage with games that are standouts of the medium. Remember that a certain someone refuses to play Stalker. And also refuses to play The Witcher 2, which, while not a great game, does the Bioware thing much better than Bioware does.
How many people in the games journalism field today have played Fallout, do you think? How many believe playing a Zelda and a Metal Gear Solid equip them with the critical faculties to evaluate and judge the medium today? Can you imagine any film critic being taken seriously if s/he hadn’t made an effort to watch and critique a century of classics (a neverending task)? We’d at least expect them to have a grasp of what a film actually is.
I suppose we can’t expect the majority of young gamerz to be familiar with Fallout, or even be aware of its existence. But perhaps if people who earn a living by writing about games educate themselves and offer some informed analysis and criticism, we’ll see some trickling down.
20/03/2012 at 13:07 LennyLeonardo says:
@ Gira: Gag. There’s no point arguing with people like you, but it’d be nice to see genuine examples from these hideous journalists you’re on about.
20/03/2012 at 16:31 LenyLeonardo says:
@ Gira: Gag. I’m too incompetent to form even the most incoherent semblance of an argument in response, but I can assure you, you are wrong and I am right. Thanks.
20/03/2012 at 23:31 Ruffian says:
Has everyone gone retarded? No one is arguing that the game denies player choice as a whole. People are arguing that it does it when it counts most – at the conclusion. This is what I don’t understand. I love RPS and John can defend the game as a whole all he wants. I understand that he is trying to draw people’s focus to that fact that it is indeed not a bad game, but no one is arguing that. What they are arguing is the fact (yes I said fact, it’s an entirely subjective thing so I think it’s safe to call it that) that the lazy ass endings to an otherwise great game, have retro-actively ruined they’re enjoyment of the rest of the game. And honestly you can’t disprove them in any way. it’s personal experience.
19/03/2012 at 19:08 Fox89 says:
If I were a game journo for a site like IGN, I’d be pretty self-conscious about pissing off EA :)
19/03/2012 at 19:38 John Walker says:
I’m never sure with you kids and your irony, but if this is an accusation of corruption, I think you picked the wrong guy to suggest avoids pissing off EA.
19/03/2012 at 19:47 Fox89 says:
That was certainly not aimed at you, John. It was an insinuation that perhaps those at a site like IGN (or other very big mainstream sites that are oft accused of such things, especially when reviewing) do not have the same moral integrity and honesty as you do here at RPS.
Not that I’m honestly suggesting they’re corrupt either. Just that…you know… maybe :)
20/03/2012 at 00:31 briktal says:
IGN, the site that has an employee as a character in the game?
20/03/2012 at 23:46 Ruffian says:
Nah, we know RPS don’t give a damn about EA’s opinion! That’s why we’re here.
19/03/2012 at 19:55 thegooseking says:
I’ve noticed another pattern. People who like it (like me) are quite content to say it’s ok to not like it (we do support why we like it with some pretty solid justifications, but they only justify why it’s valid to like it, not why you should), while people who don’t like it by and large say that it’s wrong to like it and that everyone who does is an idiot.
You can fill in the blanks for what that speaks to.
19/03/2012 at 20:27 Gnarf says:
Uh, it just comes off like you’re saying that the people who disagree with you are idiots. Only they’re arguing wrong instead of liking wrong. Huge difference.
19/03/2012 at 22:26 Hoaxfish says:
I find it a bit weird too… especially in light of the complete lack of communication coming directly from Bioware (with the exception of some hilariously arrogant statements).
I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea to second guess the makers in order to defend them, at worst you find yourself in a situation where Bioware has made a rapid retreat, and you’re stuck following suite. Hell, how many “professional journalist” defended DA2 as the best game ever, only to flip their opinion on its head once release had died down.
A lot of the articles are misreading their “problems”… leading to the defence of things which simply don’t exist (people saying Bioware shouldn’t make a “happy rainbow” ending… something nobody is actually suggesting as a solution).
19/03/2012 at 18:38 Tei says:
Spoiler padding
Spoiler padding
Spoiler padding
Spoiler padding
Theres a lot to love on the end of ME3.
I really like that part where you and anderson sit, and look at earth from space.
19/03/2012 at 18:53 Eddy9000 says:
I can’t help but feel that if Shepard had just hit a big red ‘destroy the reapers’ button, and then sat next to Anderson and stared into space it would have been a far less shitty ending.
20/03/2012 at 23:52 Ruffian says:
I could not agree more. I honestly didn’t even need the three choices. after I said my goodbyes on the holocomm thing I was all set for a cutscene to play and be at the end. And then they had to go and turn it into a jumbled mess.
19/03/2012 at 18:53 Fox89 says:
As much as I hate the ending, I did like this. In fact I felt it was fine at this point, it was only post-elevator that things went to hell.
19/03/2012 at 19:18 sabrelord says:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Aww that sounds nice. I called The Illusive Man’s bluff and Anderson ended up with a slug in the back of the head. :(
19/03/2012 at 22:30 lzaffuto says:
I loved the game and hated the endings. To all the people that say “you just want a happy ending with sunshine and rainbows” I will say this: I would have been fine if they would have ended right here. With Anderson and Shepard looking at Earth while the battle rages on in the background. After all, Bioware said this was the end of Shepards story, and you can say if it ended here Shepard had done all he could do to win the battle, and now it was up to everyone else. It still would have left all questions unanswered and up to your imagination… and left room to continue the universe with future games, books, and whatever else if they wanted to, but it would have been a great end to Shepards story as far as I’m concerned.
19/03/2012 at 18:38 DiTH says:
You didnt touch some points like:
a)Normandy is out of the galaxy the moment you blow up everything leaving you behind.
b)The Squadmates that were next to you while you were going in the beam appear in Normandy?
c)The catalyst,aka Robo-God,aka Space Magic, reads your mind and takes the form of the same boy you saw at Earth
d)Some races like Turians and Quarians are strangled at Earth (with tens or hundreds of millions of aliens and humans who can eat food from earth) without being able to eat anything and without being able to go back to their systems.
e)Marauder Shields try to stop the ending but unfortunately failed :< RIP
f)Tali's stock photo , photoshop.
What you did say i think its fair and i agree.I have no problem with the endings ( although they could have used a bit of different movies than just different colors).I firmly believed that Shepard had to die but the plot holes are just too many atm.I do believe that they are going to fill them at some point in the future.
I do believe though that they did something really bad and i say that because at this point in time after ME1 and ME2 release i would still play a different Shepard.But on ME3 i have 6 Shepards that i played in ME1 and ME2 with different choices and i dont have even the slightest urge to play them out and see what happens.
19/03/2012 at 18:39 thegooseking says:
I’m pretty sure that almost all my choices subtextually changed the meaning of the endings, even if they didn’t change the superficial light show. I didn’t feel that meaning needed to be spelled out to me. In fact I probably would have felt slightly insulted if it were, as if I couldn’t figure it out for myself.
19/03/2012 at 18:40 Crane says:
“Many are upset by the final moments, a three-way decision that is not impacted upon by the rest of the game, as if this invalidates everything that came before it. But two things. 1) What about everything that came before it? 2) How is that decision not impacted upon by the previous three games?!
The three-way decision isn’t impacted on at all, by any of the player’s actions!
You listed a bunch of epic, consequence-heavy choices you made throughout the games, and yes, they were meaningful choices. The problem I (and many others) have is that there are no effects on those three options! Regardless of how you treated the Geth, regardless of who lived and died, regardless of who you allied with, you have the same three options available to you! The sole impact of your choices throughout three games on the overall ending is to add a quasi-arbitrary amount to your War Readiness, which in turn affects the cutscene you see in a very minor (and entirely nonsensical) way!
19/03/2012 at 18:41 briktal says:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Yeah all the choices you make affect the futures of whole species and really mean something. Up until you ride the magic elevator and meet the Star Child. Cured the genophage? That’s great, now the krogans stranded on their nuked to death lifeless planet can have lots of babies before they all starve to death. Same sort of thing with nearly everything else you accomplish. The quarians might be the one exception due to having a decent ability to sustain themselves with the migrant fleet and having an undamaged world to live on (though there are like 17 million total pre-ME3, so it could take a while for them to build up).
19/03/2012 at 18:45 Eddy9000 says:
You’ve defended the choice or lack of it, that was never a problem for me, I’d have been happy with ‘reapers defeated, everyone has a party’. The major problem for me, and for others from what I’ve seen on the forums is that the narrative of the ending makes absolutely no sense in the context of the actual plot. In the last ten minutes of the game a decent and consistent plot is torn apart by unnessecary plot holes. That is what sucks about the ending.
My top three plot holes:
1) The logic behind destroying all sentient life to prevent AI’s from taking over, destroy AI’s instead perhaps? Made even worse by the fact that AI’s may have ended up living peacfully with organics by this point.
2) The inferred holocaust of the mass effect relays blowing up, an entire galactic armada stranded in the sol system, the citadel stranded there also.
3) The odds and sods – why is the illusive man on the citadel, how is your crew on the normandy, why do you have to die for the choices?
THE ENDING MAKES NO SENSE.
19/03/2012 at 20:49 Max.I.Candy says:
Yeah its those plotholes that piss me off too.
If the reapers can pick and choose who they destroy, then why not just kill off the synthetics?the explanation is just complete and utter bullshit that looks like lazy writing.
Having your love interest and 2 others climb off the Normandy at the end (when she/he was by your side minutes before) just looks obvious that this was’nt the ending they had planned.
19/03/2012 at 18:45 McDan says:
Well said. This kind of alleviates my annoyance/anger at the ending I have experienced (haven’t picked up the game since, plan to though). But still I feel a bit disappointed that I couldn’t see what happened to everyone afterwards, that’s my opinion and I’ll stick to it. It’s a shame for me and did affect how I enjoyed the game overall.
19/03/2012 at 18:47 Rattlepiece says:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
There are many consequences for your decisions in ME3. The problem I had with it was that the last few minutes rendered all of them useless. I was sat there watching it and growing more and more confused. How the heck did Ashley end up on the Normandy and where did they crash? She was with me on the planet then suddenly appears on the Normandy? Oh, the confusion…
19/03/2012 at 18:47 Fox89 says:
SPOILER WALL
SPOILER WALL
SPOILER WALL
SPOILER WALL
“Don’t like the options? Hell, maybe that’s the point.” – This is very true, but I think being forced to comply with the options was very anti-Shepard. It was certainly not the sort of thing my Shepard was about, she was willing to stupidly tell the Guardian to sod off, we’ll take our chances without the damn Crucible. But alas that wasn’t an option. I tried shooting the Ghost Child first. It didn’t do anything.
I also want to comment on: “And good grief, thank goodness it didn’t fade to black and leave everything ambiguous”. Well… didn’t it? Where is the Normandy? Did the fleets survive? How did my crew escape Harbinger’s death beam? DID Synthetics eventually return and wipe everything out? Or were there any consequences, happy or otherwise, to forcing every living thing to synthesize? I think a large part of the problem is that it does leave a heck of a lot of plot holes and ambiguity.
I’m with you on that everything else was great. The story up until that point played on my decisions, had huge consequences, and wrapped individual stories up in a bow. But then again those of us who hated the ending have clarified that since the start. “Oh, the rest of the game was brilliant,” we would say, “apart from the last five minutes that were abysmal”. And I absolutely enjoyed the experience up to that point, and if I played it again I would enjoy it to that point again. But it’s like having a wonderful 3 course meal, and then desert comes and instead of a cherry on top of your cake it’s a sprout. The rest of the food was lovely, but try as you might you can’t help but come away from the restaurant with a bitter taste in your mouth.
19/03/2012 at 19:01 pkdawson says:
Those were very much my thoughts at the beginning of ME2. Being railroaded into joining Cerberus with very little justification wasn’t great writing. Obviously you can’t offer infinite choice in a game like this, but you can at least be subtle and not ham-fisted about forcing certain situations.
19/03/2012 at 19:06 Grygus says:
At the time that the beam knocked out Shepard I was calling this easily the best game in the series and the series a triumph of modern game design. Then Starboy presented me with the Ending Machine and now I can’t recommend anyone setting themselves up for that disappointment.
19/03/2012 at 20:06 Keymonk says:
Marauder Shields did his best to try to shield you from it.
19/03/2012 at 18:49 Discopanda says:
I liked my Mass Effect 3 ending. I chose mint chocolate chip. :D
19/03/2012 at 19:10 Fox89 says:
Youtube gets you Mint Choc Chip, Blueberry AND Raspberry Ripple all in one! Flakes are DLC though :(
19/03/2012 at 22:04 timmyvos says:
I just realised Bioware stole the ending from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. It’s either Green, blue or red, just like their films!
19/03/2012 at 18:51 cypher says:
I couldn’t agree more, though that end movie is still a lame final note…
19/03/2012 at 18:52 Insidious Rex says:
I think that the main problem with the ending is the lack of a proper denouement. After you make one of the three choices the game just seems to rush to the conclusion. A lot of people seem to be upset that they don’t get to see what happened to the characters they spent 90+ hours with. Though I agree that an 80′s freeze-frame ending would be equally bad.
21/03/2012 at 00:01 Ruffian says:
I don’t know man, at least you would have the information from an 80′s freeze frame.
19/03/2012 at 18:56 PJ says:
Now JOHN WALKER, making an article like that is something I never thought to see. One of the most attentive (perhaps the most attentive!) journalists for narrative is defending that atrocity of literature?
Bloody hell, at least you didn’t be like that guy that compared Mass Effect to Salmon Rushdie or Romeo and Juliet. Mass Effect is a bloody space opera, not some great statement of art. It can have a nice textbook-according-to-the-Poetics ending. Even better that this is a game and this can be patched up much more easily than a book or a film.
19/03/2012 at 19:39 Grover says:
I love RPS, I’ve followed it for years, but this is a travesty. Some said it might be because of this: http://i.imgur.com/8fD5A.jpg (ad revenue) but I don’t think so. I just think they are out of touch with video game fans and consider themselves to be academic connoisseurs passing artistic judgment of video games rather than die hard fans with a soapbox.
19/03/2012 at 19:44 Fox89 says:
Hmm, you seem distressed when somebody has a different opinion. I’m not sure the internet is the right place for you.
19/03/2012 at 19:54 Grover says:
Trying to get contrary opinions off of RPS by telling them they shouldn’t communicate their opinions since they differ? You sound like you’re confused about public forums.
19/03/2012 at 23:46 kael13 says:
You missed the part where the other writers of RPS have already expressed their own opinions on the ending and discussed what they didn’t like about it.
21/03/2012 at 00:03 Ruffian says:
Did you not notice the post about why the endings sucked right below this one?
20/03/2012 at 04:56 Runs With Foxes says:
Walker’s default position is to defend developers who write Emotional Narratives, and to oppose the Entitled Gamers who offer more insightful criticism than he does.
19/03/2012 at 18:57 Vander says:
SPOILERS!!!
“But here’s the thing: My choices did have consequences. So many, on so many of the characters, in so many ways. It’s just, those consequences occurred on my long path toward the ending. And, well, that’s bloody brilliant, isn’t it?”
No. Because all these consequences are impacted by the final 10 minutes of the game.
And the ending don’t explain well enough his immediates repercussions…without solid ground to base my assumptions, is difficult to imagine what happen next. I can imagine that with Wrex and Eve at the helm, the krogans are going to reconstruct and change the mindset of his entire race. But at the end i don’t even know if Wrex is alive. I don’t know if the explosion of the Mass Realy is just a small one or the same one that the one in arrival, a supernova sized one.
When i don’t know what kind of impact these decisions have in the long run, its okay. Thats not what i like but i can accept that.
But when i cant even imagine what these decisions do in the long run because the ending change everything in a less than adequatly explained way, i cannot find that brilliant.
19/03/2012 at 18:57 Darthy says:
I agree that many of the players decisions in the previous two games influence things through the length of ME3, rather than its ending (its only possible to save both Quarians and Geth if you achieved certain things in ME2, for example).
But although the fan complaints around the ending have achieved the hysteria of many an internet campaigns, I simply can’t agree that their anger is unjustified. There is simply too much of it to ignore as hard-core fans taking things too far, as Bioware have since implied.
The ending was full of plot holes and failed to provide any real sense of closure to the story. While John is right in saying the ‘synthetic vs. organic’ is hardly out of the blue, nor was it ever really developed as a theme throughout the series. There is more time given to the development of EDI as an organic-friendly AI then there is given to the concept of inevitable conflict, and that’s including the input from Javik (which was cut from the full game, but lets not go there).
Then you have the confusing situation with Normandy; the destruction of the Mass Relays apparently not wiping out half the habitable systems in the galaxy (as had been established previously), the Normandy already in flight for no apparent reason, the squadmates supposedly killed by Harbinger who pop-up alive and un-injured at the end.
Mass Effect didn’t need a ‘happy’ ending, but it did need an ending that made sense within the wider context of the story. It’s tragic that people are obsessing over the ending to the degree rather than re-living all the fantastic parts of the story, but that’s ultimately why John is wrong.
Endings DO matter; they colour perspective, and this ending will likely rob Mass Effect 3 of all the ‘Game of the Year’ awards it would otherwise have had thrown at it.
19/03/2012 at 19:05 Fox89 says:
This.
And I take a bit of issue with the sentiment of “Why are you getting hung up on the ending when the rest was so good?” Well… because the ending was Just. That. Awful. There are plenty of media I have disliked the ending of. Batman: Arkham City I thought wasn’t great. But that wasn’t poor enough to spoil the experience. The last few minutes of Heavy Rain were pretty nonsensical, and before that Fahrenheit descended into chaos in its latter stages as well. But again, nothing so egregious that I come away feeling unfulfilled. A bad ending does not ruin the game; it’s not what I remember about an otherwise good game.
Unless it is truly awful. It takes a special kind of bad to have me lamenting an unsatisfactory ending over the previous 30 hours of awesome. And yet here we are.
19/03/2012 at 18:58 Grover says:
As though the other article was even REMOTELY NEGATIVE enough about the ending as to justify this Biodrone drivel.
19/03/2012 at 19:14 Wisq says:
I wasn’t aware that subjective opinions need to be justified, or that the net output of RPS needed to balance itself out in order to agree with the general sentiment of the fans.
Or did I miss something, and we only come to RPS to see our own opinions repeated so we can feel better about ourselves?
19/03/2012 at 19:22 Grover says:
The articles were set up as though they were contrasting opinions. Even in the comments one RPS staff says they already have an article mentioning what’s wrong with the ending.
I’m saying that’s simply not true. They are closer together than peas in a pod.
19/03/2012 at 20:14 nootpingu86 says:
RPS has been denied review copies in the past. I’m sure it has something to do with having to be ‘fair and balanced’ to earn them and other fringe benefits like early access to the games (by fair and balanced I mean: devoid of all editorial integrity and being a PR outlet for the games industry, like every other major site).
19/03/2012 at 19:05 Bantros says:
Having read about the “bad” ending before completing the game I was fearing the worst. It wasn’t abysmal, but it certainly wasn’t all that great or satisfying. If it had ended when you get chopped down by the mega laser then that would’ve something! For a second I thought that was it and I nearly cried because it was so unexpected and also weirdly brilliant.
19/03/2012 at 19:10 Grygus says:
Yeah when I went down and it was clearly scripted, my jaw dropped. Had we lost? Was my readiness too low (thought I’d filled the bar, but maybe I’d missed a pixel?) Would they really end it this way?
I wish they had.
19/03/2012 at 19:42 BatmanBaggins says:
Having it end right there would have been a hell of a way to do it. If people are mad about the current endings’ lack of choice, though, imagine if all roads lead to “and then Shep got melted by a laser and the Reapers won. BAD END.”
Actually, that would be awesome.
19/03/2012 at 19:09 LintMan says:
SPOILER WARNING
The Mass Effect series has always been about choice and consequences. You make the decisions and then you see how those decisions play out, for better of for worse, often with unexpected results. Yes, we get to see the impact of many of the decisions of the earlier games, but there are many more decisions in ME3 that the endings render moot.
For example, curing the genophage vs faking the cure. I did the actual cure, knowing that it was a risk that might end up with the galaxy at war with the Krogan once again. Same with my orchestrating the Geth/Quarian peace, which could possibly backfire in the long run. There were other, smaller decisions: use the medical supplies on the Citadel, or leave them for the relief efforts of the colonies after the war? Pay the soldier families their full wages at the expense of the post-war economic recovery?
I fully expected the game to show me some of the costs of those decisions. Possibly a galaxy-wide depression as everyone tries to recover and rebuild. Some colonies dying due to a shortage of medicines. Some factions of Krogans clamoring for revenge. Salarians plotting a new genophage. Etc. Instead, all those decisions are moot – The ending doesn’t show any of it, so it all amounted to just the number of war assets you get, and in stroy terms, with the mass relays and citadel destroyed, galactic society is pretty much demolished anyway.
Beyond that, there’s also the lazy railroad ending, with Casper popping up to offer a lame reason for the Reapers followed by a choice of different-colored near-identical endings, with a “Is he alive?” kicker at the end only for those who bothered with the multiplayer.
I totally get that Casper’s appearance was supposed to be symbolic, but WTF – Who the hell is he? Why isn’t Shepard allowed to tell him his resoning is completely bogus and proven false? Why does he remind me more of the spoiled Trelane from Star Trek than of some AI-based superbeing that controls the Reapers? Why is the Crucible a magic wish lamp that is equally able to destroy all synthetic life, control all the reapers, or rewrite all the DNA of every living creature on the fly without otherwise changing them? Why did Casper leave the decision up to Shepard? Why did Shepard have to die? — “Or DID he?” This isn’t good storytelling, it’s lazy and cliche.
19/03/2012 at 19:10 Grover says:
Another game journalist savior descending from the heavens to scold the filthy masses for our ungrateful demands that Bioware keep it’s promises and deliver varied, unique endings with closure. What a surprise! I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Hark! The established authorities on gaming hold forth their vaunted opinions! Silence you dirty rabble! Ninety percent of you may have contrary opinions, but that doesn’t mean the voices with giant megaphones and media attention should stoop to your level and ATTEMPT TO EMPATHIZE WITH THE MAJORITY OF FANS, or even ACKNOWLEDGE THE ARGUMENTS MOST FANS HAVE BEEN REPEATING! Perish the thought!
I’d rather listen to self appointed VIDEO GAME EXPERTS MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY!
Thank you for this my noble betters!
19/03/2012 at 19:26 John Walker says:
You realise we published a post saying why the ending was bad last week, right? You conspiratorial nutcase. I finished the game last night and wrote my thoughts on my website. Sorry!
19/03/2012 at 19:43 Grover says:
I love you RPS, I’ve read you for years. But that “why it was bad” article was more supportive of the ending than not, and totally left out the bullet points reiterated on every fan list.
You’re out of touch with the fans. That’s not conspiracy, that’s a fact. I just don’t feel any empathy in this post for the upset fans. What did you think of the Battle Star Galactica ending? Even if you loved it, if you didn’t acknowledge the majority opinion as valid but different I’d say you were out of touch. Same here.
EDIT: What’s worse? Being passionate about something you love even to the point of annoying authors you normally love or being in the final stages of dying and always accepting whatever you’re given?
19/03/2012 at 19:59 FunkyBadger3 says:
There’s a reason people are more interested in the RPS grouptink than fan-written lists of bullet points.
19/03/2012 at 20:17 nootpingu86 says:
I come here for information much more often than I do for the editorial content. I think it’s because of articles like this.
20/03/2012 at 13:56 Grover says:
Of course your definition of people in this case is: people who read RPS and rely on it to make their opinions for them. People who haven’t even played the game “agreeing” (look through the comments) that RPS are right when they have no first hand knowledge. Simply agreeing to be agreeable is not a virtue.
19/03/2012 at 19:58 LintMan says:
“You realise we published a post saying why the ending was bad last week, right?”
You mean Richard Cobbett’s article? To me, that article read like an apology, saying “Yeah, there were some bad things at the end, but here’s a list of fan complaints and why they are invalid. Bioware shouldn’t fix/change any of it and I’m looking forward to their next project”. Oooh, that’s really sticking it to Bioware! They’ll be stinging for months. I bet Cobbett really made some enemies over there with that article.
Sarcasm aside, I certainly wouldn’t have expected the counter-viewpoint article to that one to be a “the ending was fine” article.
19/03/2012 at 22:46 Richard Cobbett says:
Well, except for the bits that weren’t. And that article was about discussing the ending, not calling hellfire down on it. Some things I agree with other fans on. Some I don’t. I wrote up my feelings for good and bad because it was how I was thinking after finishing it.
And my view of the ending was pretty straight-up “This sucks”. Most of my counter-points were saying “These aren’t fair when you look at the whole sweep of the game instead of the last five minutes.”
20/03/2012 at 01:04 Grover says:
Maybe you shouldn’t have set these articles up as though they were contrasting views since they are so monochromatic?
20/03/2012 at 02:19 LintMan says:
Richard, I certainly don’t begrudge you for having written your honest opinion.
To me, your article seems to be acknowledging but downplaying the criticism and overall providing a positive spin on things. Now, that’s absolutely fine OK with me. My sarcasm was directed at John’s implication it was a counterbalance to his even more positive take on the ending, when the zeitgeist of most of the angry fans is at the “rain hellfire down on it” end of the spectrum.
21/03/2012 at 00:17 Ruffian says:
John, Richard. I love you guys, and I love RPS for the fact that you guys actually talk to us. For better or worse, lol. Definitely better.
19/03/2012 at 19:41 X_kot says:
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
19/03/2012 at 19:44 Grover says:
Licking their boots isn’t going to make them your friends. And Monty Python references were old about two decades ago.
20/03/2012 at 04:10 jaheira says:
Grover, what is it you expect Richard and John to do exactly other than write their opinion? They disagree with you. Would you like them to pretend that they don’t?
20/03/2012 at 14:04 Grover says:
Did you read this comment section? I expect them to not set up two article as though they are opposing views when they are both more positive than not, and both far removed from fan outcry. I expect at least one person at RPS can empathize with the fans enough to actually read the complaints, watch the videos of analysis on why it was a terrible ending, and write it up because it is news whether or not they agree.
Maybe even ask for comment by Retake ME3 movement organizers and Bioware employees?
Currently RPS’s take on this is:
Point: ME3′s ending wasn’t perfect but it was an awesome game and you’re silly for wanting a fix!
And in “opposition”:
Counter Point: ME3′s ending was perfectly fine, fans should shut up, Bioware can do whatever they want in the narrative!
If RPS has NO ONE who empathizes with the majority of fans on this (I can hardly believe it to be so) then a SINGLE article supporting Bioware would have been enough. The rest should be interviews and news reporting.
19/03/2012 at 19:11 sabrelord says:
SPOILER WALL
SPOILER WALL
SPOILER WALL
SPOILER WALL
I’ve not seen anybody else mention this so I’m really not sure what I did wrong during ME3, but at the end of the game I only had one choice and that was to “Control the reapers” and vapourise myself doing it. There was no option for synthesis or to destroy the reapers. The little blue boy told me that the only choice I had was to sacrifice myself and control the reapers.
Excuse me? My renegade Shepard who punches reporters in the face and shoots anyone in her way, willingly sacrifices herself to control the reapers? F*ck that!
Also calling it a choice when there is only one option was a final kick in the teeth.
19/03/2012 at 19:16 Fox89 says:
I believe what you did was Save the Collector Base and then not have very many (relatively) War Assets? Technically there are 16 endings but some of those are identical except “in Ending 3 you don’t have access to Choice X”.
And I think the only way you can only get one option is if you Save the Collector Base and have a low Effective Military Strength.
19/03/2012 at 19:27 sabrelord says:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Oh well that explains the mechanics of it because I did save the collector base and didn’t have very many war assets. I let the bomb blow up on Tchunk and didn’t rescue Jack and the kids etc.
But seriously 1 choice is not a choice, no matter how badly I’ve played.
And anybody who tells Shepard that she has only one choice and expects to leave with all their appendages still attached has never met Shepard.
19/03/2012 at 19:28 Fox89 says:
Then god-kid should be very grateful he showed up incorporeal! ;)
19/03/2012 at 19:28 Grygus says:
Here there be spoilers. If you are reading this in the sidebar, you should stop now. Thank you, and enjoy reading the sidebar. Welcome to RPS.
The number of choices depends on your War Readiness. I only had two choices, myself. Apparently we are slackers.
19/03/2012 at 19:36 sabrelord says:
Oh well played alot of Multiplayer over the weekend to take my mind off the single player so have 100% galactic readiness now. Whenever I can bring myself to play through a second time I will hopefully get more pointless choices.
19/03/2012 at 20:17 Max.I.Candy says:
its funny tho that you had only 1 choice, i mean how the hell would those things you didnt do, affect what choices that casper gives you?!
19/03/2012 at 21:24 Firkragg says:
Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy! Spoilers, ahoy!
Just to chime in here (seeing as I haven’t seen anyone else mention this either and it fits abit with your comment).
EDIT: Terrific, my reply went here instead of to the person I was replying to, ah well.
2nd EDIT: OH HAI Sabrelord, this was meant to be up there :)
My Shepard also had a very high renegade score, mainly coming from his “whatever it takes” approach, trying to get any and every asset possible, at whatever cost to stopping the Reapers, but always with the long goal of keeping humanity in power in mind.
Had high war assets, chose to save the collector base (who in their right mind would blow up such a treasure trove of tech? Boy, did that backfire later!). Made it to the catalyst’s chamber, got my 3 choices and without hesitation took control of the reapers.
My logic was thus: Shepards physical form may have died but he still took control of the reapers, meaning his conscience now dominates all reapers. My Shepard didn’t die, he still exists in the reaper network.
Sure all the relay beacons are now gone, but hey, humanity/all aliens now have reaper-Shepard as an ally! How much bigger an asset could one ever ask for? Suddenly galactic travel doesn’t look so far away, techwise.
Sidenote on my take on the ending: I was absolutely gutted at first, knowing that no matter what choice I took, my Shepard would inevitably die, leaving behind a galaxy that still needed some seeing to. Especially my Shepards relationship with Tali left unfulfilled.
That was, until I had some time to absorb the ending, it left room for interpretation. My Shepard was still alive in a sense. Reapers have technology so advanced, it makes the Elusive Man’s resurrection of Shepard in ME2 seem like childsplay. My Shepard would make a construct to house part of him (ala EDI) and send off into the galaxy again as a sort of ambassador, representing the reapers.
Point I’m trying to make is after having thought about the 3 choice endings for some days now, I’ve come up with my own idea for what happened after I made my choice. Which I’d rather prefer than having everything spelled out for me. Sure I would have loved more closure in the end. But now I’ve come up with my own ending instead.
And I swear to god, if there IS some DLC in the works that renders all of the above obsolete, I’ll… I’ll!… I will make a nasty thread about it!
19/03/2012 at 19:13 nimzy says:
I think what really stood out to me about the ending was the fact that you are, ultimately, freeing the galaxy. It’s not just the “cycle” you’re ending. You’re freeing it from the Mass Relay technology, which has already been pointed out by Sovereign as holding back technological progress by giving scientists an “easy out.” You’re freeing it from the Citadel, which not only holds the Council that runs galactic government and culture, it basically represents “the brain” behind the Reapers. And finally, crucially, you’re freeing the galaxy from Shepard.
How did you react to the ending of the first Fallout when you get forced out of the Vault to wander the wastes for the rest of your days? Shepard as the savior would have essentially controlled the entire galaxy after the Reapers were dealt with. The same applies to the rest of his party, the people dragged along in his wake: Tali must never return to the homeworld she helped to save, Wrex must never return to rule the krogans he returned to power, and so on. They are, all of them, heroes too big to ignore.
That isn’t to say I liked the ending, I think it sucked. But the consequences of your choices are all there writ large: it’s the culmination of all of them, an answer that, no matter what you choose, still says: enough.
19/03/2012 at 19:16 v.dog says:
@John: I agree that the choices made in the game were galaxy-shaping and massive, but I felt like they didn’t matter, which makes it worse. In the end it was all down to numbers. After the suicide mission of ME2 where every choice you made had an affect, it seemed like a bit of the let down.
I enjoyed it for what it was, but I just wished the two parts were more entangled.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
On a side note: Anyone else find it odd that the solution to synthetics wiping out organic life was to have synthetics wipe out organic life?
19/03/2012 at 19:25 Chirez says:
The Reapers never wiped out organics. That was the whole point.
Any organic civilisation which got dangerously advanced was harvested and preserved, allowing others to grow.
The Reaper cycle maintained a steady state within the galaxy for god alone knows how many billions of years. Without the cycle, so the theory goes, synthetic life would have utterly destroyed organic life a very long time ago. That is the argument presented by the Crucible as I understood it.
I wonder what the Reapers do to synthetic intelligence. Clearly it’s not allowed to survive.
19/03/2012 at 19:33 sabrelord says:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
So why do the Reapers ally (use) the Geth and upgrade them so that the Geth are practically unstopable force on the verge of wiping out the Quarian fleet.
Surely the Quarians who invented the synthetic lifeforms (Geth) in the first place were the type of race that the Reapers would want to harvest themselves and not let the Geth kill?
19/03/2012 at 23:17 Bantros says:
In ME, the Geth sided with Sovereign because they thought of him as a God, their ultimate evolution. These turned out to be called the Heretics in ME2, a small percentage of Geth population overall.
In ME3 the rest of the Geth were preparing for war with the Reapers and were building something massive but the stupid Quarians attacked the Geth first, destroying parts of it and weakening them significantly. Because of this they felt they needed the Reapers help or be defeated by the Quarians so they gave up their free in exchange for tech upgrades.
Probably not explained the best, but that’s the gist of it. Thought they were one of the highlights of the series, their whole arc is fantastic.
21/03/2012 at 00:28 Ruffian says:
yeah legion’s arc was probably my favorite of the series, but then again I think I just have a soft spot for synthetics. Seems such a lonely existence.
19/03/2012 at 19:19 Uthred says:
Leaving aside whether you like it or not the ending simply makes no sense, once the Reapers had control of the Citadel (and it sure was awesome doing that tedious scanning to bulk up the Citadel and then have it captured with no resistance or cinematic, just a passing mention) they had control of the Mass Relays, why didnt they lock every system down or at least lock the Sol relay to stop the fleets reaching earth? Even worse the ending gets stupider the more you think about it. If the head of the Reapers is the Citadel then what the fuck was ME1 all about? etc. etc. I also love how all the supporters of the endings saw it all coming, even down to the (literal) deus ex machina, with prescience like that you should be doing the lotto lads not playing videogames.
19/03/2012 at 19:23 Fox89 says:
Hell, what was ME1 about in general? Sovereign was supposed to be there as a vanguard, to keep an eye on the progress of organic civilization and call the Reapers when the time came. If deus ex Citadel the whole time, why couldn’t he do it?
19/03/2012 at 19:45 Uthred says:
Its best not to think about it it just gets stupider if you do
19/03/2012 at 20:38 Qwentle says:
Sovereign was doing the intergalactic equivalent of ‘running to tell mummy’ in ME1.
20/03/2012 at 06:47 Apolloin says:
Actually, that part made TOTAL sense. Sovreign DID try and do exactly that. In previous cycles the Reapers always ran the same plays.
SPOILER ALERT. SPOILER ALERT. SET CONDITION WARNED THROUGHOUT THE FORUM.
Play 1: Vanguard (Sovreign) watches as civilisation develops to ensure it follows the prearranged path of least resistance.
Play 2: Vanguard (Sovreign) acquires allies/slaves to aid Reaper invasion.
Play 3: Vanguard (Sovreign) moves to Citadel system and sends signal.
Play 4: Keepers align Citadel to Dark Space and turn on Relay.
Play 5: Reapers come through Citadel Relay and quickly conquer Citadel, decapitating Galactice Leadership and gaining control of all Mass Relays, shutting down all transit.
Play 6: Reapers use Mass Relays to allow them to defeat Galactic Civilisation in detail, moving from system to system, wiping out any resistance and assimilating the population before moving to the next target.
Play 7: Reapers harvest the dominant synthetics and attempt to create new Reapers. This either succeeds or fails.
Play 8: With all advanced organic life harvested, slaughtered or well and truly indoctrinated the main force of Reapers pulls back to Dark Space, leaving the Vanguard behind.
Play 9: When everything is quiet and the Vanguard has waited long enough to see if someone has just been faking, they reactivate the Relay system and hide out.
19/03/2012 at 19:53 BatmanBaggins says:
Shh, by the end of Mass Effect 2 you were supposed to have completely forgotten that the first Reaper scheme (having Sovereign activate the citadel to call them in) was completely pointless since the Reapers could just fly into the galaxy en masse and start wrecking everyone’s shit in a relatively miniscule amount of time anyway.
19/03/2012 at 20:09 MrWolf says:
I guess I should head straight to the local mini mart, as I saw a “deus ex” moment with the kid coming from a mile away. It’s been said in many places — Bioware are very good at telling very clumsy, heavily borrowed, predictable stories.
19/03/2012 at 20:21 Uthred says:
So when you saw the first dream with the kid you didnt think “PTSD caused by what happened on earth” you thought “Oh in twenty hours or so this kid will be revelaed to be a sparkly spacegod who controls the reaper”, thats pretty impressive
19/03/2012 at 21:08 Eddy9000 says:
Ha ha har!
19/03/2012 at 19:20 2Emotionography says:
I’ve never seen someone be objectively wrong before.
How much money is BioWare giving you for damage control?
19/03/2012 at 21:11 Eddy9000 says:
That’s unnessecary, this article is a counterpoint to another one saying why the ending was bad, the idea that EA could pay off every major games blog to defend the ending and keep it quiet is ridiculous, and making serious accusations like that without any evidence whatsoever is beyond rude.
19/03/2012 at 19:20 Chirez says:
Funny, this more or less describes exactly how I feel about Mass Effect.
Yes, the ending was held together with spit and faith, but compared to the wealth of joy inherent in the previous 60+ hours of story and game it just doesn’t bother me all that much.
Synthesis is about the only option which contains any hope at all, but given that the entire third game is unrelentingly grim, that’s not entirely surprising.
The fact that there exists in the spectrum of possibilities one wherein the Quarians are destroyed makes me extremely uneasy, purely because I care enough about Tali to feel that loss. That’s incredible, and probably unique, at least in my experience.
Funny, the more I think about it, the more disconnected I feel from the actual end of the game. For me it ended as soon as I set foot on the Crucible. Everything after that I largely ignored, possibly because I was just waiting for it to end so I could go eat for the first time in two days.
19/03/2012 at 19:24 Consumatopia says:
Comparing a trilogy of games, which collectively a player has spent tens or hundreds of hours playing, to a two hour film is a mistake. The sheer number of hours makes it more comparable to a multi-volume fantasy book series, in which more detailed, explicit endings are more common. And explaining what happened to all the characters makes more sense in a game where those outcomes are the result of the player’s actions. The events at the end of ME basically reshuffle the entire galaxy’s deck–your actions have consequences, but you don’t really know what they are.
This reminds me of the Skyrim vs. Dark Souls argument–where Dark Souls offers enigmatic hints while Skyrim usually explicitly spells everything out in character dialog or in-game reading. In a book or film, I’d favor Dark Souls approach. But for a game, Skryim’s approach is defensible–the player is given freedom to decide exactly how much of the narrative they want to make explicit, how many of those in-game books they want to read. I don’t think the same notion of “tackyness” applies to a film or book as to a large-scale RPG like ME or DA.
One thing that I would argue is that same in films, books, and games is that ending the story with a trolley problem is always lame. “Those three choices – those are what you get, from a wayward god-like species that’s in control. Don’t like the options? Hell, maybe that’s the point.” I’m not sure that point even makes sense (there’s a quite a gulf between god-like and God, no?) but the exact wrong time to make that particular point is at the very end of the game. If the point is that forcing binary (or trinary) choices on people is corrupting, then more time should be spent exploring the particular kind of corruption that results from this choice. Heck, maybe it would have made more sense if you made that choice at the midpoint of ME3, and spent the second half of the game dealing with the consequences.
19/03/2012 at 19:25 armaankhan says:
I haven’t played ME3, but the thing that interests me most about this controversy is that everyone assumes the Catalyst is telling the truth about the Reapers wanting to save organic species through assimilation. Sounds to me like the kind of lie I’d tell the person who was about to destroy my species in order to make him make doubt himself.
19/03/2012 at 21:04 Consumatopia says:
The ending already seems so underspecified that adding “how do we know so-and-so was telling the truth?” makes everything worse. It would even undermine John’s interpretation “Those three choices – those are what you get, from a wayward god-like species that’s in control. “–but how can you believe what said god-like entity is telling you about the choices in question?
19/03/2012 at 21:13 Eddy9000 says:
There’s a fairly substantial body of people that agree with your theory, and many reasons why it does/ doesn’t stand up (I don’t think it does). Google ‘mass effect indoctrination theory’ if you’re interested.
19/03/2012 at 19:26 kyrieee says:
“I find it so remarkable that so much of people’s fury with the game comes not in what they experienced, but what they learned about their experience after.”
First of all, that wasn’t my experience, I was mad right away.
Secondly, having the other outcomes there, even if you didn’t get them, matters. It’s at the core of every game that has a failstate. You could say “if you finish the game without dying, what’s the point of a death mechanic?”. It’s there because it gives meaning to success. Your choices don’t affect the outcome in any meaningful way, and therefore the choices ultimately lack meaning.
19/03/2012 at 19:28 tiradesgalore says:
Hear hear. I couldn’t agree more, John.
19/03/2012 at 19:29 TsunamiWombat says:
Sorry John, not buying it, endings were rubbish :\ Lovely article though
19/03/2012 at 19:31 stevethehare says:
John, I think this is a great perspective and hits on exactly why I’m so confused by all the outrage the ending has caused. There is plenty of room to criticize specific points, but the series provided an incredible amount of personal and emotional payoff, and the ending left me with a satisfying finality.
In terms of SPOILERS, for me the big take away is that the Reapers are stopped and the universe is left in tatters due to rebuild itself. All the choices you make it the three games all resolve to bring you to one point and you are left with one final choice. Depending on how you look at it, Shepard may have committed mass genocide by destroying the relay, but the point is life will rebuild itself like after the last cycle and in 50,000 years the Reapers will not return. It’s a feeling of hope and a new beginning.
I wish I could see Shepard live out her life happily with all her friends and it makes me sick to my stomach to know that is not the case, and that so many characters I met along the way are likely dead. However, for a series of games that stands out so boldly in my mind, I find this ending an appropriately bold and exceptional finish, and I’m happy to leave it there. It’s sad that so many people see it as something to be angry about.
19/03/2012 at 19:32 Grayvern says:
I would respectfully disagree with Mr Walker on quite a few of his points about the ending.
However the only thing I find objectionable is the assertion that the narrated slide ending is a tacky way to end a game, those ending slides have been used to great effect in some great games.
If you want to talk tacky I’d be more inclined to mention ME3′s proliferation of Michael Bay arse pans.
I don’t think slides would have fit for Mass Effect 3 but I do think it needed some kind of epilogue, not the terribly voice acted grandfather and child thing.
19/03/2012 at 19:58 sabrelord says:
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spolier
Yeah I agree, if this really was the end, then it needed an eplilogue of some sort showing the state of the galaxy (and or squadmates) weeks / months / years later.
For example did the Quarians make it back through the relays before they all exploded? Did I help Tali take back Rannoch just to take it away from her again??
19/03/2012 at 20:16 FunkyBadger3 says:
All mine were fecking dead. I suck as commander, clearly.
19/03/2012 at 20:49 Grayvern says:
Playing multiplayer; on gold, on certain maps, against the geth, isn’t so hard if your teamates are all infiltrators with widow sniper rifles.
19/03/2012 at 21:15 Eddy9000 says:
Just some trivia – the grandfather is voiced by Buzz Aldrin.
19/03/2012 at 19:38 FunkyBadger3 says:
My choice at the end came down to this, Shepard just wanted to live. He’d fought his fight and was tired beyond endurance, and just wanted a way home – to find a quiet place in the stars for him and Liara.
That’s how much impact the games characters had over 3 games. Epic, massive, and very presonal stuff. An absolutely brilliant series.
And of course I chose the wrong option and died.
Bastids.
19/03/2012 at 19:39 Nim says:
Defend it all you like, it’s still a half-assed patchwork rush job of an ending.
19/03/2012 at 19:45 The Sombrero Kid says:
You didn’t really address any of the complaints people are actually making, the most obvious complaint is that the end is lazy & doesn’t actually present a meaningful choice. This video sums up exactly how lazy Bioware were with the Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILER.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA&feature=g-like&context=G2591954ALT2HJ1AAAAA
19/03/2012 at 19:49 kyrieee says:
I’m sorry but you don’t address the problems with the ending at all.
Yes, the rest of Mass Effect 3 is good, we agree on that. This article has the title “What’s right with Mass Effect 3′s ending” and then has nothing to do with that. Is it a metaphor for BioWare’s hollow promises?
19/03/2012 at 19:55 FunkyBadger3 says:
Its exactly the same ending as Deus Ex 1 & 2.
The main complaint seems to be there wasn’t a “happy ever after”.
*BUG SHRUG*
19/03/2012 at 19:59 Grayvern says:
That’s not what most people are saying they are objecting to the fact that Massive Universe changes happen in the last 5 minutes of the game and we are left with no indication as to how this affects the characters, and species of the galaxy.
That and plot holes.
19/03/2012 at 20:10 FunkyBadger3 says:
Plot holes are one thing – and to be expected in a work that large (personally, I’m willing to suspend a certain amount of my critical faculties when something’s attempted inm good faith).
The ending seems absolutely in keeping with golden-age sci-fi – you can hardly name a classic that doesn’t have a WTF final act/plot-point, e.g. The Demolished Man, The Caves of Steel, The Stars My Destination, 2001, etc.
“No idea how this effects the characters” = “no happy ever after”
19/03/2012 at 20:36 Grayvern says:
Mass effect exists at equidistant point between star trek, star wars and red mars.
As in uses science to flavor lore, and universe mostly sticks to said lore.
19/03/2012 at 20:39 Consumatopia says:
It probably doesn’t make sense to tell a golden-age sci-fi story in a massive RPG trilogy like ME.
Plus, “everyone dies” = “happy ever after”?
19/03/2012 at 22:06 FunkyBadger3 says:
100% concrete resolution either way.
Either way sounds like an awful lot of people whining for its own sake – it’s Bioware’s story, they ended it how they wanted. It wasn’t fantactic, but the rest of the journey up to it certainly was.
20/03/2012 at 00:14 Consumatopia says:
Asking for somewhat more concrete resolution in a sprawling RPG trilogy is not the same as asking for “100% concrete resolution” OR “happy ever after”. If you had said “the main complaint is mainly that people wanted more concrete resolution”, that would have been defensible–a lot of people would have said “yeah, that is my main complaint.” And given the nature of the game, I think it’s a fair one.
It’s Bioware’s story, but everyone else has the right to an opinion on it. That the rest of game is good doesn’t mean the ending can’t be bad.
21/03/2012 at 01:07 Ruffian says:
I really don’t see how wanting to know what happens to the characters is the same as being mad because they didn’t live happily ever after. Simply wanting an explanation is the same as being pissed because everyone didn’t party together at the end apparently.
19/03/2012 at 19:58 Max.I.Candy says:
Its the plot holes and broken promise that pissed me off, but i did renconcile myself by accepting that the whole game was the ending, not just the last 10 minutes.
(also, who thinks (on the “destruction” ending) that Shepard was back on Earth when she took a breath?
if that was earth how did she get there?)
19/03/2012 at 20:07 Grayvern says:
Also I think another interesting point off the BSN boards is that if we take the endings themes and extrapolate as some have done that we are freeing the galaxy from the Reapers technological path, the end actually represents really lazy hollywood anti-science panic.
19/03/2012 at 20:00 MrWolf says:
Can we all at least agree that EDI is the hottest piece of inorganic tail since Caprica Six?
19/03/2012 at 20:01 kyrieee says:
No, she’s fucking creepy.
19/03/2012 at 20:03 Fox89 says:
Largely due to her being Caprica Six, yes. Although Legion has a certain mystique…
19/03/2012 at 20:15 FunkyBadger3 says:
I’d do Legion. But I’d be thinking about Wrex.
19/03/2012 at 21:00 Fox89 says:
Shepard.
19/03/2012 at 20:01 Drake Sigar says:
I see. That was a well-spoken argument, John. Allow me to retort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXfiSU_wqE
19/03/2012 at 20:03 James G says:
I was prepared to the ending to be excruciatingly bad given the fan reaction, and in the end felt fairly satisfied with it.Of course, there are things that could do with improving there, but I only found the lack of denouement mildly aggrieving. As Walker mentions, the body of the game gave a fairly decent job at hinting where things were going.
It helped that what some people see as themes that were flung in at the last minute, were fairly core to my experience of Mass Effect. Themes of co-operation, and giving species a chance for their own redemption were pretty core to they way I approached the game, and were concluded beautifully in some of the key decisions in the final game. The synthesis ending, while a touch spiritual and magic-space fairy in execution, just seemed to offer closure on those themes. I got the feeling that as Shepard was shouting down the Illusive Man in the closing moments she was also trying to persuade herself. The Illusive man was wrong, but given she saved the Rachni, the Geth, and the Krogan, perhaps she was being short sighted. It also means that Shepard’s final decision was nicely foreshadowed by Legion a few hours earlier.
I think it also helps that I read the ending in the context of other science fiction, such as some of Greg Egan’s post-human stuff, as well as The Hyperion Cantos (acknowledging the spoilerful contrasts). Hell, with the reapers now free from star-child control they might even begin to act as the arks of civilization that the catalyst seemed to think they were. With the combined minds of countless cycles, most of which are in the form of nigh immortal starships, I’m sure it won’t be long before the galactic economy is up and running again. (Yes, I know, food is a somewhat more immediate concern. But I don’t need explanations of planet wide shields to be convinced that the Endor holocaust never happened.)
19/03/2012 at 20:11 Grayvern says:
Star Wars was samurai themed space fantasy, mass effect is star trek, alistair reynolds science fiction, thematic differences vis-à-vis Endor holocaust logic.
Not that the mass relays cause damage because they were obviously expelling energy in a semi controlled way, but the nature of that energy as explainable by any kind of logic is a whole different issue.
19/03/2012 at 20:35 James G says:
Oh, yes, that was one of the aspects that came in the criticism of ‘ spiritual and magic-space fairy in execution.’ (That and the printed circuitry that appeared on leaves)
Actually, I with the first mention of the Crucible I thought we were heading for a Revelation Space ending.
19/03/2012 at 20:42 Grayvern says:
ME3 made me do research and realise my brain had altered the end of Revelation space to be the Inhibitors protecting against the greenfly not the universe collision.
The universe collision thing is still better than the end of ME3 though.
19/03/2012 at 20:11 Trelow says:
Hear, Hear!
19/03/2012 at 20:15 wab1981 says:
I was just surprised at how little consequence my actions up to the end had, given the whole war assets thing. I was expecting that the break down of the EMS would impact what I saw (eg didn’t have the destiny assention with the Asari so their fleet took a pounding defending the McGuffin, likewise with the Quarians as the Geth hit them hard due to my choice with Legion in ME2). Same thing on the ground. If you put Jack in the front lines then you see her dying as the Crucible does its thing. If those little decisions ultimatley impacted what I saw happen at the end it would have been awesome.
The ending simply didn’t need any choices, how things played out could have been reflected through your War assets break down which is the record of all your choices up to the end.
19/03/2012 at 20:19 FunkyBadger3 says:
I think that’s a cool idea, but imagine the costs were prohibative.
19/03/2012 at 20:33 wab1981 says:
Fair point, it would have been a lot of FMV work but thren it didn’t have to be alot or even voiced, imagine a dozen 5-10 second clips of your cew past and present living or dying montaged together looking up at the sky as the Cruicible detonates witrh that beautiful Clint Mansell piano piece playing over, in total it wouldn’t be more than 5 minutes of FMV all in, showing half of it depending on what you had done.
19/03/2012 at 22:40 delta_vee says:
SPOILERS
HI SIDEBAR PEOPLE
SPOILERS HERE
That sort of thing was exactly what I was expecting going in. They even had the perfect moment for it, too – right at the end of Shep’s conversation with Anderson. At “best seats in the house” I was already getting a little teary-eyed, ready for the big finale.
And then the star-god child. You all know what happened.
21/03/2012 at 01:19 Ruffian says:
Exactly what I was expecting,.
19/03/2012 at 20:18 Tyrone Slothrop. says:
I think one of the large problems was how bereft of choice and consequence the final part was. Compare that to the delicate decisions that needed to be made during the Mass Effect 2 suicide mission to ensure everyone’s survival, the planning and preparation truly had a substantial impact whereas the London skirmish went down the same manner for everyone and ultimately everyone saw the same cutscene except for a hue-change in the explosions.
That part in particular was just completely lazy and there’s no justification for that, even the potential preservation or destruction of the Mass Relays was rendered in exactly the same form. I don’t particularly mind the contrived selection of the choices and certainly not the choices themselves, but they were incompetently rendered being rife with tremendous plotholes with a minimum of effort at differentiation.
Conversely in a very similar turn of events in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I loved the monologues of Adam, how well-written they were and how they conveyed powerfully yet broadly the importance of my and the assumed repercussions to my actions for humanity. I was disappointed but only in that I had no more Deus Ex to enjoy… then the haunting and brilliant theme played over the credits.
I don’t think wanting a ‘happy ending’ is a legitimate grievance and should be dismissed outright but wanting more than 3 different kinds of coloured explosions certainly is, almost anything more would have sufficed even.
19/03/2012 at 20:22 FunkyBadger3 says:
Surely the only difference between ME3 ending and DX2 ending is the voice-overs?
19/03/2012 at 20:36 Tyrone Slothrop. says:
Different voice-overs, images and it didn’t just introduce some glaring plotholes.
20/03/2012 at 05:12 Runs With Foxes says:
I hope the Press One Of Three Buttons setup doesn’t become commonplace. In the original Deus Ex the story only branched right at the end, but at least you had different objectives based on your chosen option. You had to do something to make it happen besides Press A, B or C.
The endings of HR and ME3 are pure laziness.
21/03/2012 at 01:22 Ruffian says:
too true I keep thinking, if they would’ve just made 3 missions instead of 3 buttons everyone would be happy. With both games.
19/03/2012 at 20:26 heledir says:
Calling it now. There is going to be DLC that depicts the marriage between Joker and EDI. And in true Bioware fashion, it’s going to be a giant fetchquest. Either you just run over the planet getting everyone to come to the wedding or it is to be gender specific, where the male character organises a stag party for Joker and the female character helps EDI get all the stuff she needs (something borrowed, something blue, you know the drill).
Although this might even be a spin-off idea.
19/03/2012 at 20:28 Xzi says:
And I can understand the viewpoint that the entire game was meant to be the conclusion of the series, not just the last ten minutes or so. However, it really doesn’t look any prettier in that light. In fact, it makes Bioware look a lot worse, at least where the choice/consequence debate is involved. Let me break down a few key points here:
*MASSIVE SPOILERS*
If Wrex is killed way back on Virmire, his brother steps in for him in Mass Effect 3. His brother is, for some odd reason, willing to do every darn thing that Wrex would have done for you or against you. So that choice was never really a choice. No consequence to be found here.
You killed the Rachni queen in ME1? Doesn’t matter. Despite the fact that you were told all the other Rachni were completely extinct, another Rachni queen magically appears in the same place and under the same circumstances in ME3. No consequence, and your choice didn’t matter.
Killed/saved the council? Udina betrays whichever council is left. Choice didn’t matter, no consequence.
So in the end, where Bioware had the most freedom to really bring it all to bare, to make you reflect on what you had done throughout the series, they chose to go in the exact opposite direction. Everybody chooses from the same three endings. Which all might have well as been one ending for all the difference it makes. The next time Bioware wants to make a series of interactive narratives with only one possible outcome and a linear finale, I just hope that they advertise it as such.
19/03/2012 at 20:47 Crimsoneer says:
You’re wrong on a few points.
a) If you have Reave instead of Wrex, than you can trick him and side with the Salarians, meaning you have both them and the Korgans at the final battle
b) if you have the “false” Rachni queen, she’ll stab you in the back instead of supporting you if you free her.
There are a few other really well hidden choices. It’s possible to save Thane and Mordin, for instance, if you make some really convoluted choices.
It’s actually pretty amazing how many choices are in ME3 if you pat attention.
19/03/2012 at 21:10 theblazeuk says:
It’s true.
It’s a shame having both in the final battle makes zero difference to the fight
19/03/2012 at 21:13 Max.I.Candy says:
how do you save Mordin & Thane?
i freed false rachni queen and she helped with the crucible.how did she stab you in the back?
20/03/2012 at 07:10 Strabo says:
+++spoiler+++
+++spoiler+++
+++spoiler+++
+++spoiler+++
+++spoiler+++
You can save Mordin if Wrex is dead and Eve too. Shepard is able to convince Mordin that Ghengis Wreav with ten billion new Krogans a year is a bad idea and he sabotages the cure.
You can only save Thane if you don’t talk to him at all throughout the game. Then Kirrahe will step in for Thane during the assassination scene (and die tragically). Thane of course will then be processed by the Reapers when the Citadel is put into Earth orbit. Or succumb to the deadly, painful disease he has. So “saving” is a bit relative.
20/03/2012 at 08:31 Xzi says:
If you choose the paragon options throughout, the Salarians go behind the Dalatrass’ back and assist you despite the fact that you choose to help Wrex. The Dalatrass also gives you the exact same option to betray Wrex and fully gain Salarian support if you so wish. So again, no change there.
And, as somebody already pointed out, the second Rachni queen will assist you if you free her under certain circumstances. No change there, either.
Yes, the CHOICES are still there. But if they never actually change anything in a significant way, they might as well not be. Bioware did a good job of creating the illusion of choice here, but they still ended up correcting everything you did if they think you chose wrong. Look at the difference in choice/consequence between KoTOR and the Mass Effect series. The difference is night and day. EA forced a priority change in a very bad way. And I believe the Mass Effect series could have been so much better had Bioware been allowed to complete it without EA’s influence.
19/03/2012 at 20:30 GloatingSwine says:
Disgusted with “being told a story”? In a videogame? Where we are actively involved in constructing that story through our interactions with the game? Actually, yes. In a game where the central thrust of the first hundred hours of the trilogy (never mind the marketing of that trilogy) was that the player chooses the story, being told right in the last five minutes “This is the story” actually is disgusting.
It’s worth noting as well that choosing the story is quite possible without major variations in the plot. Take the end of Mass Effect 1, there’s not actually a lot that happens differently no matter what you choose, plot wise. Either the Destiny Ascension blows up or it doesn’t. But in terms of story you’ve defined something about Shepard, either she will sacrifice civilian leaders in order to preserve a military advantage, or she is an idealist who will protect them even if it costs lives. Maybe she lets them die because she values the human lives of the fleet over the aliens on the council. Or maybe she sees the attack as a decapitation strike and chooses to preserve civilian leadership because it will be inherently valuable in the trouble to come.
That’s a lot of different stories to come out of one minute of cutscene which only has two slight variations.
The difference is that the game didn’t pick one and tell us that “this was the story”, it let the player (again, an active participant in the story, if not the plot) choose it.
That point is one of the four main failings with the Mass Effect 3 ending.
The second is that it didn’t reflect the war assets the player had gathered anywhere near enough. Gathering them was the whole thrust of the game, but the ending barely contains any payoff for that, certainly nothing like was present in the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2, where the upgrades to the Normandy all come into play, and you see that happen, and the loyalty of your crew comes into play, and you see the consequences of that. Compared to that, ME3 shows us a few brief seconds of some different ships arriving, but then basically nothing changes until you can chat with some previous NPCs if they’re alive.
The third is that it really [i]does[/i] wipe out all the consequences of your previous decisions. Nothing you do in any of the three games is as significant a change to the galaxy as destroying the mass relays. You have, by doing that, just destroyed galactic civilisation as you knew it, so none of the changes you made have naturally forseeable consequences any more. Never mind how the fleet at Earth is going to get home, no-one is going anywhere any more, and all communication just went dark. You might as well have let the Reapers win, they would have been far less destructive.
The fourth, of course, is that it is riddled with plot holes and inconsistencies. In the Blue and Green space magic endings, the Reapers pack up and leave. How? You destroyed the mass relays. Where was the Normandy going? How were those people on it when the last I saw they were laying dead or critically wounded in the ruins of London, and I’ve only been here ten minutes or so?
19/03/2012 at 20:30 Qwentle says:
Spoiler Warning I guess, though it doesn’t really matter by now.
Even with the options there, the whole set piece felt stilted. There was no real reason for the magic elevator, and my main problem with the game up to that point was it constantly trying to force that bloody kid on to you. I didn’t care an iota about the little brat, and the forced nature of the whole thing didn’t help (the ‘single tear’ moment from the demo just solidified things).
As a number of people have commented on in the negative thread, the game could have used the sacrificed member from Virmire, or (as you probably sacrificed them because they were annoying) had a mandatory conversation about loss with you at one point earlier discussing your lost companions, and which you missed the most, using them as the avatar. OR, they could have used Avina.
You’re on the bloody Citadel, how cool would it have been if the whole time you were there that silly travel guide VI was just pretending. She’s in every location but just part of the background for the most part. They could have even have made it so her look at point was focused on you when she wasn’t in your FoV, so as you turn she snaps quickly back to not looking at you when you turn to her, or have her glitch occasionally to say things she shouldn’t (along with canned sequences of NPC mechanics trying to fix her as you pass, with appropriate VO). Alternatively you could have her not be an evil rogue AI and just be the Citadel VI explaining the consequences of your actions from a neutral standpoint, so you know what you’re doing.
With the options there, and Avina / Preferred Squad member explaining things, you could have chosen your option at the Terminal in TIM’s room (with the Control thing being there as TIM had programmed it in already), then sat down with Anderson to bleed out together and watch the fire works just as the station explodes. It would still have been bitter sweet (you die, but in a slightly nicer way… Sitting down and finally getting to rest is generally seen as a peaceful way to go out in stories), but without all the WTF. Guess the confusion and in-cohesion was the point though.
19/03/2012 at 20:32 Grayvern says:
Mass Effect 3 handles it’s ending themes in a really clumsy manner that come off as the writers attempting to construct a thematically important end rather than one fitting to the character of the universe.
19/03/2012 at 20:36 daphne says:
So I feel like reposting a comment I made to Cobbett’s entry:
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
“But here’s the thing: My choices did have consequences. So many, on so many of the characters, in so many ways. It’s just, those consequences occurred on my long path toward the ending. And, well, that’s bloody brilliant, isn’t it?”
I should note that Cobbett gave the example of the Urdnot clan and how choosing between Wrex and Wreav, saving the Krogan female, curing the genophage made it clear what was going to happen as a consequence as the characters stated their motives.
Having a sense of what will happen based on what NPCs tell they are going to do is *not* the same as knowing what will happen after your decisions and how they will branch out, simply because those actors do not act in a vacuum.
It’s not a matter of hearing Wreav’s ambitions and plans: It’s seeing (in text form perhaps, like the epilogue of DA:O) him actually doing what he plans to do and the reactions it generates from the rest of the galaxy as he does it. That’s what provides a sense of long-term influence and “decisions mattering”.
In DA:O, there’s this example of the dwarven cleric who decides to open a chantry in Orzammar. The actual significance and the fulfillment of that decision does not come until the epilogue when the game tells you it had some important consequences in the long run, including the church contemplating an Exalted March. That’s what provides ultimate satisfaction.
In short, Mr. Walker, uniting the Krogan and the Turian or the Quarians and the Geth means considerably less if I don’t find out whether they do or don’t get along in the future. Similarly I chose to encourage EDI and Joker because I was curious about their future interaction with each other and how it would work out, not because it was the “chooseable” thing to do at that particular point in time.
You refer to the DA:O epilogue cards in a belittling fashion, but I’m not sure why you do that. It does not cheapen or invalidate the request of fans, and it doesn’t change the fact that the game is lacking even that much.
There is something even bigger that I feel you are missing with your actual argument, but I’ll save my breath for now.
19/03/2012 at 20:44 Grayvern says:
That annoyed me too especially given how the best part of New Vegas Dead Money is the ending slide section and it’s message, well if you were nice to Dean Domino et al.
19/03/2012 at 20:38 Horza says:
My choice in the end was heavily influenced by the routes not being labeled so I just chose one at random.
19/03/2012 at 20:40 GrandHarrier says:
I was very unhappy with the ending. Being given three arbitrary options from a Deus ex Machina was disconcerting. Why, when I had been able to argue with people during the rest of the series, did my Shepard suddenly decide to give in and accept God Child at face value? Synthetics kill Organics so they don’t create Synthetics who will kill Organics? What sort of bullshit circular logic is that? And all the massive plot holes. I don’t even understand half of them. Why were my party members on the Normandy and why was it fleeing the system during the middle of the fight?
But more than that, it was the removal of player agency. Of choice. Of consequence. Suddenly it didn’t matter what I had done the rest of the game. All that mattered was whether I choose door number one, two, or three and watched the canned animation that was identical to all the other endings, save the color of the explosion. That is the payoff? That is how you send off the series? How, Mr. Walker, is that the ending being “right?”
19/03/2012 at 20:40 Nimic says:
This is one of the very, very rare occasions when I utterly disagree with an article. I actually can’t remembe the last time it happened. I don’t even agree with the [i]spirit[/] of the article, or the (no doubt considered) argument that “at least it generated some discussion”.
You’re just wrong. I’m not going to go into every reason why, as 95% of the comments have already covered it all, but… this is disappointing. I respect your right to disagree with me, but I retain the right to tell you when I think it’s stupid.
19/03/2012 at 20:41 Vayl says:
I will accept people liking the end and being ok with it when someone can explain to me why Javik, the avatar of vengeange for the Protean people, the guy that told that his only goal in life was to destroy the reapers and that when the reapers were destroyed he would kill himself because the purpose of his existance would be fufilled, suddently when we were charging to the beam, turned away with EDI, went to the normandy and fled earth, only for both of then to be seen leaving a crashed Normandy on some random planet (when all synthetic life was supposed to be destroyed).
Stuff like this is not defensible, is not about being a good or sad ending, is not about the game being the end in itself, is stupidity of the highest degree. In another game I would have just laughed, but on the end of a trilogy and 100 hours of played time it is somewhat more then just annoying and is infuriating.
19/03/2012 at 20:45 Qwentle says:
It’s better if you don’t have Javik. When you are ‘left alone with your team’ to give a pep-talk, there’s some random soldier dude in the corner throwing shapes whenever the shot lines them all up action-pose style.
19/03/2012 at 20:52 Greenlandys says:
That was a good read, nice to see some change from all the negativity around the ending.
I think the main thing that annoys me is
1) The Relay network being destroyed just renders a lot of choices pointless. What was the point in helping reclaim Rannoch now that we can’t even get back?
2) Why did Joker have to run away at the end… why didn’t he just stay in orbit over Earth?
19/03/2012 at 20:53 Tokamak says:
What’s with all these pro-ME3 articles nowadays. They paying for advertorials or somethig?
19/03/2012 at 21:17 Christian O. says:
Or maybe people who liked it, but didn’t love it, decided to get vocal about it, after all the negativity? Backlash against a backlash isn’t uncommon.
Not everything is a conspiracy and not everyone who likes something have to be paid to like it. Even if it’s kinda bad.
19/03/2012 at 20:53 Vivi says:
I’m sure it’s been posted, but it’s worth posting again…
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true
While that doesn’t remove your ability to like the ending, whatever your crazy reasons may be, it does destroy any argument that claims the ending makes any sense. And even if you don’t want to take the next logical step and buy into the indoctrination theory, you’re still left with a ton of plotholes that can only be filled by info Bioware provided over the course of the series… and that isn’t possible.
19/03/2012 at 23:55 Bantros says:
I think some of the points are quite sound and it’s certainly an interesting ending (or non-ending as it would be if you were indoctrinated) but a lot of the points are simply exploiting sloppy writing and large plot holes in the ending, one’s that would probably be ignored if it wasn’t as much of a train wreck.
*SPOILERS*
*SPOILERS*
*SPOILERS*
For example, there is a whole section of the game detailing TIM’s plans on controlling the Reapers, not to mention the fact he himself can control Reaper forces. What about the ending screen with the fact is says “you have defeated the Reapers, now continue Shepard’s legacy through future DLC!” not to mention the Grandad/Child cutscene at the end of the credits.
Ultimately I think it’s probably a little too clever for Bioware to come up with in it’s current form. Huge RPG series that ends with a whimper but secretly has no real ending as it turns out you were unconscious and fighting indoctrination until the real paid for DLC ending is out that can only be played if you chose to kill the Reapers and wake up? Am I being indoctrinated by some sheer Bioware writing brilliance? Unlikely but then again I wouldn’t mind, it would be an improvement over the extremely mediocre effort currently.
19/03/2012 at 20:54 cypher says:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html <– just going to leave this old blog post of Gaiman's here in case anyone is interested in the broader issue of how users interact with producers.
19/03/2012 at 22:10 FunkyBadger3 says:
Is that the George R.R. Martin is not your Bitch article?
20/03/2012 at 00:01 Consumatopia says:
Not liking the ending means you have entitlement issues.
Hey, it makes about as much sense as every other time I’ve read the word “entitled” with respect to gaming.
20/03/2012 at 00:31 Bhazor says:
I think I just found the perfect comeback to all critiques.
You don’t like my essay? You’re just an entitled cow who thinks she should get a better essay. What is your problem? I wrote the essay I wanted and it’s your fault you didn’t like it.
20/03/2012 at 15:07 cypher says:
lol its absolutely ok to dislike and critique something. That doesn’t mean you get to dictate what the creator does. Could you imagine a remake star wars ep1 or a remake the end of bsg campaign?
19/03/2012 at 20:57 stahlwerk says:
(The artist is independent.) /\ (Videogames are art.)
Lets keep that conjunction true, shall we, internets?
19/03/2012 at 20:57 crinkles esq. says:
You were doing so well until you tried to defend the ending of Contact.
A good story is a bridge across a wide chasm. It requires a leap of faith and some measure of trust in the story and the writer. But majestic views along the way don’t make up for a bridge whose narrative falls apart as you reach the other end. If you can’t deliver a reader or player to the other side of the chasm, you have failed as a writer.
I think you’re letting your sentiments for prior experiences in the series obstruct an objective view of the ending. The game allows you to craft a character, yet abandons that character and his/her motivations in its denouement. That is simply bad storytelling.
19/03/2012 at 21:50 Demiath says:
You might want to inform Shakespeare about that. Most of his plots are disorganized crap with arbitrary and/or farfetched endings, but before we get that far there are great moments of dialogue and character interaction which make the journey worthwhile. I don’t think your bridge analogy works at all; only the most tiresomely mechanistic plot twist-driven detective stories (think “The Usual Suspects”) rely as heavily as that on good plausible (or at least logical) endings. Which isn’t to say that ME3′s ending is great, of course; only not nearly as relevant to the overall package as you seem to imply.
19/03/2012 at 22:44 delta_vee says:
Shakespeare also rewrote his plays multiple times, gauging the audience’s reaction. I don’t think he’d bat an eyelash at this controversy.
20/03/2012 at 00:11 HermitUK says:
I hear the original Romeo and Juliet ending, where Romeo fuses the Montagues and Capulets together with the help of a Fairy, didn’t go down so well.
20/03/2012 at 00:15 deke913 says:
aye, theres the rub
20/03/2012 at 00:17 Bhazor says:
If you feel the need to write ~700 words to defend a story chances are it wasn’t worth defending.
19/03/2012 at 21:00 Blinky343 says:
The flailing defenses of the ending have all been really interesting, a weird combination of attacking little nits in the haters arguments and then crapping out a cloud of “deep emotional connection, experience sweeping epic” personal anecdote pseudo-babble chaff whenever cornered.
19/03/2012 at 22:08 DaFishes says:
Yes, and it baffles me. See also: “Well *I* liked it, and anyone who differs is an entitled, basement-dwelling nerd!” and “You just aren’t sophisticated enough to see how DEEP this ending is.”
19/03/2012 at 21:06 Fiwer says:
I swear to God, when I saw the first article about what’s wrong with ME3′s ending I thought to myself “I bet John end’s up writing a bunch of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual crap about why this god-awful, 30-second long joke of an ending was really brilliant and if only we simpletons could grasp it we’d love it too.”
If only there were something like a stock market where you could make money by predicting future RPS articles.
20/03/2012 at 05:17 Runs With Foxes says:
Walker isn’t pretentious or pseudo-intellectual. He’s just emotional.
19/03/2012 at 21:07 theblazeuk says:
I loved the story right up until the beam.
Then the characters I had chosen for my final stand disappeared. My whole crew vanished. It suddenly didn’t matter that I had filled that entire bar with all my actions, the chain of sacrifice from Kaidan to the fallen of ME2 and those who didn’t make it through 3 didn’t make one bit of difference to the fight for Earth – apart from the arbitrary lighter or darker shade of whatever colour ending I ended up with.
You chose synthesis? So…what did you actually choose? What does it mean for Synthetic/Organic life to be merged? What? None of us mind sci-fi nonsense in our sci-fi nonsense – but this is of the weakest order imaginable. You write all that masses of lore about the hand waving necessary for space travel, communication, magic powers and more….but your finale depends on this?
19/03/2012 at 21:23 Eddy9000 says:
by the way has anyone seen the state of the amazon reviews for ME3? The rating has been driven down to 3/5 stars by people 1-starring it becasue of the ending.
19/03/2012 at 23:28 Siythe says:
On Amazon Uk the PS3 and X-box versions are now solid 3 stars while the PC version is 2 and a half.
It’s not that I feel sorry for the people at Bioware/EA but you’ve got to wonder what the state of shock must be over this (fully deserved) backlash to one of the most popular entertainment franchises around.
My only worry is that the end result will be that game companies become even more reluctant to invest in story based games.
19/03/2012 at 21:28 HisMastersVoice says:
You liked the ending. Great.
It still did not match marketing promises (par for the course I guess), involved massive plot holes, nonsense writing and went against the basic principles of both core gameplay mechanics and the story itself, as told in the past 100h of previous games.
Oh, and it also lacked denouement in any real capacity. Probably because of “artistic license”.
19/03/2012 at 21:40 ThaneSolus says:
John, bad writing is bad writing no matter how you put it. The end was terribad, actually i think the last half of the game was pretty bad. Luckily this last game convinced me never to buy anything from EA/Bioware which is a plus, now added to the list with Blizzard on other lovely corporations.
19/03/2012 at 21:44 Demiath says:
It’s not pedantry to criticize those 10 minutes of arbitrary plot twists which Bioware clearly made up on the fly (by the way, did anyone honestly expect anything else after that Reaper dialogue on Virmire in ME1, where the giant dust mite repeatedly failed to provide any intelligible motivations for its actions?). It is pedantry to talk so much more about a poor ending than the 30 hours which preceeded it (let alone the 60-100 hours of ME1-2). If (unlike me) you care enough about the plot to be bothered by the ending that means you clearly liked sufficient parts of the rest of the story. A compelling story diminished by a poor ending is certainly not the best case scenario, but given the low standards of video game writing in general that still seems like a pretty good deal all things considered.
20/03/2012 at 07:04 Apolloin says:
Sovreign made perfect sense to me. Every 50,000 years the Reapers wake the hell up and come back to the Galaxy. They harvest every god damned thing they can get their tentacles on and make new Reapers out of them – then they bugger off back to Dark Space to sleep for awhile.
It’s the Reaper version of the speech between the two Krogan in Tuchanka in ME2 about having kids. Probably Shepard would have wound up the dominant intellect in the Human Reaper. Maybe Sovreign was FLIRTING?
19/03/2012 at 21:44 Bester says:
Without reading most of the hundreds of replies here, I think I have to defend the current ending based on three points:
First of all, as an amateur author myself I think I would resent the heck out of any obligation to change stories based on what any readers would expect. Not only would I be compromising my stories/work/beliefs, but there is no way to accommodate everyone; some group(s) would be always be disappointed. The only way to deal with it is not to play that game, and keep the author’s vision and story integrity intact (though editors and publishers do get a veto vote, if nothing else). Though this has traditionally been the case with authors of books (and to a lesser extent TV and movies), the same really should apply to video games. The problem with visual media is that the stories are usually built by committee. That said, there is usually a director (whatever the given name of the position) at the helm to give the final artistic direction. Demanding changes is both entitled bullshit, as well as idiocy.
The second point is really a subset of the first: the opinions of the unwashed masses will never agree. Trying to get them to agree is both pointless and silly.
A few years ago I read a series of books (very similar in many themes to the current story being discussed) by Peter Hamilton. Very dry, lengthy, hard science fiction (much harder SF than ME). I invested a lot of hours reading it (they were very think, and it wasn’t the type of prose you could flow through quickly), and loved the story because it was complex, dense, and followed several characters that I started to care about. About halfway through the third (and final book), I was wondering how he was going to manage to wrap up all of the many, many threads, since he hadn’t even started to close them (and was actively opening new story threads). Finally, at the end of the book he pulled the most massive Deus Ex Machina I’ve ever read (and I used to read comics!). It was like Hamilton got to the last fifty pages and his editor called and said “Great job on the books so far, but budgets done so lets wrap it up. On my desk tomorrow morning! Clock is ticking!” After all the time and thoughtful meandering I’d invested in this universe, I was quite disappointed with such an abrupt and half-assed ending. Despite this, I never thought about calling the editor up and demanding that he get Hamilton to rewrite the ending for me. And to be honest, putting my thoughts to the side, the series received a lot of critical praise, and I never heard a lot of grumbling other than from myself about how it ended. Heck, maybe I was being overly critical because of how disappointed I was.
The point is that what upset me didn’t upset a large (probably majority) percentage of the readers. Most things that I read that people get worked up over (Rowling’s prose, Twilight’s admittedly ludicrous ‘sparkly vampires’, originality of Hunger Games, etc) don’t really make much of a blip to me. I enjoy it if I enjoy it, and if I don’t, I don’t. The end result is I probably won’t ever buy any more of Hamilton’s work because of my disappointment, but I’m not going to organize a boycott and book burning. At the end of the day it is a story, and escapism literature at that, just the same as this is a video game. If you don’t like the way it turned out, then move along and the next time you see a Bioware game keep it in mind when you’re deciding whether or not to buy it. Trying to turn it into a life-or-death controversy, or starting lawsuits because you don’t like the ending…well, I have better things to be doing with my life. If you don’t, that’s your problem. As Shatner infamously said, “Get a life!”
Third, at the end of the day there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the endings are the developers playing with us (if you check out twitter feeds like some of the more obsessed fans have been, there are further hints of this). If you haven’t read up on it, then check out the indoctrination theory. Chances are, the first DLC to come out will have an explanation of what happened (assuming the Dev’s don’t bow to pressure and explain the thing one way or another before then).
19/03/2012 at 22:13 kyrieee says:
While I agree that the audience can’t demand a new ending, isn’t there a threshold where the ending is so bad that they can reasonably request one? What if the Harry Potter novels ended with HP teleporting to Voldemort and killing him by throwing a teapot in his face, then jumping off a cliff, all on one page. Or whatever the most ridiculous thing you can imagine is. Doesn’t that threshold exist?
19/03/2012 at 22:27 FunkyBadger3 says:
No. It doesn’t. All you can do is not patronise the authors later work.
see also: M. Night Shamalayan’s films after Unbreakable.
19/03/2012 at 22:47 Klaus says:
No, just accept their crap work and move on. Ignore them later if you need to.
20/03/2012 at 03:22 Consumatopia says:
No, there’s no threshold, because a reader can always reasonably request things. The author is under no obligation to please anyone, but, hey, maybe there’s something the author didn’t think of. Perhaps some (most?) authors would refuse to even consider making changes–but there’s no universal law that says they all must feel that way, or that readers are inherently evil for merely suggesting such a thing. Decide for yourself if your request is worth making, and if the author decides to be offended by it, that’s on them.
20/03/2012 at 07:11 Apolloin says:
Mr Bester, you’re too hung up on Linear Media storytelling to the point that you’re missing the fact that Bioware managed to deliver divergent endings to the story for both Mass Effect 1 AND Mass Effect 2. What players are rioting about is that there is no story ending available that they feel adequately takes their choices into account.
This isn’t just the writers story any more than a tabletop roleplaying game is just the DM’s story. The players are agents within the storyline themselves and they are deeply invested in what happens to THEIR character. Any storyteller in a dynamic medium that misses that fact is likely to confound his clients expectations.
I’ve also done some writing. I’ve been published. My advice to you is to never forget that the target audience are your ultimate client. Yes you may well recieve demands from agents, producers, actors, directors and editors that you cannot ignore, but if you satisfy all those demands without satisfying your audience you are STILL a crap writer.
20/03/2012 at 14:30 Bester says:
Whether linear storytelling vs non-linear storytelling, it is still storytelling. Part of what made ME 1/2 easy to wrap-up was the expectation (indeed, the knowledge) that the story would be continued in a sequel. ME3 has no such grounding since it is the end of the trilogy (excepting DLC). Therefore expectations of the media consumers are different, right or wrong. The linearity of the story only effects this conversation because of how much more involved the consumer becomes in the story/characters/etc.
A tabletop DM knows the 5 or 10 people that he is gaming with, authors have a readership in the hundreds of thousands (if they are fortunate), film and AAA VG’s are consumed by millions. A tabletop DM can tailor his ending to his player base since he knows them individually, ME3 writers cannot conceivably tailor their ending to individual players without resorting to the lowest common denominator (as most movies and VG’s do nowadays), and even then there will be factions that dislike what finally gets decided on.
A better comparison than a friendly neighborhood tabletop gaming session would probably be Star Wars. Lucas was considered a genius for his writing of the holy trinity (not to mention being involved with other movies like the Indiana Jones series), but after the prequel trilogy he is constantly panned. He obviously didn’t meet the expectations of his fan base. Was that because he was a writing hack, as he was accused of by so many, or because the expectations of two generations of geeks couldn’t realistically be met? Honestly, probably a bit of both. Lucas, IMHO, got lucky and got more credit than he probably should have for riding the lighting with the original series, but once that happened (and built such a following) nothing he added to the series could have met expectations.
Once you reach a certain threshold it is impossible to please everyone, and unrealistic (and foolish) to try. Look at every single book that has reached mainstream notoriety (Harry Potter Series, Twilight, Hunger Games, etc), and each one of them (despite being wildly successful beyond belief) has been panned by a very vocal minority. Rowling wrote arguably the most successful book series in history, enough to take her from essentially welfare subsistence living to one of the richest people on the planet, and you still can’t have any conversation about her books without someone chiming in critically and panning her (most for prose, but I’ve also heard bits about originality, the ending, characterization, etc). So do you consider Rowling, Meyers, King, Lucas, Collins, and others to be “crap writers?” If so, you and I have different definitions.
Honestly, I could name a number of instances in film, TV (Lost anyone?), books, and any other form of entertainment you can think of where things of this ilk have happened. The common denominator is that once you reach a certain level of success it is both easy and popular to become critical of it. VG’s for years have (for the most part, and with some exceptions) skewed their stories to the lowest common denominator. The ME series didn’t, and so the idea that they would be able to appease everyone with their ending is unrealistic (even setting aside that I think there will be more coming about the ending later). It’s sad, but predictable. And keep in mind that this is a vocal minority. There are a few thousand people that are making waves about the ending, but it sold at least 2M copies. While some of those probably didn’t care about the story at all and others were dissatisfied with the ending but didn’t bother to complain about it, the vast majority didn’t mind it (or at least were not worked up enough to john the ‘movement’).
I for one, have enjoyed the journey through the ME universe, regardless of its ending. I hope that the indoctrination theory is correct (or if not that Bioware will steal the idea by the time the first DLC rolls around). If not, and especially if the ending is not illuminated more on, I’ll be disappointed, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll consider the series rubbish. I’ll just remember the good times on the journey.
19/03/2012 at 21:49 Matt says:
My main problem is in failed suspension of disbelief due to the unconvincing reasonings seen in proportion to the events. The old theme of order against organics was somehow more convincing than the new theme of regarding order as an inherent spiritual quality of the naturally disorderly organics (not their life though) as opposed to the chaos of the naturally orderly synthetics (don’t they go to heaven?)…
They certainly should have brought out the misguidedness of the Catalyst a bit more (probably discarding of beneficial motives), since as it was it came across as Bioware lightly playing around with unthinkable death tolls and time scales, all within poor reasoning, and giving it a sentimental touch.
19/03/2012 at 22:12 DaFishes says:
The ending was awful in light of BioWare’s aggressive marketing campaign that promised uplifting and satisfying resolution. They caused the players to have that expectation, and then they delivered a (yes, *a*) humdrum copout.
19/03/2012 at 22:22 Hyperpulsehammer says:
There are plenty of people commenting here about what’s wrong with the ending. For my part, I’ll let Angry Joe do the talking for me, he has the best video out there that manages to explain things rationally without flipping out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E&feature=channel
Instead, I feel the need to critique this argument. The first obvious issue here is that a lot of what Mr. Walker is praising about the ending is pointedly not what most people are complaining about. Mass Effect 3 hit many good notes with me, and even until the end of the Illusive Man’s encounter with you on the Citadel, I was impressed with the game. Most people when they talk about the endings, refer to about the last ten minutes. So that’s most of what’s written here out the window– most people, certainly not me, don’t disagree with Mr. Walker about that.
Regarding the remaining sliver of Walker’s argument, that the ‘point’ of the ending was that none of the choices were palatable, or that plot holes involving the violation of previously established concepts in the Mass Effect universe are somehow excusable because ‘that’s science fiction, and shit just happens in science fiction’– that’s tripe of the highest degree. Works of fiction, especially works of fiction like Mass Effect, are cumulative things. They take a central theme and build on it, and then in the end bring resolution to that theme. They don’t just yank it away in the last ten minutes to be replaced with a completely different notion. That would be like if in the end of Macbeth, King Macbeth wins, kills Macduff, and rules the rest of Scotland doing whatever the hell he wants and nothing in the prophecy ever comes to be.
As for science fiction being a carte blanche to execute a LITERAL Deus ex Machina, no, you can’t do that. Science fiction– and Mass Effect IS science fiction, not science fantasy as Star Wars is– is SCIENCE fiction. The fiction is not free license to ignore the science, it is free license to invent your own rules and then springboard off of that. If the ‘fiction’ in science fiction were all that mattered, wouldn’t it be ok to write military fiction knowing nothing of the military? Or police fiction knowing nothing of police procedure? Or comedy without being funny in the slightest? Of course not.
Mass Effect lays a pretty reasonable set of rules, a basis for its technology and a set of concepts that give its world its particular texture– one look at the Codex explains most of what these concepts are. If you spend over a hundred hours with the trilogy, as I have, having an ending that throws all of that out the window is of course going to be dissonant and unsatisfying. It’s not that the ending isn’t the one we wanted, I could have accepted an ending that wasn’t quite what I expected, it’s that it’s an ending that is fundamentally and absolutely at odds with so many themes, concepts, plot points, and marketing promises in a game we have invested so much emotion and time that we can’t help but feel upset.
19/03/2012 at 22:33 FunkyBadger3 says:
The whole “mass effect” thing is hand-wavey nonsense of the very Star Trek kind – but the setting’s consistent once you get beyond that. I found the social networks it modeled far more interesting, mind…
19/03/2012 at 22:36 kyrieee says:
The Catalyst isn’t really a DXM, but yeah. Well, I guess it is a literal one, but not the literary one.
20/03/2012 at 01:48 Hyperpulsehammer says:
I think the Synthesis ending is pretty Deus Ex Machina. ‘Add your energy to the Crucible’? What?
19/03/2012 at 22:26 Symbul says:
What the fuck does the synthesis even mean? Robot-man DNA? It just doesn’t make sense.
I realise that’s sort of what the reapers are but I can get repurposing organic material into a spaceship a lot more than I can accept making organics into extras from TRON.
19/03/2012 at 22:34 Hoaxfish says:
I think the Reapers now taste like cuttlefish?
19/03/2012 at 22:32 Grayvern says:
I really don’t like the implication that artistic intent and good storytelling are incompatible, I mean any number of books and films put lie to that idea.
Perdido Street Station is for instance suffused with meaning, metaphor, political views, while managing to tell an engaging and interesting story. This story includes actual magic except that magic never becomes a convenient plot contrivance.
It’s an issue of tone and feel and Mass Effect’s tone even though 2 arguable strayed a certain amount was of a universe with clear rules.
Not that using a lot of contrivances, and muguffins automatically make a bad story Buffy is great but then Buffy uses magical contrivances and muguffins at every turn, not in the last 2 series.
19/03/2012 at 22:35 FunkyBadger3 says:
I’ll tell you what, I absolutely loathed the ending to Perdido Street station, how the birdman plot was concluded, so much so I’ev never bought another of Meiville’s books.
Fantactic book in itself though…
19/03/2012 at 23:25 Grayvern says:
Dodged the end of Kraken then, whatever your opinion of the end of Station, it made sense, which the final moments of ME3 don’t.
Also I see what you did there.
19/03/2012 at 23:56 FunkyBadger3 says:
I disliked the moral logic of it more than anything – the book was brilliant, as is King Rat. Also a parrallel to the current “situation”. Obviously where I went wrong was not starting a Facebook petition…
20/03/2012 at 00:27 Coxswain says:
You’re missing out, The Scar is brilliant and The City & the City is probably one of the best books of the last 25 years. Kraken is pretty bad, though, and I personally hated Iron Council but can see why some people might like it.
19/03/2012 at 22:39 Yuri says:
I agree with the majority of this article, since choices you make do have an impact during the game.
Most people do not oppose that side of the game anyway.
However, I may be blind, but I still fail to see anything in this article that redeems the nonsense of those last 15-20 minutes of the game.
Something that is supposed to be the culmination of three games worth of adventuring boils down to… illogical nonsense. Why do the crew members that were with you on the Citadel exit the Normandy afterwards? Why do the Mass Relays explode no matter what option you choose and why doesn’t that mean utter annihilation for every planet in the system they’re located in?
(Star system annihilation through relay destruction was established in the ME2 Arrival DLC.)
Why does Shepard breathe in the ruins of London after the ending credits? How did she/he get there in the first place?
Personally, i would have no problem with the “godchild” ending if it were not for these glaring logical fallacies.
19/03/2012 at 23:01 Maxwell_Adams says:
This article is about how the ending is good.
Right?
Okay.
So point out the bit where you say good things about the ending.
19/03/2012 at 23:01 jaheira says:
Superb article John, particlarly the bit about not dissecting the game like a scientist. This urge to analyse rather than enjoy is typical of the nerd mindset, and I always like it when someone calls ‘em out on it.
20/03/2012 at 06:56 Harlander says:
Analysing stuff is how we enjoy it. There’s nothing more satisfying than picking holes in things. Why do you think there are so many pedants on the Internet? ;)
19/03/2012 at 23:12 carrknight says:
An article about the ending of mass effect describing everything but the ending.
19/03/2012 at 23:30 dsch says:
Don’t want to read through all the backlash, but thanks for a lovely and much needed piece, John.
19/03/2012 at 23:31 Raziel_Alex says:
I can’t believe you’re trying to defend this mess of a “closure” when all you guys hated/ignored Fallout: New Vegas, that offered so many permutations of the endings (and accepting Quinn’s ignorant review, eh…). Won’t lose my faith in RPS yet, though.
19/03/2012 at 23:39 Grayvern says:
Just went back and read that New Vegas WIT, and oh dear lord.
20/03/2012 at 00:06 HermitUK says:
I still think it’s a shame that it didn’t get the coverage Skyrim did. It’s a buggier game than Skyrim, and not as pretty, but in terms of player choice and world building it’s so much better. One of my biggest Skyrim gripes is ‘choice’ entirely boiled down to “accept this quest or don’t”.
20/03/2012 at 00:09 fish99 says:
**FALLOUT NEW VEGAS SPOILERS***
Funny you say that because the FNV endings annoyed me. Go the independant route and you either destroy both NCR (your allies) and Legion at the dam, or destroy the generators at the dam which plunges the whole west coast back into the dark ages (the game clearly tells you 95% of the dam power goes to California). Go the House ending and you have to wipe out the Brotherhood, who were your allies in F3. That leaves just one ending, the NCR one (you’d have to be a nutter to want to play the Legion route). So much for choice.
20/03/2012 at 00:20 HermitUK says:
NEW VEGAS SPOILERS
It’s entirely possible, as Independent, to wipe out Ceasar’s Legion at the Dam and convince the NCR to leave New Vegas peacefully. There’s many ways in which events can play out slightly differently. Also, the Brotherhood in F3 was rather different to the Brotherhood elsewhere; they’re not supposed to be Paladins in Power Armour; they’re a cult obsessed with hoarding advanced technology – It’s not hard to see why Mr House perceives them as a threat, but note you can broker a peace between the Brotherhood and NCR, and it’s also possible to have them mostly play nice with an independent Vegas, as well.
20/03/2012 at 01:32 fish99 says:
I’ll take your word for it, but when I checked the wiki before picking an ending, it sounded like you had to wipe out the NCR at the dam. Oh well. As for the Brotherhood, they’re still guys you’ve done missions for during FNV so I didn’t feel like wiping them out.
20/03/2012 at 06:54 HermitUK says:
SPOILERS!
The key is to complete the objective in the control room without alerting the NCR guards (Either use a Stealth Boy or talk to them and convince them to leave) – If you do this, the NCR don’t turn hostile and they’ll help you retake the dam. After which you can tell them to get out.
20/03/2012 at 00:22 Raziel_Alex says:
You’re getting ahead of the subject here, but anyway: the Brotherhood in F3 and FNV are different branches and in F3 they were the Lone Wanderer’s allies, not the Courier’s. In Washington they are this techno-super group that pulverizes stuff, while in Vegas they are the lonely, monastic techno-fetishists.
I agree that the 4 major ending choices in FNV are totally the expected one – why the f**k couldn’t I make an alliance between House and NCR, I hated that – but I was talking especially about the tons of permutations you get based on what you did in the game, especially with your companions. I haven’t played ME3 – not sure when I’ll do it – but a lot of people are complaining that it’s completely ham-fisted, especially – again – when it comes to your companions. Like the fact that some of them just disappear on the Normandy when they were right along Shepard. In FNV the writers care about the characters, unlike ME3 where it seems they just couldn’t buy any more from time from EA and just had to roll something resembling a closure. As already noted in a lot of places, (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true) ME3 has a s**tload of plot holes.
20/03/2012 at 00:08 saucex4 says:
The majority of this article talks about the experience of the 3 games. ME1, ME2, and ME3. I believe most people that got as far as the end of ME3 loved the series and what it had to offer overall. I think that 95% of ME3 was fantastic. the experience was engrossing. THAT’S NOT THE PROBLEM.
THE PROBLEM IS THE ENDING ITSELF!!!
Everyone has a right to an opinion, and I respect yours and everyone else’s, but IN MY OPINION defending a bad and poorly written ending doesn’t make it a good one….in my opinion.
20/03/2012 at 00:19 Bantros says:
Have to say though, the “If [Insert Title here] ended like ME3″ videos that are popping up on YouTube are fantastic.
LOTR – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmj8m-T5Co
Ghostbusters – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEY8tJIEOzA
Crying with laughter after watching the first one, jesus so funny.
20/03/2012 at 07:59 Kadayi says:
*chortles*
20/03/2012 at 00:24 elnalter says:
Biodrones up in these pages.
20/03/2012 at 00:40 AltF4 says:
There is nothing wrong about the reapers and the “kid” harvesting lives, they are making a “safe” bet that allows future organics to live. Shepard at the end of the day is nothing more than a trigger happy grunt, and compared to the “kid”, who might as well be thought of having a God status in ME universe, Shepard has very little insight.
So.. you either have harvesting going on and hence continuation of organic life, or a chance the trigger happy grunt is dead wrong and everyone dies.
20/03/2012 at 00:41 Sutoi says:
I am so genuinely happy to see this article here. I was beginning to feel like I was the only one who felt completely satisfied by this game and not cheated by the ending cinematic. I have never been so completely pulled into a story in any movie, book, or game as this. The ending to me made sense and was a wonderful conclusion to the series.
There are some confusing bits in the end cinematic, like how your crew members got back aboard the normandy (even if they were with you when you were apparently all wiped out), and how you seemingly trapped all the other races in the Sol system by destroying the mass relay. But really, I’m sure they could explain their way out of these things, and not knowing exactly what happened doesn’t ruin the end for me in any way.
I was honestly starting to feel wrong for being happy with the whole experience because I’ve seen almost nothing but hate. So again, thank you for writing this.
20/03/2012 at 07:21 Apolloin says:
Look, it’s not about people being right or wrong over their feelings for the ending.
It’s simply that if the ending made this many paying punters unhappy, IT is wrong.
20/03/2012 at 00:45 Anders Wrist says:
I for one feel kind of glad it’s over. No more sitting through mediocre combat scenarios (and mindlessly running all over the galaxy) for mediocre story “rewards”! (Until the next Bioware game I’ll be suckered into buying, because I can’t help, but hope for the company redeeming itself).
20/03/2012 at 00:46 briktal says:
I like this version of the ME3 credits http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99kS02nPoEM
20/03/2012 at 00:56 Bumble says:
Before I begin, I would like to say one thing: 99.9% of Mass Effect 3 is a fantastic game which I adore. I’m not a rabid fan but I fear it’s already reached the point of no return and gone from ‘healthy, critical appraisal and dislike’ to true psychological illness with some members of the community.
As much as I agree with John’s viewpoint about the whole game being an ending to what was begun in ME1, the fact remains that although individual story strands are drawn to a close, there is no resolution beyond the narrative bar adding war assets. That these have no reconcilable impact or effect rather negates the point of those individual stories as parts of a whole other than being part of a mechanic as a means to an end, i.e. they’re inconsequential fluff despite their own emotional impact.
A good case in point is the story of the Rachni Queen. Mike Gamble is stated as saying that whether you chose to save or destroy the Rachni in ME1 would have serious consequences in your final conflict with the Reapers.
You know. The Rachni. That unstoppable force of nature that tore in to the heart of the galactic civilisations. The whole reason the Krogan were uplifted by the Salarians because their violent nature meant they were the only species capable of combating them. Which lead to the Krogan Rebellions. Which lead to the Genophage.
And the end result of your choice waaaay back in ME1 to save or destroy the Rachni? Even after the message from the Rachni Queen in ME2? Oh, War Assets, +100 Rachni Workers for the Crucible and a couple of e-Mails or more +100 Krogan Ground Forces?
Does it matter if I killed the Rachni Queen and rid the Universe of their presence? Does it matter if I sell out the Genophage for more Salarian researchers or back Wrex/Reav and give the Krogan their due right? Does it matter if I rush to Grissom Academy to save Jack and her students? Does it matter if I elevate the Geth to true AI? Or save Samara? Or rescue Jacob?
No.
Despite Mac Walter’s allusions to Brave New World, the Matrices(?) films and grand plan of ‘speculation’, the final reveal does not do justice to what has gone before and is a more shameless, directionless rip-off borne out of necesity than homage. From reading numerous forums, no one is asking for a Team America “Fuck yeah!” conclusion, just something that shows the point of the stories you wove and the ‘lives’ and species you changed along the way.
20/03/2012 at 08:05 Kadayi says:
^This. They needed some post Shepard moving montage eluding to how those decisions payout within the context of each of the 3 choices. On the big list of things I cared about, the fate of Joker/EDI and the Normandy weren’t that high up truth be told.
20/03/2012 at 01:19 drspaceman0014 says:
so i just finished the game and i got the synthesis ending and i didnt have a choice. after the kid talked to me about all the options, i went to the beam and the synthesis cutscene ensued. why was i not able to pick what choice i wanted?
20/03/2012 at 01:32 Bumble says:
You have to go to the left of the ramp for ‘control’, middle for ‘synthesis’ and right for ‘destroy’.
Or just play Deus Ex:HR instead for the same choices but with better context and exposition.
20/03/2012 at 02:30 Mark23 says:
Yeah I loved the ending. My favorite part was when Casper told me he had created synthetics to kill organics before they could be killed by synthetics. But good news: I could stop the cycle by combining synthetics and organics into a “new DNA.” I mean up till then I never even knew robots had DNA, so color me educated (or rather just color me green)!
Still, had to pour out a 40 for all the Citadel populace slaughtered off camera before act 3. Even though it turned out to be completely futile, I’m glad I buffed the defense force and did all those sidequests. After all, apparently I needed all those war assets to make sure that big clock in London didn’t blow up. I mean the mass relays went nuclear, dooming the entire galaxy to resource deficit and attrition, but at least all the people in London will still know what time it is.
I was on the edge of my seat as Joker escaped that sentient explosion that destroyed only the Normandy, leaving the rest of the Allied fleet unscathed. And he just happened to land on a garden world! Without the aid of an infinite improbability engine! Yeah booooooiiiiiiii!
Just when things couldn’t get any better I realized it was a wise old man telling his grandson tales of sexual prowess and galactic genocide.
Now I can’t wait to continue building the legend of the Shepherd through downloadable content!
Also, space magic.
20/03/2012 at 14:09 Big Murray says:
I hesitate to say it, because I sound like a snob … but have you considered that if what you took away from the explanation of the Reaper’s motives was “Yo dawg I heard you didn’t want to be killed by synthetics so I built some synthetics to kill you to make sure you don’t get killed by synthetics” … there is the slight possibility that you’ve completely and utterly missed the point and are making yourself sound a little bit ignorant?
20/03/2012 at 16:57 Grover says:
2deep4u is always a great argument.
20/03/2012 at 02:32 bleeters says:
“And good grief, thank goodness it didn’t fade to black and leave everything ambiguous, with just enough room for 900 more sequels.”
I’m trying to think of a single aspect of that ending sequence that wasn’t ambiguous. I’m drawing a blank.
I’d agree with you on the entire rest of the game. It wraps up and continues so many aspects from previous games, and handles choice and consequence quite expertly. But, well, the criticism isn’t about that. It’s about the final five-ten minutes, where all your previous choice – and demonstrated consequence – are thrown out of the window, with the fate of the galaxy afterwards left entirely unexplained. Had they at least left the setting intake, I could reasonable assume that everything demonstrated regarding my major choices through the main game held true. But they don’t, so I can’t, and in place of that, I have only more questions.
Which, given that it was apparently the intention to cause rampant speculation, makes it a little difficult to defend from a “choice and consequence” perspective. We have choice, even if I’d personally argue the entire situation and method by which they’re presented is nonsensical at best, asinine at worst. But we don’t. Have. Consequence, because the only consequence we’re shown is “reapers defeated, relays explode”. Given the implications, that’s just not good enough.
20/03/2012 at 02:50 The Infamous Woodchuck says:
well,i predict there will be 3 DLC’s for this game:
- Joker and Co. Adventures (including an explanation on why did they left earth in the first place)
- Rebuilding the mass relay (or something close) and recovering from the Reaper attack
- The Alt-Ending DLC (this is the one that i really dont want them to make, because the ending – atleast IMO- is great.)
also, tons of multiplayer DLC’s
20/03/2012 at 03:40 jythanatos says:
My Shepard was a full paragon in all three ME games. I got every single race to back me up. Shepard brought together the Geth and Quarian to live together in peace on the Quarian home-world. He cured the genophage AND got the full backing of the Salarian military because of his past actions. At the end, the illusive man shot himself in the head because Shepard convinced him he was indoctrinated. My Shepard brought hope to every part of the galaxy that peace was possible between not just the organic life forms, but between organics and synthetics. He would of gladly given his life to let the galaxy live.
I had war assets 7500+ with a 100% war readiness. When the magic elevator took me up, at first I was intrigued. When the ghost boy appeared, I was still in the game. After I was told the choices, I was confused. The story that I helped shape with all of my actions over all three games broke at that point. My story was one of redemption, compromise, hope, and peace. None of the three options was a match. I could mind rape the reapers, something my Shepard would not do. Destroy all synthetic life, including the Geth, whom I had just spent over an two hours working for and achieving long term peace with. Or I could forcibly alter the very essence of life in the whole galaxy. I literally spent the next five minutes in shock. Not the good kind of shock that sometimes happens when a story really socks you with something, but the bad kind. Filled with confusion on where this all came from, and by how the whole feel of the game changed so drastically. It felt as if someone was playing a joke on me. It removed me from the story, and I no longer cared. I first tried to talk to the ghost kid again, then tried to shot him, then tried to kill myself by jumping off the edge. I would rather my Shepard died, and the Galaxy had to defend itself against the Reapers without the Cruicible, win or lose, the make any of those choices. In the end I took the middle road. Not because it made any sense in the Story I felt like I was a part of for the last 90+ hours(all three games + multiplayer), but because I said “Oh well, lets take door number 2″.
In the end I really enjoyed the game, but it hurt me. I might play it partly through with some other Versions of Shepard, but I wont play the last part because theres no point. I feel like one of my very close friends lied to me and seriously betrayed my trust. I’ll still hang out with them at the bar, but I’ll know never to get too close to them ever again, because they are not to be trusted.
20/03/2012 at 03:44 The Godzilla Hunter says:
I must be really strange.
I seem to often really like endings that other people don’t. I liked Lost’s ending, DXHR’s ending. Heck, I loved DA2′s ending (I sided with the Templars, so I did not see how both endings are very similar). I actually really like ME3′s ending. I think this may be because I don’t think too deeply into plot holes and such, and am only looking for emotional resolution. Plus the destroy ending is totally in line with my Shepard.
Strange, as I said.
20/03/2012 at 04:44 rambythezombie says:
Spoiler alert—-
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10056886/1
I am not sure if the link will work, but the mass effect forums have a nice topic on this subject.
“Mass Effect 3 debacle – Pre-release developer quotes ”
The issue with the endings is that the players were told it would NOT be an A, B, or C ending. In the very end, it was exactly that.
Even if the entire game was the ending, the final minutes betrayed the promises made. Hence the anger.
It only worked in DX:HR, maybe, because the game did not absorb a large amount of time, thought and emotion. For a game like mass effect the very end of the mass effect 3 did betray the series by effectively removing most of the choices and reduced it to a, push button 1 for ending A.
IMHO: If the series is about choice, the ending of the ending fails for the obvious lack of choice. If the series is about heroism, then the bittersweet ending is destructive to the idea. What is the point of saving the galaxy if everything goes fubar anyway? I, personally, am in the camp of, if it means saving galactic growth, let the reapers do their thing, something that is not an option. If the series is about survival against the odds, only then does the bittersweet ending even make sense, but it is unfair to those who worked hard for the best ending they could get, only to have minor differences between that ending and any other ending.
Of course people are upset, a good number of people had their expectations betrayed. When that happens people are upset.
20/03/2012 at 05:05 Sunjammer says:
The choice was so easy for me.. I’m basically a libertarian, and i’ve played the game as such; I don’t buy the idea that history will repeat itself because some stupid ghost boy tells me so. I kept every promise, and I’d promised my friends I’d stop the reapers. I was more willing to die than to elevate myself to essential godhood (I HATED the amount of hero pandering Shepard received in this game, hated hated hated it), and I thought the reapers were creepy in every which way, so kill ‘em all! It was a great ending. Shame about the 30 or so hours before it. But great ending.
20/03/2012 at 07:18 Strabo says:
Genociding a whole race – the Geth – (and a second if you count the Reapers) and killing another intelligent being (EDI) doesn’t seem to mash well with that odd collection of vague ideas called “Libertarianism”.
Hell, even accepting the unexplained authority of the Starchild his limitation to three given options, instead of seeking a better, different one, seems to be pretty much the opposite of what Libertarianism usually stands for.
20/03/2012 at 08:52 stahlwerk says:
I haven’t played ME3 yet, but I think I’ll take an “organics first” stance as well, even with my mid-ME2 shepard being the paragonest of paragons. I haven’t met legion yet in ME2, maybe I’ll roleplay shepard being brutish to the geth…
20/03/2012 at 05:21 Nim says:
In hindsight, these articles could have been named “Walker’s opinion on ME3 ending” and “Cobbett’s opinion on ME3 ending” instead of right and wrong to better reflect their content and tone.
20/03/2012 at 08:48 stahlwerk says:
But isn’t that really implied, this being a blog and all?
20/03/2012 at 06:50 Screamer says:
If the game had stopped at 1:38 it would have been the best ending ever!
Could even have followed with the catalyst being exploded by the Reapers or killing the reapers depending on war assets…..
Instead I’m going to ignore that the red space magic killed the Geth and EDI as well, they didn’t show it happen, so who says it happened :)
20/03/2012 at 07:03 reticulate says:
I’m still not convinced Bioware could write what I personally feel is the best of the three games then completely shit the bed in the last five minutes.
I mean, right up until you take the elevator, I was sold. I’d had the opportunity to say goodbye (loved that final chance to communicate with a bunch of prior crew mates at the London base), My Shep was half-dead, at the end of his willpower. He’d given everything. Even when Hackett tells you the Crucible isn’t working, Shep is still pulling on that final, painful reserve to do what he promised. The strength of that scene said so much about the guy I’d been telling this story with for so many tens of hours.
Then the kid we’ve been dreaming about shows up and gives us three arbitrary choices that all amount to genocide no matter what. My Shep doesn’t roll that way. I would’ve ignored the kid, called EDI and asked her if there was anything we could do. Failing that, my Shep would refuse to doom the billions I’d just spent three games saving because of some arbitrary choice. My Shep didn’t do “ends justify the means”. He negotiated peace with the Turians and Krogan, the Quarian and Geth. He saw a better path, fuck the Star Child.
I hold out hope for the Indoctrination Theory. There are enough telling plot holes to give Bioware an opportunity to recon even if it wasn’t intentional.
20/03/2012 at 08:12 Naulidor says:
I agree that a travel is important in the storyline … but so is a destination! In real life most of people set the objectives for themselves and then they live their every day life travel bringing them the events and adventures. The “destination” was, is and will be as important as all the rest.
Mass Effect 3 leads a player to limbo. It is not a question of being too harsh, too sad, dark, or whatever we would tell, it is a feeling that in the end the numerous choices made on the way forward did not matter… it is as if you had performed something during very long time and then learn that it was for nothing, irrelevant, pointless. I find that such a message of the game is very sad… kind of mind raping: the life, existence needs a purpose, a destination, without it, in a binary way it looses its sense, so despite all the rich “travel”, this very ending invalidates the existence of everything else that happened before in a storyline.
Here, in this ending (I consider it as one ending); we have some completely surrealist situation…:
Is that a reality? if so, how comes it is completely not logical (escape of Joker, teammates in Normandy, destruction of relays that would have wiped out all life anyway making the whole story pointless, hopeless as player in the end has not helped anyone – that truth would make from ME series one playthrough game… unless this implication disappears),
Is that an indoctrination induced hallucination? If so, what happened to everything and everyone around Shepard? in this second case, regardless of a choice made by Shepard, we do not learn anything about “outside world”, we (players) are trapped in this hallucination with most of the questions not answered, confused … did the world learn the lesson of tolerance my Shepard preached ? Did the different characters turned out as I thought they would? The “destination” is hidden in this case from the player, hiding any kind of accomplishment, “self realisation”. The ignorance and indoctrination go together… I can say something about this as I was born in a communist country.
In conclusion … I wish Bioware corrects the ending to give it any sense and purpose it lacks today.
20/03/2012 at 08:31 bob-loblaw says:
Oh look a website plastered with ME3 ad’s thinks the ending was great, thank you for proving us wrong about the ending, can I have some more?
I also enjoyed the way the first 4 paragraphs described a 10/10 game, which ME3 was until the final 15min. The greatest achievement of this game in my opinion was to demonstrate how 15 minutes can kill an entire series for so many of its most diehard fans.
The main issue i think many of the fans have, including myself is that all these earth shattering decisions count for squat in the final scenes as long as you have enough EMS and even then you are presented with 2 colors instead of three. I understand why the relays had to be destroyed, I’m not even mad about that they were part of the cycles and all that, so that races would follow the same technology patterns and all that good stuff. Introducing robot baby jesus and the whole, we are machines who kill you to save you from being killed by machines except we preserve you too was just too terrible.
Honestly the devastating shitness of this ending has just sapped any will to breakdown why it was so terrible, either way many people more articulate than I have done it on the bioware forums already.
I mean even the biodrones have turned on bioware over this, given its probably mostly because they don’t get to spend the epilogue with their waifu.
I really did not expect IGN tier stories from RPS but i guess we all have bills to pay but please don’t pretend this ending did the series any kind of justice.
TL;DR Baby robot jesus, Tali’Zorah vas getty images, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=space+winter (check images)
20/03/2012 at 08:46 stahlwerk says:
CUI BONO, JOHN WALKER?
20/03/2012 at 08:55 Shadram says:
If you think John Walker is swayed by advertising revenue in the stories he writes, you obviously haven’t been reading his stuff, or this site, for very long.
20/03/2012 at 09:05 Prime says:
@bob-loblaw: You are so wrong it’s freakin’ hilarious.
Fun fact: RPS don’t control their adverts. That’s handled through an agreement with Eurogamer – it’s Eurogamer who decide what adverts are shown on this website.
Fun Fact 2: Mr Walker has proven himself, over and over, a Man of Principle. He’s taken lots of flak in the comments for standing up for what he believes in but continues to do so anyway. Does that sound like the kind of man who’d sell out for a fast buck? Especially when he won’t have been approached as he has no control over the adverts?
You might want to brush up on your facts before you start slinging baseless accusations around. I know this is the internet but how about showing some basic human decency and respect, eh?
20/03/2012 at 15:04 Vander says:
I agree. I dont have the same opinion as mr Walker, in fact i think he coulndt be more wrong, nor do i think he as really adressed the issue of the ending of mass effect 3 (the ending of the serie perhaps, but not ME3 itself), but i don’t think he wrote what he wrote because of money. What i read of him before let me think that he’s not that kind of man.
I would not extend that confidence over the ensemble of the specializeds press however…
20/03/2012 at 08:49 Shadram says:
I didn’t love the ending, but I didn’t hate it either. I merely liked it, with a few misgivings.
What really annoys me, though, is the assumption everyone makes that they could do better, or that BioWare were lazy, or too thick to think of something better. Hundreds of people were involved in crafting the game (I know this, I sat through the end credits and grew a great big bushy beard before they ended), to assume they did the ending that they did without thought is… well, thoughtless.
EDIT: Although I wasn’t quite as confused as some by the final shot. I took Tali and Liara on the final mission, so didn’t get the “wha…?” moment when Garrus and Kaiden stepped out of the Normandy, which I probably would have if I’d taken either of those two with me. I did wonder why they were flying away, though.
20/03/2012 at 09:17 Wubble69 says:
I’m sure this comment will be so far down the thread that it’ll never get read but my concern about this situation over the last week has moved from sadness through nerd outrage to meh!
However I am concerned now about the initial reviews the … Wot I thinks!
Did all/any of the initial reviewers actually finish the game before awarding the game their 10/10, 5 stars, Megatron Thumbs up reviews? This is not a RPS specific thing. I mean the whole blogoshere.
Surely somewhere there is a games reviewer who thought … Oh Dear This Is Not Going To Go Well? and actually mentioned it in their original review?
Or are all the charges of entitlement at the fans to possibly cover the fact that they didn’t actually finish the game but were quite happy to lavish praise on it and they have to defend their conclusions to their constitutents even in the face of this backlash?
20/03/2012 at 09:49 Shadram says:
Or maybe they felt that a 5 minute cutscene at the end doesn’t alter the fact that there’s 35ish hours of amazing 10/10 worthy gameplay that comes before it?
20/03/2012 at 10:10 Wubble69 says:
Possibly!
But a tad strange if that is the case!
20/03/2012 at 09:18 John Walker says:
I’m on holiday this week, so despite doing my best to read as many comments as possible, I’m not keeping up here. But I wanted to make a few general responses.
1. Perspective. I wrote a personal account of why I enjoyed the the ending of Mass Effect. I did this in reaction to my having enjoyed the ending of Mass Effect, and because we’d previously published negative coverage and I wanted to express that I felt differently. In the post I acknowledge that I empathise with the issues some have, while not being affected by them. This is not a personal attack on you because you feel differently, and while I recognise the frustration that I have the post for my voice, and you have the comments, you are not harmed by this post.
2. I have read no other positive coverage of the ending on other sites, and oddly enough am not involved in a conspiracy of the gaming press. I liked a thing you hated. I also thought the ending of AI was brilliant, and truly understood the grotesque horror of fairytale. Yet the world continues
3. Personal attacks on my professional integrity, accusations or implications of corruption, and suggestions that I am controlled by advertising/publisher relation pressure are fucking disgraceful. I like to imagine that any reputation I may have might slightly lean toward the suggestion that publisher appeasement isn’t exactly high on my agenda. Of course, I don’t expect most people to give two shits who I am so that’s not relevant for most – however, making wildly offensive accusations shouldn’t be something anyone is reaching for in a discussion over whether people liked the end of a game or not. Good GRIEF.
4. I have no idea what Joker was doing on the Normandy at that point. It doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to assume something like, “he was asked to fly to the Citadel after people realised Shepard was on board, then tried to avoid the green wobbly bubble.” Or even that they were helping a particular ship that was in distress. I dunno! It didn’t strike me as the most important thing happening, but clearly that wasn’t the case for all
5. It turns out that if the Relays were destroyed in the process of relaying an ancient signal from the ancient race, that meant their solar system destroying ways were muted. Phew, eh?
20/03/2012 at 09:53 Fiyenyaa says:
I think that those of us who really disliked the ending are currently grasping at straws right now, because it was so utterly bonkers and out of left-field.
Combined with the fact that almost all of the mainstream gaming press are saying “Mass Effect 3, game of the year, or 9/10, or 93%” or whatever else, with only non-gaming focused sites (or indeed newspapers and TV news channels now, it turns out) and a few smaller gaming sites saying “Jeez, what the heck was that ending all about”, I think people are concerned that there are vested interests at work.
Personally, I wouldn’t suspect it from RPS at all, but I think people who are grasping at straws are prone to making unbacked assertions.
Not quite sure how I’d rate the game on a numerical scale, though. I enjoyed almost all of it, including the multiplayer (which I’d still be playing right now if the ending hadn’t soured me on all things ME) very much, but the ending was so profoundly bad that I can’t find myself forgiving it any time soon. 7/10? Scores really are silly, aren’t they?
20/03/2012 at 10:01 Shadram says:
I read an article today about a study here in New Zealand that found a much higher incidence of narcissism in teenagers and people in their early twenties than in those younger or older than that, due to the changes in how they were raised, the media and social networking. Such people are prone to self-entitlement and egotism. It’s one of those studies where the outcome surprises nobody (except maybe a couple of teenagers) but I, for some reason, found myself thinking about the “you disagree with me! You’re obviously corrupt and wrong!” posts on this and similar sites and can’t help but think there may be a correlation…
20/03/2012 at 16:59 Grover says:
Well, the important thing is you found a way to feel superior.
20/03/2012 at 19:30 Shadram says:
I don’t have to try very hard. /narcissism
21/03/2012 at 01:17 jythanatos says:
I’ve done my own study based on the government, and despite the majority of them being over 45, they act the same way. Narcissism and believing people on the other side of an argument are corrupt or stupid is as old as humankind. The fact that it is easier to voice your own opinion and to have others react to is is what causes it to seem like a rising statistic. This does not mean that younger people are bigger narcissists then those in previous generations, just that they have more opportunities to express their views(which allows others the ability to shoot them down).
20/03/2012 at 09:19 Leaufai says:
When I was half way through the game I was thinking to myself: ‘this might just be the most engaging game I’ve ever played.’ The decisions you made in previous games, helped me connect to my Shepard more than to any other player character ever. All other characters, from Garrus to Liara, felt like old friends towards the end and when my actions resulted in one of them dying, I felt sad. Even the support characters like Urdnot Wreav always feel real.
I felt this way about this game right until the last push in London. I just had a couple of nice moments with my crew and I felt the graveness of the situation. But the game was already showing some cracks. The Battle for Earth was generic and underwhelming. It would’ve been nice if the War Assets I had procured would be shown during the battle (a Geth ship helping out a Quarian ship for example). Or see a couple of Volus bombers helping create a shortcut during the Battle for London. Adding more CGI cutscenes and creating a lot of models for new ships (like the Volus) would be a lot of work and ME3 is already such a vast undertaking.
Then the ending started. I was hit by Harbinger’s beam and everything turned white. My Shepard regained consciousness and I saw my teammates (Garrus and Liara) laying dead on the ground. While people die in war, I would’ve at least liked the Hollywood treatment (perhaps a last shared look with the two before they died). Now it was if your favorite character on your favorite TV show were suddenly killed in the middle of the scene and the show continued without explaining it.
Then the plot falls apart. Even though everybody died, Anderson who was supposedly behind me, suddenly managed to survive and get on the Citadel before me. The following scene with The Illusive Man was not half bad (liked it more than the boss fight they originally planned) but after that it fell apart completely. The Deus Ex Machina of the Century suddenly changed the entire vibe of the story. I felt not like the man/woman who was thrust into the position of savior by chance (like Kirk/Picard) as I had been told until then, but like a pawn of destiny, the prophecised second coming (aka Luke Skywalker).
For the first time, I didn’t know what to do. it felt as if the God Child was trying to trick me into choosing the wrong answer. I had fought against Cerberus and the Reapers every step of the way and now they wanted me to choose their solution? In the end I just went with Destroy. The end sequence was disappointing, an awful tribute to my favorite characters.
Up until then I had been in control of my destiny. I had thought it was the best game I’d ever played. After the ending, I no longer felt that way (still top 10, but not #1). You can say whatever you want, but an ending that does that is not a good ending. They might have kept us talking, but not in a good way.
P.S.: I just realized that instead of Shepard or him/her I’ve consistenly written me or I. This shows the attachment I have with this character. That shows the profiency of BioWare’s writing. When they drop the ball on the ending like that, this attachment makes something bad even worse. Probably the reason for the outcry.
20/03/2012 at 09:34 FluffDaSheep says:
I’m willing to accept that what the Reapers do (or did, for countless cycles) makes a certain kind of sense from their perspective.
I’m willing to accept that Shepard has to die for whatever reason, I don’t care.
I’m not willing to accept that the Mass Relays have to go kaboom for all the choices. Mass Relays gone means the end of galactic civilization anyway. Oh, and that whole fleet (whatever is left) will probably starve to death. Or die in the explosion? They don’t all have the best helmsman in the Alliance to crashland on a jungle planet.
Why can’t the reapers just bugger off, and leave their toys? I thought the Catalyst just said it controlled them. It already said the current solution no longer works so… why doesn’t it just fuck off with its killing machines? You know, like it does every cycle when it’s done harvesting.
Actually… howcome killing the reapers comes with a warning label that says “YOU WILL MAKE SYNTHETICS AND THEY WILL KILL EVERYTHING” while controlling them and making them bugger off doesn’t?
Why will synthetics kill all organics anyway? “The created will always rebel against their creators” was the Catalyst’s line. The game, and my Shepard, disproved that not hours ago by showing the origin of the Geth/Quarian conflict, and then resolving it peacefully. What was that all about? The main theme of the geth was that they weren’t bad guys intent on killing everything after all. Which directly contradicts what the Catalyst says. What? I’m so confused.
See, nothing makes any goddamn sense.
20/03/2012 at 09:36 Oof says:
Nothing.
20/03/2012 at 09:39 dasvocas says:
You are full of shit. How many percent of this article were written by EA’s PR department? How much did you get for publishing it?
20/03/2012 at 10:06 lordcooper says:
And you are a sad and angry individual.
20/03/2012 at 10:12 stahlwerk says:
It’s a good thing that the hivemind published this piece. Saves me my subscription, yet ensures adequate money hattery. Thanks, Electronic Arts.
Tharts.
20/03/2012 at 10:02 Demigod says:
I can defend the game itself. it may be buggy as hell but is fun and the story is good. However the end, which is what people have been complaining about the most is contrived nonsense which directly contradicts and ignores major plot points from the two previous games.
You argue that our choices do make a difference, and in the narrative of the game they do, you see some resolutions. But other than unlocking a different coloured orb they don’t effect the ending. The ending colours them, if you will pardon the pun. While any ending will do this to some extent the ending of me3 has the effect of making the decisions leading upto to that point meaningless. add to the fact that you can achieve nearly every ending no matter what your choices were compounds the problems this plot holed ending has.
Great game rubbish ending
20/03/2012 at 10:35 Gonzi says:
You are missing the point. Reapers try to kill us and preserve us in a reaper form… so our epic win is that we will do that synthetis willingly, for all the life. Or we can kill geths, I have fought basically all three games to save them, I hated Quarians and now I have to kill Geth. Or we can force reapers to leave. Those options were “fine” with me. Not that I like them or the whole concept of that end, but still, they were “fine”. But what happens next is annoying. My perfect game with not so perfect ending part turns to total sh*tstorm, where Joker is flying somewhere (did he forgot to turn off his oven back home?) with earth-placed and propably dead team members and apparently, he is running away from explosion of relay, which kills whole bunch of planet/stars surrounding it.
So, What is the state of the universe? There is nothing left, they are all dead because of explosion – Turrians, Krogans, Geth, Quarians, Humans… all of them. If I ignore, that relays tends to blow whole galaxy away when they blow up, Quarians and Turrians can eat only their special food and now, whole fleets of them are cut away from theirs homeworld, so they will die. Quarians will not settle on their reclaimed homeworld. Many colonies will die without their supply lines. Whole Fuc*in’ universe is basically dead, or at least crushed to small clusters and my crew with my ship is left alone on some s*itty planet.
20/03/2012 at 10:39 Gonzi says:
I get that the universe is ours, that races will live or die based on our choices etc. and IT WAS GREAT. But key element of that ending is that nothing of that really matters, because no matter in whichever state your galaxy is, it will be crippled heavily by relay explosions (that is if you ignore the fact that those explosions would wipe out everything).
20/03/2012 at 11:11 Kdansky says:
>That notion makes sense in a game like Minecraft, but applying it to narrative, pre-scripted projects like the Mass Effect series is just naive.
No. This is completely naive. Why should a genre of games stop being a game? If there is no player interaction, you end up with a movie. Games are defined by the fact that the player plays them, and must have an influence on something. This is exactly what Raph Koster was on about in this post [1] in what is probably the most important essay on games in the last few years, and what Keith Burgun [2] laments as a huge issue with current games that are just films where you have to press buttons to make it continue. It is a fundamentally flawed concept, and Mass Effect 3 is the prime example which we can now cite for a few decades.
[1] http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-game-mechanic/
[2] http://www.dinofarmgames.com/?p=872
24/03/2012 at 01:24 Tritagonist says:
Thanks for those links. Interesting articles!
20/03/2012 at 11:13 Artista says:
Am I alone in thinking that the only ending that makes any sense is the Destroy one? If you’re a paragon, anyway. Control means the Illusive Man wins, Synthesis was never mentioned before and Destroying the reapers has always been the goal of the games.
20/03/2012 at 11:34 FluffDaSheep says:
Destroy is probably the only choice that doesn’t make sense as paragon, as it wipes out the Geth and other assorted synthetics and cyborgs which may or may not be sentient. Also, control comes from the Crucible, not from the Illusive man’s atrocities.
20/03/2012 at 12:28 HermitUK says:
Well, organic-synthetic hybrids already exist. They’re called Husks. We’re merely assuming Shepard’s version of synthesis leaves free will intact. Saren also talks about fusion between organic and synthetic life in ME1, especially at the end after Sovereign has ‘improved’ him. It’s still something I wouldn’t force on the galaxy, as it still plays right into the Reapers plans.
Edit: Also reading Retribution at the moment, which goes into Reaper technology, hybrids, and indoctrination in more detail. Given Synthesis doesn’t change the Reapers at all (They’re already Synthetic/Organic hybrids) filling every living thing with cybernetics is like unlocking all the doors and letting the Reapers walk right on in. Being a puppet is the future :D
20/03/2012 at 20:12 Shadram says:
spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler
I’d say control is the most Paragon ending. Shepard is told she will die, so it’s a knowing sacrifice (I don’t believe casper specifically says she’ll die for either of the other 2 choices), the Reapers leave, and both organics and synthetics survive to evolve as nature intends. Destroy kills the synthetics, and synthesis basically achieves what the Reapers wanted to achieve, a kind of genocide of all species.
20/03/2012 at 22:36 HermitUK says:
SPOILERS LOOK AWAY OH GOD
Though control is only Paragon if Shepard’s will is actually able to control all them Reapers; if not, it presumably just adds a little Shepard.exe to the legion of programs in each Reaper, which they can then consult for tips on how to best own the galaxy (tip 1: Punch all the journalists!).
Still don’t understand why in Control the Crucible can specifically target Reapers, but in Destroy it can’t differentiate between a two-kilometre long death machine and a sentient toaster.
20/03/2012 at 11:13 Jesus H. Christ says:
Somehow I doubt we’ll see an anti-ME3 ending story on RPS. How much must bioware be shelling out to have these sites write these PR stories? Game journalism, too funny…
20/03/2012 at 11:17 lordcooper says:
There was one posted on the very same day as this article…
20/03/2012 at 12:09 kuddles says:
I gotta love this criticism that pops up constantly on the internet. “You have a different opinion than me, so instead of arguing my side, I’m going to accuse you of being paid off.”
20/03/2012 at 12:34 John Walker says:
Ignoring that we published a negative article about the ending a week ago, which one could suggest somewhat spoils you thesis, I’m really interested to know why you think RPS would sacrifice its integrity and post an undeclared piece of advertorial. Do you think it’s in our character? Do you not think it’s more likely that you disagree with something?
20/03/2012 at 13:13 briktal says:
I think a lot of it is just general backlash towards “gaming journalism” due to the ideas coming from a few individuals who, rather than actually attempt to defend the ending at all, claim that anyone who dislikes the ending is a whiny baby who should just shut up and deal with it and be grateful you only had to pay $60 + DLC instead of a $500 and that they shouldn’t be complaining about anything (especially videos like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgRP5_YKu0 ).
21/03/2012 at 04:26 qutayba7 says:
I think you guys are doing a good job. A hell of a lot more fair-minded than some other gaming journalists. I will agree to disagree, but I respect you for an intelligent argument, sir.
20/03/2012 at 11:59 DorrieB says:
John, you are absolutely right to say that ‘…people’s complaints about Mass Effect 3′s apparent lack of consequence would have been addressed by something as tacky as Dragon Age’s flash-card descriptions…’ and maybe it would ‘rob the player of so much potential for those characters’. The problem is that the epilogue, though unclear, seems to imply that they are all dead, and you can’t rob them of much more potential than that.
So no, Grunt didn’t go on to form a band, because he is dead. Jack wasn’t voted teacher of the year by her students, because she is dead and so are they. Jacob didn’t become a father, because he died, and so did the mother and the baby. And so on…
What people are really asking for is some reassurance that this is not the case, that most of them lived and had reasonably happy lives and perhaps even remembered Shepard fondly. So yeah, a series of flash-cards would have done just fine. Or barring that, if they really did intend to kill everyone, a time and location where they will stand still so that we can throw eggs at them.
20/03/2012 at 12:02 animal says:
I remember a moment later on in FEAR 1 where Paxton kneels on the ground in front of you, waiting for you to shoot him. You’d been chasing him for most of the game and he’s done a lot of bad things to a lot of people, ultimately quite deserving his fate.
So he’s kneeling there and I instinctively raise my gun, BUT then I find that I don’t want to shoot him. I don’t agree with much of what he did, but I understand why he did it and I ultimately want a different option. The game (as far as I could figure out) didn’t give me an out, so after a bit I was forced to shoot him to continue.
At the end of ME3 the Catalyst goes through the motions of what choice does what and why its doing all of this, and I find myself standing there having to choose again.
MY choice would be trying to explain how we seem to be getting along better with synthetics now, we want a chance to try it. Failing that I want to launch into asking why if it knows its decisions are breaking down (or no longer valid since I’m here as it proclaims), then why is it trying to force this BIG choice on us. Surely it can recall/dispose of the reapers?
In FEAR I understood that this being a normal linear FPS story I would be given no choice, so even thought I wasn’t happy I could get on with it. Here in the Mass Effect universe (and it being not only an RPG, but the 3rd in a series) its been ALL about having options….but now suddenly when it matters most they’ve been effectively taken away from me, turning my Shepard into Bioware’s suddenly watered down Shepard.
20/03/2012 at 14:08 fish99 says:
(I may be way off mark here having never played any Mass Effect game, but I have read about the ME3 ending)
Something else that occurs to me – why does the child hand this choice over to Shepard? And if they have the ablity to fuse synthetics and organics, why did they even bother invading? And why were they trying to kill Shepard moments before?
20/03/2012 at 12:18 chimpychimp says:
Sorry but this article is a load of utter shit, for the pure and simple reason that neither of the three ME3 endings MAKE ANY SENSE.
I dont care about it being a happy or sad ending, being bittersweet or whether my choices mattered. I care about the fact all 3 were poor quality endings, filled with plot holes, introduced new characters at the last second, and amounted to little more than space wizardy in a series that has a large pass for spacemagic anyway.
How are organics and synthetics fused? New DNA? What the bloody hell are you talking about? Destroying the mass relays? That almost as bad as the reapers wiping out galactic civilization, given how many billions will likely die being stranded in unhabitable systems or the resultant wars from collapse of civilization.
Not to mention the reapers very existence and motive went from ominous and mysterious to retarded and nonsensical. Ghost child + circular logic, fucking great. Maybe next the reapers can be piloted by cats?
20/03/2012 at 14:01 Devilturnip says:
My takeaway from this entire nonsense is that schools do not teach the difference between opinion and fact.
While growing up, my sister and I had different opinions when it came to cake. She liked yellow cake that came from a boxed cake mix and I did not. When her birthday came around, our mother would make my sister’s preferred cake.
Please note that I ate the cake politely. I didn’t say that the desert completely ruined what had otherwise been a lovely dinner. I did not throw the cake on the ground. I did not declare yellow cake to be bullshit, nor did I tell my sister that she was an idiot for enjoying it. I did not proclaim that Betty Crocker had betrayed their roots as a cake mix manufacturer and swear to never purchase their products in the future. I did not accuse my mother of being a paid shill for the baking industry when she defended my sister’s cake.
After the cake was done I might have grumbled that it wasn’t my favorite cake. However, at the end of the day I was glad that everyone else enjoyed the cake. To endlessly complain about it would have seemed completely histrionic and a bit self obsessive because after all, preference in cake is an opinion.
The ending of Mass Effect 3 seems awfully similar to a cake that isn’t to everyone’s taste. If you want to grumble about why you didn’t like the game that’s perfectly rational, but the second you attack people for disagreeing you’ve simply demonstrated that you don’t understand the difference between opinion and fact. The personal dismissals, accusations, and vomitous bile issuing forth from your mouth (or keyboard) isn’t a rational response. All it does is make you look like a twat.
20/03/2012 at 15:33 ffs_jay says:
Nicely put.
21/03/2012 at 04:22 qutayba7 says:
I half agree. Part of the response is emotional and based on taste. I think, however, that there are many fairly accepted principles of good writing that the endings fail to live up to – don’t introduce a totally new character at the end, don’t kill characters by authorial fiat, and don’t let the Big Ideas swallow your characters. Yes, ultimately this, too, is a matter of opinion, as is all literary criticism. But there are reasons classic works of literature become classic. It will ultimately come down to which critics you find persuasive.
Some people are just raging, this is true, and there are loons starting law suits and harassing BioWare employees, but I find the more carefully-thought-out criticisms of the ending more persuasive than the defenses.
20/03/2012 at 14:25 nasenbluten says:
The ending wasn’t that bad, its just incomplete.
+ SPOILERS +
Most people don’t understand what actually happens. Shepard is being indoctrinated by the reapers the whole game, the dreams and the kid are created by the reapers to make him follow their goals. At the very end, when you run down to the light and the laser hits you, a reaper inducted hallucination begins.
See this: http://i.minus.com/iPhWSDCS680RS.png
And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck
20/03/2012 at 14:32 Styles says:
My favourite type of perfume is ‘Someday’ by Justin Bieber.
20/03/2012 at 15:54 JonRico says:
I so rarely comment on websites and fully agree that the creators of a game have the right to do as they please. I also acknowledge that individuals such as John are fully entitled to their own opinions. I also do not think anyone here is in the pocket of EA!
The problems I have with almost every single article that I have read that defends the endings is that it ignores the major plot holes and the fundamental lack of sense that the ending makes. John – your views on these two plot holes would be appreciated.
1. Why is the illusive man on the citadel? Why is he in the exact right place that Shepard arrives at?
2. How is Joker flying away at the end with one of my companions that seemed to die in the laser with me?
In addition to the plot holes, I also contend that the god child’s explanation of why the reapers do what they do makes no sense. “We destroy all life so that all life cannot be destroyed by synthetics.” The reapers are in fact synthetics. So….
So there we have it. If someone could explain to me the above in a way that is satisfying then I could agree that the endings are in fact not empirically bad, I just don’t like them.
Without an explanation of the above that makes sense, I do have to consider the endings bad because they are full of major holes to do with major characters and they don’t explain in any way the motivations of the series antagonists. No article I have seen, including this one, that defends the endings addresses any of these fundamental points.
20/03/2012 at 20:27 Shadram says:
spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler
It doesn’t take a huge leap of logic to answer point 1. Illusive Man is indoctrinated, and you’re told that he informed the Reapers about the Crucible, and that’s why the Citadel was moved to Earth. It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Reapers would assume that Shepard would be on her way to the Citadel, and so they brought their lapdog along for the ride. He’s in the ‘exact spot’ where Shepard gets to because that’s where the control panel is that she’ll need to use to activate the Crucible.
20/03/2012 at 22:45 JonRico says:
You can indeed invent explanations for why events occur, but again I would hope a good ending would explain why events shown on screen actually happen. As for your suggestion if the reapers knew Shep was coming to the Citadel a more sensible plan would be to stop harvesting for a while and shut down the beam up. Then they win. So no, I don’t think your explanation is much use.
20/03/2012 at 22:22 Ruffian says:
Yeah the joker thing was the hardest thing for me to get over, I couldn’t help but think “you little bitch, I’m not even dead yet and you’re gonna steal my girlfriend and fly away?” lol. for real though, it makes no sense. I’m aware of the feelgoodyness of that scene, but it makes 0 sense considering the context of the ending. Especially since they’re obviously still fighting on earth when the waves go out.
20/03/2012 at 22:17 Ruffian says:
I think the real problem people are having isn’t even necessarily with the ending, I think – at least for me- it was more just about the lack of having any visual feedback as to the changes I’d made throughout the game, after big events. I mean yeah the endings were lazy and full of holes, but I think they would’ve been a lot easier to swallow had the game included something like the crucible as a tiny little hub where you could show up and see something going on that reflected your efforts throughout the game other than just getting thankyou texts from people at your terminal. I think that mighta done it for me.
Or even just little “flashbacks” later in the game of the krogan and geth rebuilding would have worked. Or little news stories, I mean fuck, there’s a newslady on your fucking ship – that would’ve been a perfect way to frame up a few little satisfying flashbacks, or even as an epilogue at the end, I’m really actually kinda bummed now that I think of it that they didn’t think to do this. I mean she certainly didn’t have anything else going on in game.
So, yeah, that’s what I think. no one will probably read it but I had to get it out. I’m certainly not raging about the endings but I definitely feel that the game felt rushed at more than just the endings.
20/03/2012 at 23:47 Wintermood says:
Obviously SPOILER
I just ended the game with the synthese ending and I completely agree, John. I really liked the ending and I had the strong feeling that my decisions from this and the first 2 games formed the character and his/her decision. The ending sequence was just the right tone, really great. Left some things to my imagination, which i like.
Furthermore, the previous games laid a very good groundwork for the finale (my opinion).
I think it is a really good finale of the series.
Oh, and the guys who collect money that goes to child programs so that bioware changes the ending? Collect it for the childs, not because you feel entitled. The help is great, the reason for the help is sooo far off…
Stick to the ending, Bioware, please!
21/03/2012 at 01:43 RC-1290'Dreadnought' says:
ME3 SPOILER
[Sidebar should only show the first few characters, this is a filler.]
[A few more characters and this should take care of the sidebar problem]
It wasn’t the right ending for me. To me, the whole game felt like a build up, to a Mass Effect 2 style end, but in stead of that, everyone near a relay, everyone I got to help fight the reapers near earth, died. After all, in the Beginning of Mass Effect 3, Shepard was grounded for destroying a Mass Relay, triggering an explosion that destroyed the entire system. We don’t get to ask the catalyst if their method takes care of that problem, but I’m guessing they’ll retcon this issues.
Uniting the Eclipse, The Blue Suns and Bloodpack under Aria to form a mercenary army. Never seen them since. I was actually hoping we would take Omega back.
Saving the Rachni queen for a second time, so here massive army could assist on Earth. Never seen her, or her kind since.
Making the Geth and Quarians get over themselves and get along, to set an example to the reapers.
Gathering all kinds of extra tech, ranging for missiles that can take out reapers, and upgraded sensors so that the crucible can track all reapers. Possibly to accurately target the thing? Nope, we’ll just blow everything up.
I was expecting a Mass Effect 2 style ending, where you can see all the hard work pay off. In stead, at the arrival near earth, I was watching a cinematic that felt oddly generic, for a giant space battle, and a cinematic showing the destruction of everyone near mass relays.
After all the work I had done, gathering armies, I’d take my chances fighting the reapers, in stead of blowing everything up. I’d give the instruction to shoot the big red dot.
21/03/2012 at 04:09 qutayba7 says:
I only discovered this site a few months ago, and it has since become a regular stop when I need gaming news. I particularly like your ample attention to indie titles.
I’m one of those raving hordes of Mass Effect fans that don’t like the ending. But I wanted to pop in here to say that both of the articles I’ve seen on here (Walter’s and Cobbet’s) have been intelligent and fair-minded. So many other gaming journalists have turned to dismissive and sometimes downright insulting rhetoric (usually without actually engaging the criticisms directly). And while I wouldn’t agree with all your conclusions, this is one of the best contributions to the discussion I’ve seen.
Thanks for taking our criticisms seriously, and actually addressing them rather than casting aspersions on the maturity, hygiene, or entitled-ness of the “protesters.”
21/03/2012 at 07:52 HermitUK says:
I’m just going to leave this link here (ME3 ending spoilage)
http://youtu.be/vG4EyfXOTJ4
21/03/2012 at 13:19 Xevo says:
“I am confused by how an apparently ancient Synthetic race is the one arguing this.”
My take on this was that the Catalyst was an AI created by a super powerful organic race who saw that self-replicating fully intelligent synthetic life would always grow faster than organics and would eventually destroy organics inadvertently if not on purpose.
I love the fact that the ending is open enough that you can think about these kinds of things and come to your own conclusions — it’s the very essence of Sci-Fi to spark your imagination and get you thinking about the possibilities. Also, if they had gone for a safer ending, then no one would have cared at all (oh that was a fun game they would say) and the strong reactions people are having tell me that they made a superbly creative work.
21/03/2012 at 21:03 heyincendiary says:
That’s exactly my point. I’ve spent five years making these decisions – breeding peace between Geth and Quarian, allowing the Rachni and Krogan second chances at life, supporting some squad members and commending others to death – that to have three buttons I can push at the end that negate the fantastic amount of time I’ve put into the series is basically BioWare saying that even though my decisions shape the narrative, they are only there to enrich the experience leading up to the final crescendo – not to shape what that end might be.
And here’s a crux of Mass Effect’s synth/org argument – that choice is the most important quality of organics worth defending. So why don’t my choices throughout the last five years actually lead to something concrete? Same problem we had with Deus Ex:HR. The way we play should mean something – it’s okay to let some people have terrible endings. They probably made terrible decisions to earn it.
22/03/2012 at 00:03 fitzroy_doll says:
+1 in support of this article.
22/03/2012 at 11:53 rocketman71 says:
Well, I’m late to this and every argument I’d made has already been made in the comments. I’ll just say that the ending was such a travesty and such an enormous pile of shit (especially given how Bioware said that there would be LOTS of endings given the lots of decissions you’ve made through the three games) that I was even offended they thought they could basically get one BIK, let us choose what color tint we wanted to apply to it and basically say “FUCK YOU AND YOUR DECISSIONS, that’s the ending you get”.
And also, the ending was not ambiguous?. How about we don’t know fucking anything about what happened to everybody?. How about the absolutely incomprehensible presence of the Normandy in the relay?. And why did I amass so many War Whatevers if I could have got almost the same ending the moment I got the minimum points?. How about… ?. Well, so many things. It was an enormous fuck you to the fans from Bioware, and fuck you is from now on all Bioware will get from me.
This and Dragon Age 2 tell me that Bioware is completely dead. Thanks for nothing, EA.
PS.- To the Bioware idiot that thought that tying multiplayer to single player was OK: FUCK YOU TOO. And no, you can’t do ONE playthrough and get the “best” (ha!) ending, even if you make every right decission. Another lie from Bioware.
23/03/2012 at 01:29 Khron0s says:
It wasn’t obvious that the “ghost” was just a manifestation of Shepard’s psyche? What the fuck else would he be?
23/03/2012 at 23:49 Jimbo says:
“I’m okay with made up sci-fi nonsense in my made up sci-fi nonsense.”
It’s fine if you’ve established your sci-fi nonsense as a part of the universe. It’s just bad writing if you’re pulling it out of nowhere at the last minute. They pulled the same shit at the end of Origins with the whole ‘Arbitrary Rules of Soul Transfer’ thing.
24/03/2012 at 00:15 Jason Moyer says:
Finally just finished this. My only complaint with the ending is the laziness in the cutscene design at the very end – the variables/choices that go into which ending you get are fine, but having 7 endings that are nearly identical just seems lazy. I chose the synthesis ending at first, and thought the ending was great, everything fit the choices I had made. Then I took the other 2 routes and my jaw hit the floor; sheer laziness.
As far as relationship closure goes, I thought that having an ENTIRE LEVEL dedicated to nothing but finalizing your relationships with the main characters was more than sufficient.
26/03/2012 at 10:48 stevendick says:
I waited to comment until I finished the game.
I understand some of the complaints about the ending(s), but I’m content with how it ended based on my choices.
Many people are upset that Shepard appears to die, but isn’t this the ultimate sacrifice that Shepard can make to save the galaxy?
The hero surviving is a modern invention look to Greek myth or for more recent fare, Tolkien’s Silmarillion. Everyone dies in these.
26/03/2012 at 20:55 Very Real Talker says:
HOLY LOL at picking that ugly ass female version of shepard instead of sticking with the default, male version and HOLY LOL at exploring the romance options with squid face and Cockroach Alien. HOLY LOL
29/03/2012 at 05:40 MegaPigeon says:
Lolz you got indoctrinated and doomed the galaxy.
The ending was in fact brilliant,but it’s brilliant because people don’t initially understand its brilliance.
Although I’m the last person to come to the blind defence of Bioware/EA’s idiotic practices (although I do love, or rather loved Bioware), the Indoctrination theory really seems to add up. The game ended where it did because they obviously want sell you the rest of the game later on (which is hardly surprising given the standards of the industry).
Anyway, spoilers spoilers spoilers
I’m not sure whether the boy was actually real or not (but was an expendable and cheap narrative asset), but the dreams you have result from indoctrination. They’re exactly how the Rachni queen describes the indoctrination of the reapers (oily, wailing ghostly figures). As for the very end of the game, The Illusive Man is inexplicably present at the Citadel and somehow has the ability to control Shepard’s actions (not to mention the same oily hue, and persistent migrane Shepard suffers from).
The final deus ex machina room with the three choices is obviously an internal struggle in Shepard’s mind, which has basically all but succumbed to indoctrination. You’re told that destroying the reapers will result in the destruction of galactic civilization and of all synthetic technology, which immediately turns you off resorting to such an option. The “control” and “synergy” options are presented as far more preferable and heroic (requiring a heroic sacrifice for the best interests of all life). The “control” option is highlighted in blue, and annunciated to be the ‘right’ choice. Synergy is presented as the alternative compromising solution. Of course, both of these options run against the themes of Mass Effect and Shepard as one grants infinite destructive power to a single person (which the pursuit or granting of results in the corruption of your being), and the other effectively robs all life of its free will and determination.
Of course, what you might not have realised at this point is these were the options that the Reapers convinced TIM and Saren were the only way to save organic life.
Now, do you wonder why the outright destruction of the reapers was painted in such a negative context and would appear to go against everything you’ve fought for and sacrificed? I mean, the Quarians are all gone and the Geth are beginning to become alive themselves. Why throw that away? Because it’s the game/reapers giving you a royal mindfuck, and is trying to turn you away from the only correct choice. The option is painted in red, is tucked away in a manner that it’s almost being hidden from you, and it takes a hell of a lot of shots to ‘choose’ that option. That’s because that option is Shepard slowly fighting and winning against the Indoctrination and the others represent Shepard succumbing to indoctrination all together. If it wasn’t obvious enough, note how the other two options result in Shepard being disintegrated and his eyes becoming synthetic, whereas the ‘destruction’ option has Shepard recover from his metaphorical, imaginary wounds, not have his eyes become synthesised, and if you had enough war assets and readiness, you see him waking back up on Earth.
It’s probably the best narrative mind-fuck twist since Bioshock (perhaps even better than Bioshock given how it’s basically made a ton of people becoming ‘indoctrinated’, and hence fail at the last hurdle without even realising it), but it’s utterly ruined by the fact its obviously used to sell overpriced DLC that was in the game beforehand. The crazy thing is, I had to think about each choice, realising that they were all equally bad. I was tempted to go with both the control and synergy options, as I felt turned off from destroying the reapers. But I thought about it, and destroyed them anyway. For a good while afterwards I was thinking “Did I make the right choice? Should I have controlled them? Would the ending have sucked less?”. By the looks of things I did make the right choice, and “the reapers” certainly got into my head to make me think otherwise.
29/03/2012 at 19:54 SeditiousSolipsist says:
This video explains why the ending happens as it did. Everything in the last 20 minutes is an indoctrination ploy. This makes so much sense that it actually made the whole thing bearable for me again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck
Just a pity that Bioware chopped off the last section of the game.
That short clip of Shepherd breathing in what is CLEARLY London rubble has saved the ending for me.
Article hear with the same explanation: http://uninhibitedandunrepentant.tumblr.com/post/19344938387/mind-holy-fuck
29/03/2012 at 23:31 eclipse mattaru says:
Mr. Walker, let me dust off this here ancient meme to address your article: “You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar”.
You just took exactly what I understood, felt and thought about the whole experience (down to the ending choice and the reason for that), and worded it in a much classier way than I could ever hope to. And with a lot less cursing, too.
I will add, I liked the whole thing so much that I honestly couldn’t understand what was about the whole rabid controversy I had been hearing so much about, and after going out there and reading a bunch of articles on the subject, I was even more baffled. Had I just played the same games as all these very, very angry internets people?
For a while there I felt like either I was incredibly stupid and I just liked the thing because I had it all backwards; or I was the only person alive who actually understood what it was all about, and trying to explain it was as pointless and frustrating as Shepard’s attempts to convince the galaxy about the seriousness of the whole Reaper threat in the first two games.
So I guess what I’m saying is: Thanks for this piece, I feel slightly less like a weirdo now.
21/04/2013 at 02:17 DanMan says:
I know I’m late to this controversy, but I’ve only just finished ME3 after having played the trilogy during the last couple of months. Now that I’ve seen the bottom of it, I’m wondering what the fuss is all about.
In fact, the end is fine. How can you feel that your decisions up to that point don’t mean a thing? As Mr. Walker has pointed out already, you’ve made a whole lot of choices and the bigger ones made a whole lot of a difference. So the end is pretty much a culmination of your previous choices. Will you choose the inevitable and stay true to the path you’ve laid out before? Or will you turn your back on all and everything and break down at the chance to ultimate power/destruction?
Sure, all the consequence you will witness after that is what happens in that outro video, but it has to end at some point, even if it feels like saying goodbye to a good friend.
21/04/2013 at 03:10 Dominic White says:
You’re left wondering what all the fuss is about because you’re playing after they released a nearly 1gb patch addressing the worst problems with the ending. In the original cut, you literally got a small conversation sequence at the end followed by a choice of Red, Green or Blue endings, which all led to the exact same nonsensical cutscene with one explosion effect pallette-shifted, and then an abrupt jolt to the credits sequence.
The ending is kinda weak after the update, but that’s pretty much to be expected from a videogame ending. The original version was an enormous kick in the nadgers.
21/04/2013 at 09:24 DanMan says:
Actually, I haven’t installed the extended cut yet (it’s optional). I’m fine with the way it ends. One probably shouldn’t compare each ending side by side. I can imagine that being a letdown, if the end sequence really is almost the same.
But I still gladly throw my money at Bioware again. It’s one of the best games I’ve played in the last couple of years. No doubt about that.