Mass Effect 3 Ending Hinted At By Mass Effect 1 After All?

Mass Effect 1! Spoilers!

Here’s a thing that looked fake but isn’t. The notorious Mass Effect 3 ending – could it have really been hinted at in Mass Effect 1? A post on Reddit showed a planet description that seemed to describe, well, that’s a spoiler I’ll put below. But apart from the picture that had been rather hastily added, that planet is really there. I’ve flown there myself. Take a look below.

SPOILERS from now on.

So, fly to the Kepler Verge, then the Newton System, and there you’ll find a planet called Klencory. Orbit it, and it’ll give you a description (click to make it readable):

The text says,

“Klencory is a rock and ice planet with an atmosphere composed of chlorine and argon. The frozen surface is mainly composed of potassium with deposits of iron.

Klencory is famously claimed by the eccentric volus billionare Kumum Shol. He claims that a vision of a higher being told him to seek on Klencory the “lost crypts of beings of light”. These entities were supposedly created at the dawn of time to protect organic life from synthetic “machine devils”.

Shol has been excavating on Klencory’s toxic surface for two decades, at great expense. No government has valued the world enough to evict his small army of mercenaries.”

Beings of light, around since the beginning of time, sworn to protect organic life from synthetics, eh?

And they say the ending of Mass Effect 3 wasn’t properly pre-empted. (And kudos to this guy for calling it.)


  1. povu says:

    That’s interesting, though it doesn’t make up for all the annoying things that happen to the relays and the Normandy/crew.

    Also, your Shepard looks disturbingly similar to mine.

  2. Dowson says:

    Its hardly that similar.

    Plus the original writer already said what he planned on doing for the ending, which was the Dark Energy stuff and the Bioware team admitted the only really came up with this ending a few months ago.

    • Sothis says:

      I saw this as well however as others had said the catalyst claims to be the creator of the reapers not the protector from. Although he does then go on to horrifically mess up an attempt at logic by saying they harvest organics using synthetics to protect us from synthetics that organics will make.

      The “beings of light” are far more likely to be VI’s or some left over similar device possibly by the protheans or possibly by some other galaxy wide race that fell to the same fate as all the others.

      I really doubt this is linked to the horrifically written ending we got.

      • xGhost4000x says:

        Sothis, I came on here to say the exact same thing. This is likely just a reference to a VI and not any hint at the ME3 ending.

      • Godwhacker says:


        Even if this is what they meant to do all along, it doesn’t get them out of the bit where they say that a brutal, violent genocide is actually a really good idea and the simplest, most efficient way of keeping everyone safe

    • Apolloin says:

      I’d say that the real story here is the extent to which RPS seems willing to asspull simply to attempt to defend the indefensible.

      Look, Bioware choked when they wrote the ending, the fanbase gave them a ‘D’ and Bioware have promised to make good. Until the REAL story ending DLC arrives there really shouldn’t be anything more to talk about.

      • LintMan says:

        Don’t get your hopes up too high. I’m betting that the DLC they put out isn’t going to address the real issues most people have with the ending. They’d have to redo the whole ending to really “fix” it, and all they’re really talking about is adding some “clarification”.

        My prediction:
        The DLC will add some extra dialog to the Casper scene which will explain the Reaper reasoning/logic further, give Shepard the chance to make a few weak counter arguments that get brushed aside by Casper, and then force him to pick from the same 3 choices as before, but with a clarification that the mass relay explosions won’t destroy all those systems. Perhaps they might even coblle together an lame explanation for how all your buddies got back on the Normandy and why Joker was fleeing the system during the battle. Basically, *just* enough for Bioware and its defenders to say “Here, you got what you wanted, now shut up”, while not really satisfying anyone who was unhappy with the ending. Hoping for anything more than that is setting yourself up for yet another disappointment.

        • MSJ says:

          I really hope that post was made mostly in jest, because if not people have became so cynical to the point of irrationality.

          What you described sounds more like a patch than a DLC. If Bioware really will make an ending DLC, you will likely get entire new levels to fight through and at least another character to converse with. Which means it will at least be on the same scale as that Kasumi DLC for ME2. New dialogue isn’t so easily patched in too, because it means they need to make new recordings. It is more likely if there is an alteration to the ending, it will be attached to something more substantial.

          • LintMan says:

            @MSJ – partly in jest, but not as much as I wish. What you describe certainly would be more in line with what you’d expect for a paid DLC, but I’m kinda expecting this to be a free DLC to avoid yet another round of fan outrage over “having to pay extra for the real ending”. And free DLC to me implies not much more than a patch-level amount of new content, accompanied by a “what’s the minimum amount of stuff we can do to shut these guys up” attitude.

            Honestly, it boils down to I just don’t think Bioware “gets it” as to why fans are so upset, and have been exceedingly disingenuous recently about other things, like saying you don’t need multiplayer to get tthe “best ending”, and then – Surprise! – Shepard only gets to live if you upped your readiness through multiplayer or the ipad games. Or the Day One DLC Prothean that “wasn’t stripped from the game” that – Surprise! – shows up in early game design documents and is actually stil in the base game. THIS is where my cynicism comes from. So, I expect Bioware to imply that the DLC will fix things and make everyone happy while it actually does little of that.

    • DK says:

      It’s pretty clear that planet description is a reference to a VI or AI trying to warn people about the Reapers. The Reapers being the synthetic “machine devils”.

      • Sarkhan Lol says:

        This is what immediately came to mind for me as well. There is no way any forethought was put into the Mass Effect 3 ending whatsoever, let alone from ME1 with its different lead writer.

    • kuddles says:

      @Dowson: That’s not true. The original writer said the opposite. That they flirted with changing it to the idea of dark energy but dropped it a long time ago, and that the basics of the ending is what they planned from the beginning.

    • LazyNecromancer says:

      This was probably reffering to Vigil (pic related)
      link to
      Who was incidentally, a hologram found in a crypt created 50k years ago to stop the Reapers.

  3. Sivart13 says:

    I’m pretty sure the people who write that planet lore don’t sync up too often with the people who write the main game story. Most of that shit is pretty off the wall.

    • Pop says:

      Maybe the writer got promoted between games? I can picture the scene: in the last months of development, as they desperately tried to cobble an ending together, a lonely voice had a golden chance to propose an idea they’d had knocking around since the dawn of the trilogy.

      They make movies out of stories like that!

      • Apolloin says:

        Boy, I bet they tarred, feathered and ran the guy out of the studio on a rail when the reaction to his ‘game saving ‘Hail Mary’ pass’ became apparent.

    • Darthy says:

      The lore has never really tied up.

      They made a big thing in ME2 about the new Normandy being too big to enter a planets atmosphere, hence why it gets fitted with a shuttle. Then you have it flying around Montreal at the beginning of ME3…

      • Zelius says:

        To be fair though, the Alliance refitted the Normandy, so they could have installed some new tech enabling this.

        Wasn’t there also a dreadnought which entered the atmosphere in that sequence?

    • Kaltano says:

      Actually that’s not true the planet descriptions were written by Chris L’Etoile and according to this Dev Diary of his he was involved in creating the backstory for the game.

  4. Rattlepiece says:

    Very interesting. Still the ME3 ending is very unsatisfying and doesn’t offer much of a closure.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:


      • Kadayi says:

        Troll much badger?

        • Phantoon says:

          Careful, gents. Post too much hate about how Bioware has fallen face flat since Storm of Zehir and you’ll find you can’t post in the topic again.

      • jellydonut says:

        Go fuck yourself.

    • Soon says:

      If Shepard had just sat cross-legged on the cold floor, staring out of the window at the destruction of all life and sighed as she gave up caring. That would sum up my ending pretty well. And I don’t mean this in a completely negative way.

  5. kyrieee says:

    “And they say the ending of Mass Effect 3 wasn’t properly pre-empted.”
    I’m guessing you’re not serious.

    • woodsey says:

      To be fair, if you’re running with the indoctrination theory (and at this point, I’d say its far less logical to say that it’s pure coincidence and that just wrote an insanely contradictory final 20 minutes) then the ending was sign-posted in much the same way KotOR’s twist was.

      Required viewing: link to

      There are visual clues, soundbites, blatant impossibilities and contradictions within mere moments of one another – it makes a lot of sense.

      Of course, then the issue is that there’s still part of the ending missing, but it makes what we have rather ingenious, as opposed to nonsensical.

      • Phantoon says:

        Could be true, but then again, I saw that design scratchpad that said, literally, “SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE!” at the bottom.

        I really don’t think they thought it through that much. Had they done so, they would’ve been less condescending about how people didn’t like the ending, and instead been mum and mysterious.

        And not ended it with “buy more DLC” because wow, really.

        • woodsey says:

          As I said, when you actually consider it, it makes far more sense than them losing their minds for what, the final 10 minutes? Its not even much of a leap, its a recurring element throughout the previous two games (Saren, and then the Illusive Man).

          There’s really no “could” about it.

          “And not ended it with “buy more DLC” because wow, really.”

          Whilst I hate pretty much all of BioWare’s DLC and the way they implement it, it did not simply say “buy more DLC”. It had the exact same message as they had when you finished ME2, which was that there would be DLC available in the future.

  6. desirecampbell says:

    Ha! Three comments down from the posted source: “That…Would…SUCK. [It] Would turn all of Shepard’s (and everyone elses) struggle into a sideline.”

    People didn’t like this ending two years before the game came out.

    • frenz0rz says:

      And the comment just above it – “It would be a bit deus ex machina though to all of a sudden bring in another ancient race of super powerful beings…”

      Ahahah what a crazy sugge… oh wait a minute.

      • Jake Albano says:

        That whole thread is scarily spot-on.

        “Exactly. There are two endings I wouldn’t like for ME 3. […] another being that to defeat the Reapers, everyone has to become a primitivst and destroy the Relays, Citadel, etc.”

        I haven’t played the game so I don’t know for sure…but isn’t that what happens in the end?

        • Nemon says:

          Pretty much. Screwoffgreg predicted the end over two years ago.

          • TechnicalBen says:

            Funny thing is, that was always going to be the ending. Just they changed “the colour of [the] magic” at the end. It was going to be “dark energy will kill us all, the Reapers are killing space faring races, because the ships make dark energy with the light speed engines”. It was a prevention measure. Then they changed the colour of “dark” to “blue, green or red” and to “machines that kill people to stop machines killing people”. :P

          • Nevard says:

            Did you read your own post TechnicalBen because as far as I can tell it just says “the funny thing is that this was always going to be the ending, the only thing that they changed was all of it”

          • Snschl says:

            Wait, what? It was supposed to be that we’re killing the stars in our galaxy? I remember Haestrom’s sun dying prematurely due to dark matter, and how it was promptly ignored in ME3, making it look like the worst kind of red herring. Was this supposed to be the Reapers’ motive? That our FTL drives were creating dark matter? Wait, no, that makes no sense, the Reapers were responsible for introducing the Council races to mass effect technology in the first place!

  7. Demiath says:

    Anything’s possible…although I guess the best indication in Mass Effect 1 of what ME3’s ending was going to be like was the complete failure of the talking Reaper on Virmire to provide even the most basic explanation for the world-consuming habits of his “race”; despite Shepard asking repeatedly about their goals and motivations. At least that’s when I knew for sure that Bioware didn’t have a clue where they were going with their story.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Why would a human be able to understand the motivations of the reapers any more than an ape can understand the motivations of a human?

      • Hoaxfish says:

        or a horse can understand the motivations of an ant

      • Renfield says:

        Or indeed, why should the Reaper explain itself?

        I’ve never gotten how this is supposed to be so obvious, except as an exposition dump. Heck, if you asked a human about their views, chances are they might not care about explaining them to you. Especially if they concerned pest control, and particularly if they weren’t consciously reached.

        (Considering that both the Reapers and the Catalyst are themselves created.)

        It baffles me immensely that people seem to feel a given character *must* explain itself. And that the explanation *must* make sense, or it’s bad writing. Poor Cthulhu! :(

        • Sothis says:

          I saw this as well however as others had said the catalyst claims to be the creator of the reapers not the protector from. Although he does then go on to horrifically mess up an attempt at logic by saying they harvest organics using synthetics to protect us from synthetics that organics will make.

          The “beings of light” are far more likely to be VI’s or some left over similar device possibly by the protheans or possibly by some other galaxy wide race that fell tot he same fate as all the others.

          I really doubt this is linked to the horrifically written ending we got.

          • Jason Moyer says:

            I have no idea where I’m getting this from, but I seem to remember the catalyst explaining that it was an ancient AI that was designed to end the conflict between organics and synthetics. Of course, it’s solution probably wasn’t what the people who created it had in mind, but then again creating a synthetic to solve that problem was probably short-sighted.

          • Hematite says:

            Whoa, so the organics created a synthetic to save organics from creating synthetics and then being destroyed by the synthetics they created, and the synthetic saved the organics by destroying the synthetics, and also the organics to prevent them from creating synthetics to destroy the organics?!?!

            MIND == BLOWN!

      • Buttless Boy says:

        Because it’s fiction, and not explaining the motivations of your primary antagonists is bad writing.

        • Treymoney says:

          So is having your antagonist simply state them.

        • Kizor says:

          Devil’s Advocate here: have you played the Freespace games? The Shivans are some of the best video game enemies anywhere precisely because they’re inscrutable. We know what they look like, we know that they show up out of nowhere and kill everything, but beyond that we have nothing but some characters’ idle speculation. The first game is a hopeless war against an overwhelming force, which turns out to be plenty of plot for a space combat game even without talking enemies. In the second game, we know that n tebhc bs uhznaf hfrq na rkcrevzragny pbzzhavpngvba qrivpr naq jnf gnxra vafgrnq bs fynhtugrerq, ohg gung’f vg. Uhznaf naq nyyvrq nyvraf ner pbzcyrgryl hanoyr gb fgbc n Fuvina vaphefvba, naq raq hc rinphngvat jubyr fgne flfgrzf sebz gur cngu bs n Fuvina neznqn qbmraf bs gvzrf gbb ynetr gb gbhpu nf vg znxrf vgf jnl gb n fgne, oybjf vg hc, naq whzcf gb Fhofcnpr. Gur tnzr raqf nf gur cynlre enprf gur fhcreabin gb n SGY abqr.

          And it’s brilliant.

          Meanwhile, the great foreseen evil in Wing Commander: Prophecy took about four missions to learn English and start spewing insults at the player.

          • speedwaystar says:

            hint to those who aren’t old skool usenet peeps: you’ll need (or equiv) to decypher that spoiler.

            and, yes, i totally agree re: Freespace. i surmised (there is no hard evidence one way or another) that the Shivans were antibodies autonomically generated by the universe itself to combat the cancer of intelligent life. which is bleak as all fuck.

      • Demiath says:

        I think apes and humans are capable of understanding each other rather well, and Reapers have the distinct advantage of being fluent English speakers. More importantly, though, I can only imagine how much more outraged people would have been if Bioware really had stuck to the “Reapers can’t be explained” idea; talk about not giving any closure at all or following through on the narrative buildup of the entire trilogy…

        • Jason Moyer says:

          If you can get an ape to understand, say, Marcel Duchamp, I would be highly impressed.

        • Fumarole says:

          Humans are apes.

          • Premium User Badge

            Harlander says:

            Not only that, but the overwhelming majority of apes are human, and a slim majority of humans live in cities.

            I can’t listen to The Kinks in the same frame of mind any more.

          • theleif says:

            Humans are not apes, but we evolved from the same ancestor.

      • Drinking with Skeletons says:

        There’s a difference between “unexplained,” “poorly explained,” and “nonsensical.” They should have made the Reaper on Vermire more dismissive. As it was, he said just enough to show that they weren’t interested in giving straight answers. It should have promised death and not have engaged Shephard any more than that.

        For a comparison: Alduin in Skyrim. How come he can fly to Sovngarde and eat the souls of the dead? Why does he want a (literally) draconian empire? He never offers even a half-answer. He mocks the PC for not actually being able to speak the dragon language, and beyond that he just attacks. You understand his basic goal without actually having anything about him or his motivations explained, and he’s more intimidating for it. The reapers make enough sense that they come off as stupid and paper-thin.

        • Brise Bonbons says:

          A great point, but it doesn’t go far enough in my mind. Explaining things doesn’t require that there only be one explanation, or that the explanation only have one correct interpretation.

          An example: I haven’t played the game, but based on what I’ve read it could make sense for each of the Reapers to have their own agendas; they are individuals who borrow traits from other races, are they not? They could each have their own interpretation of the history and purpose of their kind. The individual Reapers and their subjects could then give fragments of the back story as they understand it (leading to conflicting details), or simply lie outright to tip the scales towards their personal preferences (again leading to pleasing ambiguity that invites further discussion).

          It would be down to the players to sort the verifiable truths (based on fragments from background lore, some crazy researcher’s diary, etc.) from the lies and half-truths. Players are encouraged to understand the motivations of the antagonists better, so as to construct a pattern of behavior that can give clues as to where they are lying, and where they might be honest.

          This sort of solution serves many purposes: It gives the players a satisfying load of information, but also leaves them room to debate what it all really means. It lets aspects of the story remain ambiguous without frustrating tricks where you end the story and leave threads hanging. It also lets the antagonists keep their powerful mystery, while building their depth and complexity as characters.

          It also, unfortunately, requires much more work from the writers to fully flesh out all their antagonists, and expects a lot of the players. But it is one solution.

        • Phantoon says:

          I liked Sovereign, and how he engaged my Shepard.

          I did not like how after that, the Reapers seemed wholly different for no reason.

      • Grayvern says:

        Global economic crisis convoluted financial practices caused by a very simple set of motivations.

        As for the reapers themselves, considering they’re meant to be nations of minds they are unknowable in the sense of not comprehending how they think, but what they think about and what they do about those thoughts, motivations do not necessarily have to be incomprehensible because of this.

        This is also related to a genesis of motivation that may also be unknowable, complex or have many possibilities all or none of which may be true, this genesis however need not affect the complexity or lack thereof of the motivation.

        • Brise Bonbons says:

          Very good point, but I think ME3 really wanted to position the Reapers as malignant demigods, not the inscrutable alien Other. The fact that ME mostly views its aliens as funny colored humans with odd cultural quirks (rather than making them truly alien, as, for example, Lem often does) is one of my biggest criticisms of the world building in the series; but hey, that’s what they’re going for.

          If they really wanted the Reaper’s thoughts to be unknowable, I’d hazard that they should have made their communications and behavior much more alien. I.e. instead of wanting to wipe out all life, they would arbitrarily cull some individuals while elsewhere engaging in bizarre acts of cultural engineering and obliteration of culture, knowledge, and technology.

          Also at some point it’s just hard to discuss because it’s all constructed on such a nonsensical foundation…

          • Grayvern says:

            I get your point but only so far, gallactic sci fi yes humanoid aliens = dumb however on a universe scale it’s likely any alien we would be able to relate to meaningfully would bear a resemblance to us in body and or mind.

            That and I wouldn’t like to take odds on there not being humanoid aliens somewhere in the universe.

            As to mass effect specifically it would have been suitably crazy and made more sense if the reapers are the start and end of the cycle, creating life and then destroying it for new life.

            This would have been better than the current ending but still bad conceptually because gallactic single origin stories are kinda trite.

            Star Trek did it with a tng episode where it turns out all all humanoid races come from one seeder race and that was dumb, still I take solace in the fact that in Mass Effect there is no traditional enacted inter species mating.

      • Sarkhan Lol says:

        I’m on both sides with this one. The whole HA HA PITIFUL CREATURE YOU COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND MY MOTIVATIONS SO I WON’T BOTHER TO EXPLAIN THEM speech from Sovereign was so heavy-handed and overdone that I rolled my eyes at it, purely because it stumbled and betrayed the fact that the team didn’t have any idea themselves. But it didn’t piss me off, because it was otherwise quite well done, and because the concept was fine. Something that vast would be unknowable, like Lovecraftian elder wossnames, and it doesn’t need elaboration as long as the threat is real and well-communicated.

        Then this glowy brat shows up in the last five minutes and ruins everything.

    • Lemming says:

      According to Sovereign, it was because they hate organic life and they always ‘were’. I much prefer the Lovecraftian mysterious evil villain than what they turned out to be.

      • Kadayi says:

        Indeed. The necessity to explain the motivations of the Reapers Vs leaving it guess work is up there with midi-clorians in terms unnecessary reveals.

  8. Drinking with Skeletons says:

    I remember finding this in the original game, but assumed it had been retconned or something.

    I also remember finding another planet which had something to the effect of “giant objects rising from the surface only to disappear later.” There was also a mostly oceanic world described as having abundant and exotic sealife, and I seem to recall a world that was little more than tombs.

    Much like the bonus videos from God of War I–which detailed Kratos’ brother (used in a later game), Kratos’ mother (used in a later game), Kratos’ parentage (used in the sequel, but presented as if the players couldn’t have known about it beforehand, which was weird), and Kronos’ body being found by modern man (not used)–I suspect that these were just odds and ends thrown out by the writers to potentially use again, should they wish. I’d imagine that some pet ideas were probably used here when they couldn’t be incorporated into the main game (possibly for good reasons) and their later use reflects a rise in influence of their creator more than a coherent plan.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I don’t know why you would take a nice tale about organics fighting against their own sentient tools and turn it into a larger story about evolution. Unless you’re Arthur C Clarke or somebody.

      • Drinking with Skeletons says:

        I’m honestly not sure what you mean. I actually would’ve done something like what you said, but I didn’t mention it in this post.

        Are you a telepath?

        *Dons tin-foil hat*

        • Jason Moyer says:

          That wasn’t supposed to be a reply to your post, sorry. :)

    • KDR_11k says:

      The large objects may be a reference to Solaris.

  9. D3xter says:

    Really… really?…


  10. Turin Turambar says:

    So the mediocre and underwhelming ending was planned, not improvised.

    Thanks, I will sleep tonight feeling safer with that information.

  11. Hoaxfish says:

    The new ME3 dlc will be called “Grasping at straws”

    • Kadayi says:


      Surely ‘Mission to Klencory’ Where in you and the intrepid crew of the USS Normandy battle the indocrinated mercenary legions of Kumum Shol, before besting him in single combat (The martial prowess of the Volus is gravely underestimated) and discover much of interest to your cause amongst his many unearthed treasures. …

  12. Mordsung says:

    I have yet to beat it, though spoilers don’t bug me as it’s HOW a story is portrayed, not WHAT the story is that matters.

    From what I have been told of the ending, I don’t understand the the backlash. I like the idea of the ending myself, but I do like atypical endings and love endings where the “bad guys” win, as I don’t ever see the two sides as “good vs evil” but instead of “Their ideal universe vs another’s ideal universe.”

    Remember, no one ever thinks they’re evil. They think they’re good, and they think their way of doing things is superior and will result in a better future. Only time can say who’s way was better. Who can say, 500 years from now, if “Us” winning WW1, or WW2, or whatever other war was the better outcome.

    For all we know, in 500 years the world could be a terrible place because we won these conflicts where as if the “enemy” had won, maybe in 500 years the world would have been better.

    The goodness of evilness of an act usually diminishes with time.

    We look at Alexander the Great as one of the “founding fathers” of western civilization… yet he was a conqueror who killed millions.

    William of Normandy formed the governing system that evolved into what we use today in many countries. He was also the “founder”, in many ways, of the England we know today. Yet the guy just declared himself King of England and conquered the place despite being born in France. He ruled with an iron fist and salted crops on English land when lords rebelled against him.

    So even if the reapers won, that doesn’t mean that the bad guys won. For all we know, a million years later the universe is a better place because they won.

    Of course, I’ve only had the ending explained to me, so it could be totally off.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      The ending is basically the ending of 2001, except it’s a videogame so you don’t have to choose the happy ‘organics transcend’ ending.

    • acturuszcj says:

      Can’t help but ask this, but haven’t you forgotten the people who think something is morally wrong, but do it anyways because they enjoys it, lawl

    • Namey says:

      The problem with the ending isn’t the moral dilemmas it presents. The problem is that the character presenting them is a previously unknown (at least until this discovery) entity, which we get to learn next to nothing about, followed by choices that give you more or less the same ending no matter which one you pick, or how you’ve played the series before. That, and a few minor plot holes and very little closure to the story.

    • Leaufai says:

      The main problem with the ending for me, is that it makes all your efforts seem a bit futile. While you’re right that there are two sides to the same story, in ME you don’t play as the other side. Had there been two protagonist, both on the different side of the fence, then an ending like this makes sense. But since you’re the protagonist, I feel that you need to be able to believe that you’re doing the right thing. The ending kind of slaps you in the face and tells you you’ve been wrong all this time.

      On a side note, check out this post from the thread (again this is 2 years ago):

      “Exactly. There are two endings I wouldn’t like for ME 3. One being a random GOD LIKE force that saves the Galaxy or another being that to defeat the Reapers, everyone has to become a primitivst and destroy the Relays, Citadel, etc. Both would make me pretty unhappy as those endings have been done to death.”

      • Kadayi says:

        I’m envisaging Hudson & Walters (for it they and they alone who wrote the ending between them according to the rumour mill) getting drunk on cheap Canadian beer, finding that forum post and devising the biggest troll ever.

    • Kadayi says:

      My recommendation is you finish the game before running to any judgements. My further recommendation is you sleep on the ending for a night before doing so.

  13. Jimbo says:

    Changes my whole outlook. What a masterpiece.

  14. MrWolf says:

    Really, honestly, unless you just finished the game last night and are still digesting/reeling from the ending, you should really have moved on by now. It’s just a video game, people. If you really need something to get worked up about that needs help and improvement, go dig ditches to bring fresh water to a village in a Third World country.

    It’s. Just. A. Video. Game.

    • Ian says:

      Good point, everybody is actively not doing other things (like saving the world) so they can discuss Mass Effect.

      I know that to discuss video games I had to quite my job because I simply didn’t have the time otherwise.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      You’re. Just. A. Troll.

    • frenz0rz says:

      Get out. Seriously, go. People are discussing their disappointment at the ending of a videogame on a website about videogames. I dont need someone waggling their finger and telling me that I should go volunteer in a Third World country or some other crap.

    • John Walker says:

      Sez the man taking the time to comment on the site about it…

    • Kadayi says:

      Out of curiosity do you go to car shows and bitch out people for giving a damn about moving lumps of metal? Or do you turn up at fishing competitions and ask people why they catch the fish and then let them go?

      • Wisq says:

        Maybe not, but if you (say) subscribed to a newsletter of local events, and it was normally a pretty varied mix of events, and suddenly you had twenty car shows in a month, you just might write in and ask, “What’s with all the car shows? Why are people still going to these after so many in a row?”

        • Kadayi says:


          The trick to making analogies is to make ones that actually hold up under scrutiny. As far as I can see this is the first article RPS have done about ME3 in over a week. They seem to have made plenty of ones about other games since.

  15. razvanab says:

    have you guys seen this ?

    About Mass Effect 3 ending…

    link to

    • pkdawson says:

      Listen to the music change.

      The ‘control’ option is sinister, with a quiet humming dissidence. So is the synthesis. And the ‘destroy’ option rings brightly, a pleasant sound of uplifting hope and then fades away. It’s barely noticeable, broken by the jarring drumming sound, and it is only right at the start. But it’s there.

      Ooh, now that’s a good clue I hadn’t seen before. Whatever you think of the indoctrination theory, it’s hard to dispute that the “destroy” ending is intended to be the best one.

      • Ninja Foodstuff says:

        Why? I spent the last two games trying to make peace with synthetics, and the “best” option is to annihilate them?

        • Apples says:

          edit: bluhhh nevermind I misunderstood this. You mean that Destroy kills all the synthetics, rendering your efforts moot, rather than “why is the best option to kill Reapers when I made peace with other synthetics”, right? Regarding that though the starchild may well be outright lying about it killing ALL synthetics. We don’t know. Which is something else that makes the ending shit.

    • Aemony says:

      As Paul over on Forbes puts it: “At this point, I don’t know what I wish to be true. That Bioware just screwed up the finale the old fashioned way, or that they had a brilliant ending, cut it and made what they did show cryptic in order to sell DLC down the line. In my eyes, either situation is equally tragic.”

      The indoctrination theory is cool and all, but the revelation of said theory should’ve been in the game on release, prior to what would have been the “real” ending of the triology. As it is right now, the “ending” isn’t even an “ending”, merely a cryptic event at the very last minutes of the game, most likely only there for the sake of moving more DLC units.

    • Ninja Foodstuff says:

      Counterpoint: Or maybe the writers didn’t really know what they were doing, and all of those points were just caused by that.

      Seriously this is like reading some batshit crazy stuff like bible codes.

    • Jimbot says:

      This video on why the ending is broken has always been my favorite.

      link to

      It’s long but doesn’t feel it. Very well put together and entertaining. He makes a really good case.

      • Kadayi says:

        Yeah, that’s probably the best breakdown of the endings flaws going tbh.

        • TechnicalBen says:

          Wait a second! Massive conspiracy theory. It’s a 1 video poster? You know who does that? Virals!
          Are EA and Bioware planning a “synthesis” ending? Where they “combine the endings chosen by players with those chosen by the writers”? Now that could work, and is thematically consistent. :P

    • werix says:

      I was kind of formulating this in my own head. The end looked like the giant paragon/renegade wheel. It didn’t makes since why the Illusive Man’s control option was blue/in the paragon position, what with his position having been associated with the renegade option. For me the only real choice was destroy, as I’d been working for it the whole time, and no way I’m taking another option.

      So if I’m reading those ramblings right, Shepard is indoctrinated, and the control/sythesis options is the indoctrination talking, and by destroying the reapers its Shepard breaking her indoctrination at the end, or that the whole thing is a death dream and shepard never makes it to the citadel and instead lead all resistance to earth to be destroyed? That article is a little hard to follow.

  16. Dezztroy says:

    Considering Bioware changed the ending that Drew Karpshyn had written out before ME2, no, the ME3 ending is not hinted at in ME1.

  17. Jimbo says:

    Also, kudos to these guys for calling it:

    “That…Would…SUCK Would turn all of Shepard’s (and everyone elses) struggle into a sideline.” -Darnalak

    “Exactly. There are two endings I wouldn’t like for ME 3. One being a random GOD LIKE force that saves the Galaxy or another being that to defeat the Reapers, everyone has to become a primitivst and destroy the Relays, Citadel, etc. Both would make me pretty unhappy as those endings have been done to death.” – Screwoffreg

  18. pkdawson says:

    I’ve read plenty of science fiction that dealt with the issues surrounding artificial intelligence and synthetic life, but I can’t begin to understand Mass Effect’s take on them, at least in light of the ending. Synthetics hate organics…just because? It makes no sense. It says nothing about the nature of artificial life. “Synthetics” may as well be “elephants”.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Synthetics hate organics because they strive for order and organics represent chaos. I wouldn’t call that a great reason, but it’s mentioned multiple times through the series.

    • Apples says:

      The “argh AI/robots will destroy as all!!” fear is so bizarre to me. Is this just an innate fear of the child killing the parent as seen in various myths? Do we really believe humans – or in this case ALL ORGANIC LIFEFORMS – are so innately hateable and evil that a more advanced intelligence would simply look upon us as pests to be eliminated? Why wouldn’t a more advanced intelligence show understanding and try to guide us towards good behaviour rather than just blow us all up, if they’re so smart? Whenever people write about ~evil robots~ I just assume they know nothing about AI.

      And synthetics don’t have to be emotionless logical orderbots either so Jason Moyer’s suggestion doesn’t work either. EDI represents that in the game by having a sense of humour and some sort of idea of love. Even Legion does because he clearly has some kind of attachment to Shepard (why he used the armor). There are no synthetic species in the Mass Effect universe where the members all operate purely on logic. Not even the Reapers because their logic doesn’t make sense so I can’t call it logic.

      edit: just to clarify I don’t think there’s a problem with the possibility of a synthetic lifeform that hates/destroys organics, rather the idea that synthetic lifeforms will ALWAYS hate/destroy organics eventually. Seems pretty racist (or… something) to me.

  19. TsunamiWombat says:

    Old news is Old. It certainly pre-shadows the reapers themselves as well as the catalyst starchild, but not the hackneyed way that ending happened.

  20. mornegroth says:

    Vision of a higher being –> Prothean VI
    Lost crypts of beings of light –> Crucible
    Machine devils –> Reapers

    If anything it is a foreshadow for the Crucible. Interesting nonetheless.

  21. RandomGunnerGirl says:

    Yes, because beings of light that you can found in crypts are so highly original, nobody ever done it before. It does not ressemble force entities you can find in other Bioware’s game in any shape or form.

  22. Matt says:

    The basics sem to be there but it’s still somewhat different. The machine devils seem to hint at the Reapers here, not machine lifeforms as such. Also there were some information prior to Mass Effect 3 that said they already considered a larger backstory in Mass Effect 1 with some god-like beings… Some of the basic structure may well have been always there, but the solution and presentation and all was made up as they went along, which was always their process. Think of the death of Shepard at the beginning Mass Effect 2. They probably just wanted him to have an updated ship and be free of Alliance service and thought it would make for a cool intro as well.

  23. akeso says:

    Darnalak wrote…
    “That…Would…SUCK Would turn all of Shepard’s (and everyone elses) struggle into a sideline.”

    screwoffreg wrote…
    “Exactly. There are two endings I wouldn’t like for ME 3. One being a random GOD LIKE force that saves the Galaxy or another being that to defeat the Reapers, everyone has to become a primitivst and destroy the Relays, Citadel, etc. Both would make me pretty unhappy as those endings have been done to death.”

    The real question is are these people prophets or time lords….

  24. rocketman71 says:

    These entities were supposedly created at the dawn of time to protect organic life from synthetic “machine devils”.

    …by killing them

    If they had planned this since Mass Effect 1, and nobody thought or was able to convince them of how FUCKING STUPID this was, then the entirety of Bioware deserves to lose their jobs and go look for something in accounting.

    Otherwise, just Casey Hudson and all those others that kept repeating “lots of ending depending on your decisions!” during the last year.

  25. Cytrom says:

    Yeah this totally changes the fact that all 3 endings are the same, none of your choices mattered in the end, and galactic civilization alongside with Earth and the whole galactic armada stuck at earth is doomed no matter what you did in the 3 games, and joker with the full crew of the normandy bails from the final battle for no apparent reason.

    Now THIS totally makes me think that ME3 ending(s) are awesome and makes me feel silly for complaining about it…

    (Yeah, that was sarcasm for the internets impaired)

  26. SirKicksalot says:

    Whoever wrote that planet description is currently enjoying lots of high-fives and extra cupcakes for unexpectedly making it look like the ending was planned.

  27. nasenbluten says:

    I liked the indoctrination theory better, this light entities thing is lame.

    The ending is half-assed, incomplete and laughable like a bad troll.

  28. TechnicalBen says:

    Two things (or maybe 3?).
    1) There were already “Protheans” that were “holograms” in Mass Effect 1. IE, that was the whole point of the story. You “protect organics from synthetics” in mass effect 1. The problem with 3 is, you protect no one, you kill/merge/squish them all.

    2) The ending was already written and changed. This is confirmed by the “making of” material that has been released. The ending was always going to be a “out of left field” one. But it was not suppose to be rushed at the last minute (done in 2-3 months tops).

    2.5) That is not the argument or reason people dislike the ending. They dislike it because 99% of Mass Effect 1,2 and 3 has the story and quality of Mass Effect. The last 1% completely goes off the rails it seems. :(

  29. Fiyenyaa says:

    The ending is bad. Here’s why.
    link to
    The most important bit from the post, explaining the implications of the final choice you make;
    Different societies are incapable of coexisting. As long as different
    cultures and peoples exist there will be war. The only ways to bring
    about peace are Genocide, Homogenization, or ruling with an unstoppable
    army of Reapers like an evil dictator (or Prothean). Difference is
    bad. You’re either like me or you’re evil. Your children will always
    turn on you and attempt to destroy you and everything you’ve built.

    It’s also worth noting that the ending wasn’t even slightly set in stone until November last year, and there was a completely different ending (hinted at in the Haestrom parts of ME2) thought up earlier. Much as I love this series, it hasn’t been carefully planned out in advance.

    • SirKicksalot says:

      I was on board with that poster until he started pontificating about how games promoting genocide shouldn’t even be made etc.

      • Fiyenyaa says:

        Sure, he goes too far; but I think that the key thematic insanity that he points out is pretty valid.

    • stkaye says:

      I know it isn’t a comforting thought, but isn’t it at least valid to assert that futility is a kind of universal constant – that sometimes our values are incommensurable, that one day our existence will be incompatible with the existence of something else, that sometimes an alliance on the micro level has no relevance to the conflict at the macro level?

      What’s wrong with that thought? Aside from it being uncomfortable? Can we really assert that it’s *wrong*, as if we know?

      Maybe the final decision was always going to be really, really difficult… and maybe there’s something worthwhile: an ending that baldly states that you’re going to have to make some kind of horrible compromise or sacrifice, no matter what?

      Why are we wedded to the idea of a happy ending?

      • Consumatopia says:

        I know it isn’t a comforting thought, but isn’t it at least valid to assert that futility is a kind of universal constant

        “Futility as a kind of universal constant” has no coherent meaning. And if everything is futile, even acknowledging the futility is futile, so there’s nothing to be gained by considering that possibility. It’s similar to worrying about whether an Evil Deceiver God controls all of your senses so that everything you see is designed to mislead you.

        What’s wrong with that thought? Aside from it being uncomfortable? Can we really assert that it’s *wrong*, as if we know?

        We cannot prove that it is not true, we can prove that it is non-falsifiable and offers no utility to the person who chooses to believe it, whether or not it is true. Discomfort has nothing to do with it.

        sometimes our values are incommensurable, that one day our existence will be incompatible with the existence of something else, that sometimes an alliance on the micro level has no relevance to the conflict at the macro level?

        Such a scenario is possible–nearly anything is possible. But, looking at human history, we see many times when people argued it was necessary to exterminate some other race, and not a single time when that claim was actually correct. Deciding to write fiction about some imaginary, unprecedented time when it would actually be necessary to exterminate a race to survive suggests strange motivations on the part of the author.

        Maybe the final decision was always going to be really, really difficult… and maybe there’s something worthwhile: an ending that baldly states that you’re going to have to make some kind of horrible compromise or sacrifice, no matter what?

        “Horrible sacrifice” doesn’t even cover what was wrong with the ending–the real problem is that you don’t even have any idea what you’re really deciding. It might make sense for some sort of short art game to explore a futile world in which decisions are meaningless or the results of your actions unknowable, but it doesn’t make sense for the ending of a trilogy of RPGs that some players have probably spent more than a hundred hours playing to render everything else the player did pointless. If the real lesson of the game is that life is futile, it shouldn’t have taken three games to teach that lesson.

        Why are we wedded to the idea of a happy ending?

        We aren’t. You’re wedded to the idea that other people want a happy ending.

      • Fiyenyaa says:

        As already ably said by the poster before me; futility ain’t the reason the ending is bad. It’d be entirely possible to have a horrible, bleak ending, and for it to stay consistent to the rules and themes of ME. What they actually have feels like “Damnit, we need to ship this game. Quick, come up with something so we don’t need to ask EA for another delay.” It’s a non-sequitur .

        I also think that given that choice is one of the lodestones of ME, there’s really no reason not to have a happy ending, at least of sorts. You could have a fairy-tale ending in ME2, or you could have one where the entire crew of the Normandy including Shepherd dies; quite a difference. I don’t think for a moment that the option of a happy ending is somehow inherently cheesy or unoriginal (especially when faced with the alternative of “obey these choices three”).

  30. wazups2x says:

    Doesn’t matter if it was planned all along or not. The ending is still terrible.

    • Screamer says:

      Someone wise once said that if you need to explain something you wrote, you failed at writing…..

  31. Inglourious Badger says:

    The ME3 ending was fine. I don’t get the ongoing ruckus?

    There were no less options than the endings of any of the previous games. Mass Effects were always strictly linear story driven games, the choices came in the relationships you formed with the other characters, the plot rolled on regardless.

    If you just play it the ending fits. It needs to be catalysmic, I’m glad you couldn’t earn a happy “Ewok tree house party” ending. The complainers seem to be the ones who’ve watched all the possible outcomes on youtube and discovered none are quite what they imagined, but if you’re doing that you’re just ruining the ending for yourself, it’s not something you can blame Bioware for.

    Oh well

  32. Mokes says:

    Mass Effect Writing: Drew Karpyshyn
    Mass Effect 2 Writing: Drew Karpyshyn/Mac Walters
    Mass Effect 3: Mac Walters

    No, I don’t think so.

  33. Talnoy says:

    This doesn’t make sense.

    I believe Klencoy was a hint towards a prothean VI or something similar to the beacon on the Asari homeworld.

    Having this apply to the god child makes no sense because it WANTS all organic life to be harvested by the “machine devils” not to save it.

  34. Unrein says:

    Feels like a cute little reference to Babylon 5. It’s ridiculous how many commonalities the Babylon 5 myth arc and Mass Effect share.

    Too bad only Babylon 5 had a proper fucking ending.

    • Grayvern says:

      It’s more like the Kosh and Talia Winters scene that was included in case they/she? wanted to come back.
      TV show writers like to leave retcon points.

  35. Mark A. says:

    I’m not sure why the concept of synthetic and organic life being unable to coexist is supposed to be so profound when organic life can’t coexist among itself. War and conflict are an inevitable part of sentient, heterogeneous societies. The point is having strong politicians and military types who can safeguard societal values while simultaneously reaching out a hand to invite cooperation when a situation grows larger than any one nation can handle. That seemed to be the point of the biggest contributors to the anti-Reaper Axis being the Alliance, Turians and Krogan, three races who had all had acrimonious relations if not open warfare between them in recent history.

    “The peace won’t last.” Well, no peace ever does, but if the peace between robots and organics is an imaginary one, a preemptive war to end all war by ending self determination is no less imaginary.

  36. terry says:

    They would’ve got away with it if it wasn’t for those damned screwoffgregs.

  37. Nick says:

    Pretty sure they say the ending was shite, not that it wasn’t preempted.

  38. caddyB says:

    Oh alright
    Phew it was that simple guys, lolol

  39. ezekiel2517 says:

    Why must you troll me? Bad journalist!

  40. 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.

    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 here with the same explanation: link to

    • Cognitect says:

      Wow. That explanation makes so much sense, it almost has to be correct. Seems like I should’ve given Bioware the benefit of a doubt instead of just assuming that they fucked up.

    • Runs With Foxes says:

      It’s clever in some ways, but introduces so many problems at the same time. It means in a game that’s supposed to be all about choice (supposed to be …) you’re actually playing a person who’s been indoctrinated. That feels as unsatisfying and plain stupid as Bioshock’s pathetic ‘haha you were controlled all the time, trolled ya!’ twist.

      It also devalues all the fighting you’ve been doing against the reapers, because presumably they didn’t actually want to kill you despite, for all appearances, trying very hard to.

      It also means all the extra cutscenes after Shepard does whatever are all kinda stupid. Did Shepard just dream Joker et al flying away and getting stranded in a jungle? What’s the point of including that, except as a cynical attempt to trick players into thinking it’s a real ending? Why include the boy and grandpa at the end talking about the shepard if it’s not over yet? Unless, again, to make it appear like a proper ending, only to turn around and say ‘haha nah just joking with ya, aren’t we clever’.

      And, of course, Bioware will need to convince everyone that paying an extra $10 for the Real Ending is an ethical business practice.

      In short, they’re gonna have a hard time bullshitting their way out of this, whichever way they go.

  41. Sardonic says:

    That’s not really foreshadowing, what is foreshadowing the end of ME3 is the credit-siphoning AI’s speech and question answers in ME1 before you shut it down when it tries to self-destruct. It probably wasn’t intentional but it lines up surprisingly well.

  42. Jim9137 says:

    I saw the newspaper clippings on the wall. Another sprite to glaze by.

    No I didn’t.

  43. Tychoxi says:

    Seriously now? That sounds like a reference to the events of Mass Effect 1. Nothing more, nothing less.

    In fact since “Klencory”‘s “crypts of light” never ever played any role anywhere, I must conclude ME3 staff didn’t even remember that was there, and that ME1 people wrote that simply as generic lore in order to flesh out one of the planets, all the while hinting at/confirming what would be your main enemy.

  44. Maniacal says:

    This desperate scramble for anything to explain/justify the atrocious ending is really ridiculous now. Even IF there is some race of magical light beings (and not just a Prothean VI or beacon which seems a lot more likely) they have clearly failed miserably in their goal to stop the synthetics ಠ_ಠ

    This also really doesn’t seem like content worth getting its own post on RPS.

    • HermitUK says:

      They like to make sure the comments system gets a proper workout at least once a week. Baiting us Mass Effect fans is the easiest way to do that, at the moment.

      That was a joke.

  45. HermitUK says:

    Beings of Light protecting the galaxy FROM Machine Devils, not WITH Machine Devils. To tie this to the current ending, you’d need to read this as the “Beings of Light” being Catalysts or Reapers, stored away to fight “Machine Devils” (All other synthetics). But then ME3’s Codex suggests the Reapers are going to bombard the planet from orbit. Why would they do that if this was their planet?

    And if this planet was the origin of God Child, would it not have made much more sense to go there, instead of having him randomly pop up on the Citadel at the last moment?

    More likely, the “Machine Devils” mentioned are the Reapers, in which case this has nothing to do with the current ending. The Catalyst isn’t a being of light protecting humanity from the Reapers. The Reapers are his creation.

    Remember in ME1 there’s a lot of planetary hints about ancient interstellar wars; this is all meant to foreshadow the fact that the Protheans were not the first extinction. Heck, “Crypts of the Beings of Light” sounds not dissimilar to the Prothean cryo storage on Ilos.

  46. PyroCat says:

    I really liked this entry when I read it back on playing Mass Effect. It seemed to me like an easter egg, a reference to what was happening with the Prothean VIs. They *are* beings of light, kept in ‘crypts’ (the Prothean stasis pods)… they were created at the dawn of time from the perspective of the current crop of civilizations… and they are trying to save the galaxy from synthetic machine devils. I imagined that some primitive civilization had stumbled upon the VI back before they knew how to make them, and VI’s prophecy was turned into a myth passed down and changed via word of mouth to become suitably obscure and messianic.

    *That* strikes me as clever and nuanced. But regardless, my rambling speculation should show that there are a bunch of ways to interpret such small reference and we shouldn’t take it as a saving grace for the entire series.

    Also, let’s say that they had planned this from the very start. In that case I’d argue that there would be tonal differences throughout the entire series, mainly centred around the synthetic/organic conflict and making that more pervasive in the universe.

    As it is, I felt like the explanation of ‘we’re saving organic life from being harvested by synthetics by harvesting organic life with synthetics’ stole the wind out of the immense dread the reapers inspired up until this point. It was always more satisfying for me when the reapers were inscrutable and open to interpretation.

    My personal view on it was that the reapers only culled galactic civilizations every once in a while in the same way that a farmer doesn’t slaughter all their animals at once… so they’ve got food for next year. That was great for me because it reduced all these sentient beings to cattle in the eyes of the reapers, casting them as being devoid of humanity and empathy.

    Again, this is just my personal interpretation – but I feel like there *needs* to be room for speculation, for inference. It means we keep thinking about it after the show is over, and it’s more than a little masturbatory as, if we come up with something we think is clever, it makes us feel smart.

    If it weren’t for the god child swanning in at the last minute I think the ending would have been perfect – suitably apocalyptic and bleak, but also with room for the future. I mean, it’s sci-fi… even if the relays are destroyed, who’s to say the next Mass Effect game won’t jump forward 10,000 years in the future when some bright spark invents a new system and starts ‘uplifting’ primitive races? We’d get to see the Turians, the Asari, etc. again, but in a brave new world of space travel.

    My problem with the god child is also this: every time I saw the child in the past it came off as a cynical attempt to rattle my heartstrings despite the fact that I understood what the child represented and why Shepard would be so affected by him. So when the child appeared at the last moment my mind was already going, ‘oh for crying out loud, not him again…’ You’d *think* he would make for a great spokesperson for a race of intergalactic genocidal demon robots, but it felt really flat for me.

  47. Xzi says:

    Alright, a couple of things here. “Beings of light” could mean anything. They didn’t have to go the cop-out route and make it an allegory for god. Especially not a dumb-looking godchild whose logic you get no chance to reject, despite massive evidence to the contrary. It could have just as easily been a literal alien race with no physical form.

    Secondly, this doesn’t excuse or explain the actual endings. Those of course being red, green, blue. A, B, or C. Even influenced by the “beings of light,” there could have been so many more possible endings, based on so many other things rather than just your decision in that one moment.

    Bad writing is bad, even if you pre-empt it.

    • HermitUK says:

      Unless the Beings of Light come in three different colours!

  48. MarcusCardiff says:

    You need to stop kissing up to Bioware. Seriously, It’s getting embarrassing.

  49. Toshley says:

    There are quite a few of these little scapegoats planted throughout ME1, encase the writer either left or went full retard.

  50. SoggySilicon says:

    Indoctrination is a vestigial tale of narrative with about 10 minutes worth of “plausible” exposition in the entire narrative of ME 3, that makes it in 25 hours of game play 1/7 of a fraction of a percent of content… that’s BULLSHIT.

    It’s not sixth sense. It’s not Revan from KOTOR. It is not “unreliable narrative”, this shitty writing team is not up to that level of story telling.

    It’s left over vestigial plot, probably from the same hole that dark energy climbs out of and is never resolved.

    The I phone app clearly does not support the hypothesis, Shepard is retcon’d to be Gauis Baltar from Battle Star Galactica, just like the rest of the damn game is Battle Star Galactica.

    The Crucible is the bullshit from the movie “Contact” with Jody Foster… where nations come together to build a mysterious device of unknown origin.

    Upon entering it, Genetic Jesus, I mean Shepard, talks with Dad… I mean God… and presses a button to determine which flavor of space magic he wants. Here is a hint’ it’s all the same. That’s choice you can take to the bank. I mean EA and Bioware take to the bank.

    Roll Credits…

    Just like the movie “Contact”, the audience is sitting around guessing at WTF was that?

    Speculating… just like the movie contact, except in the movie, there is more movie, and good acting… in ME 3 you get bullshit. Cause Bioware is a factory that produces it.

    ME 3 = Matrix + Contact + Battle Star Galactica + Bullshit from a dev team + chekov’s gun + last minute changes…

    A series of bad writing, tropes from all over the place, culminating in choice Bioware and EA are taking to the bank. So are all the internet rags running stories about it.

    Funny how none of them can spot the tropes… no education? Don’t care? Shrug… does it matter? It’s Meta.

    By the second act the game is unraveling, and the writing staff with all their “depth” is scrambling around trying to figure out what genre film or TV show they can rip off next to save their sorry ass’es.

    MOST of that indoc video, is showing shit from the end of the game, it’s edited to give the impression that more is going on than it is.

    The boss = maruader shields, and is a QTE

    TIM = Smith, with new powers, indoctrinated with biotics, not explained, cause you don’t have to, cause it’s communicated visually.

    God kid = K.F.C. Sanders telling you nonsense about rubbish, and foisting which messianic death… or near death you want. You get on the platform because Hackett tells you to, that is why you went to earth as well, it’s why you do a lot of missions, Hackett tells you to. See a pattern?

    That’s it… cause it’s hard to end a game for which no one has done any art assets for. On a game you ripped your own content out for, to repackage as DLC at the 11th hour.

    Which blew all it’s money on some T.V. add, which in and of itself, IS the chekov’s gun for the setup of the game.

    Little girl = little boy -> Cassandra syndrome -> contact -> bad dreams forbodding -> build strange device -> citadel vanishes (space magic) -> hackett says move… so you do, cause your a lemming -> QTE -> god tells you so… contact again… toss some half baked cgi with a color swash on it

    shit it in a box, and call it art

    Thats it… its the fucking alien from Space Balls singing a jig, walking away with you money… while Bioware stalls and bullshits… cause that’s the art they are best at.

    Just another sub par shooter retcon of an RPG, cause the market has shifted to that demographic.

    I bet it was pretty cheap to make. No, there is no “alternate ending”. That’s it. Maybe some mumbo jumbo in a month or so, but I doubt it… just some garbage DLC for some extra characters, or Aria… there’s nothing else in the works…. except more bullshit.

    On behalf of an uncaring world… Sorry, I guess? hehehe So stupid.