For a week or two all I heard about Mass Effect 3 was that the ending sucked. It was as if they had hired an entirely new team of writers to finish the game, and everyone who experienced it was left feeling empty and disappointed. Due to the intensity of the news that was coming out regarding the ending, I finally broke down and spoiled a bit of it for myself. “That’s not so bad,” I thought, “but I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve actually experienced the whole thing.”
Well now I have, and I seriously have no idea why everyone is getting sand in their crotch over this.
***Warning: Major spoilers ahead.***
Was the ending a little short? Yeah, sure. You know what other games had short endings? Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Seriously, go back and time those endings for me, would you? They can’t be more than five minutes, so it’s not like anyone has ever been set up to expect a huge, cinematic Mass Effect ending. The joy of the Mass Effect games is that the consequences of your actions occur while you’re actually playing the games, whether they be short-term rewards or the reappearance of a character you save a couple of games ago, which negates the need for an elaborate ending. It’s a mechanic I’ve always found incredibly powerful, and it allows me to have a deeper connection to what is happening, rather than just waiting until the end and saying “Ohhh, so that’s what happened to the first town.”
Also among the complaints that I’ve heard is that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is the same no matter what choices you make throughout the game, and to an extent this is true. The problem with this argument is that it assumes there ever were multiple outcomes for the Mass Effect series as whole. The truth is, either Commander Shepard finds a magic bullet for the Reapers, or everyone dies. Period. There was never a chance that uniting enough species could defeat the Reapers in an open conflict. We are talking about a race that has been amassing its heretofore undefeated forces for millions, potentially billions, of years, has highly advanced technology, and is absolutely ruthless. The only real options are victory or death; and due to the insurmountable odds, the only hope for victory is a MacGuffin (in this case the Catalyst). Now, it’s true that there are many possible paths to the MacGufalyst, but in the end the only thing that really matters was that you got there. It’s actually a very “ends justifies the means” kind of story.
Now as for the three options presented to you at the end of the game by the Cataguffin–Destroy, Control, or Synthesis–I really don’t know what has people so upset, as they seem like the pretty standard good guy/bad guy decisions the Mass Effect series has always presented. Is it the fact that the Citadel and Mass Relays are destroyed in the process? Is it the fact that Commander Shepard dies? I don’t know. I’ve heard arguments regarding how a Mass Effect relay or the Citadel being destroyed should destroy whole star systems (a la the Mass Effect 2 DLC Arrival); but it’s stated that this is a very specific and targeted type of energy dispersal, which can easily explain that away. Think of it as the difference between exhausting an aerosol can by spraying out its contents or just smashing it with a rock. One is controlled and safe while the other is explosive and dangerous. And honestly, if you’re already in for breaking the eternal Reaper cycle, you might as well go all in and do away with their relays and get all of the species to stand on their own two feet (or four, or myriad tentacles, or whatever). As for Shepard dying, I admit that it made me sad (especially after I promised Liara I’d come back this time), but heroes don’t always get to survive. Quite often, both in real life and in stories, they are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for their cause. I know everyone is attached to their Shepard and no one likes to see something they are attached to die, but sometimes that’s just way it goes.
Whew, it’s getting philosophical up in here.
Another point I’d like to make relating to the ending is the time scale that Mass Effect deals with. I understand that everyone would like to know what happens to their favorite species and people after the game ends, but ultimately, it doesn’t matter. I played the quintessential good guy, made peace everywhere I went and helped everyone I possibly could, but in a series where time is measured in 50,000 year cycles, those decisions don’t matter that much in the long run. Yes, in the short run, they do matter quite a bit (it’s part what drives me, personally, to be a good person), but for all we know it could make absolutely no difference if you manage to make peace between the Geth and Quarians, or cure the Genophage. A Krogan Stalin could arise in the next 50 years and destroy everything you’ve worked for, or a piece of ancient technology could activate on Rannoch and release an incredibly virulent biological agent.
I’m not trying to be depressing here; things could be happy forever in my version of the Mass Effect universe. But smart money is on the idea that very little about interspecies relations will change after the defeat of the Reapers. What one can hope for is that Shepard and his legacy become so great that they surpass the man himself and become an idea, and this is exactly what the ending does show. During the ending, at some undisclosed point in the future, players see a young boy asking an older man to tell him another story “about the Shepard.” Like Christ, Buddha, or Muhammed, Commander Shepard has managed to become a semi-religious figure, and some people are likely following his/her example in their own lives. I can’t speak for others, but I personally am very happy just to see that the memory of this character in whom I have invested so much time has survived through the ages, even if the individual results of his actions did not.
So, was the ending perfect? No. Few endings are, and to be frank I’m so enamored with what the series has done as a whole that I’m not too concerned about it. My Shepard helped end wars, brought people together, and broke a cycle of violence that had been ravaging the galaxy for untold eons. Above all, the ending shows that, for once, there is a future for organic (and possibly synthetic) life in the galaxy beyond a predetermined cycle, and that is enough for me. Shepard got the mission done, and considering the cosmic scope of what needed to be done, I am content with that.
Good article! I completely agree with you Mike.
I find it funny that it’s actually the people who do not understand the canon, nor the implications who are “happy with the ending”. Joker runs away from the blast in all of the endings. And the Normandy gets whalloped when the shockwave catches them in all three endings. And you still believe the half-arsed explanation that it was a “targeted dispersal”? LOL
You think you saved something. You think you finished something. You did not.
Whatever decisions you’ve made throughout the entire series it all ends with one thing: you kill everyone. You actually cause more deaths than the reapers ever will no matter what choice, including the death of the galactic civilization. It’s not the bleakness that’s problematic about it, it’s the pointlessness. If it was going to end like this anyway, I’d rather have died on the first mission in the first Mass Effect.
The other thing is, notice how with whichever excuse you want to make the ending make sense, it all fits? Whether it’s red or green or blue? That’s because there is only one ending.
Why can’t you just admit it? It was unoriginal, cheap, lazy, and no amount of dissecting will give it any intellectual depth.
Oh and I’m not talking cheap and lazy in the “artistic” sense. I’m talking cheap and lazy in the assets used by the development team sense. I’ve worked in the game industry and I know a rush job when I see one.
Oh and one last thing about your “ultimate sacrifice” BS. In my ending, my Shepard lived. That didn’t make it better.
Oh and yeah. Maybe all of you “mature” people have it right. It’s just a game, it’s Bioware’s “art”, and it’s customers that are lied to about “16 wildly different endings” are all “entitled whiners”.
Please don’t expect us to actually buy another Bioware title though. Much less ME3’s multiplayer DLC’s they so tactfully placed after the oh-so-underwhelming ending. This entitled whiner’s better off with a company that doesn’t insult its own customers.
First of all, none of my below arguments are concerning Shepard’s death or “we want happy ending”.
1. It’s Bioware producers who said before launch, that there would be many different endings based on the decisions we made in ME1-3. Casey Hudson explicitly said we won’t get traditional multiple endings like ending A,B,C. But that’s exactly what we got now.
Bioware broke their promise. It’s false advertisement.
2. Shepard’s easy acceptance of all the options (Synthesis, Control, blow up all MR) is definitely out of his/her character.
Synthesis is the idea of Saren. Control is the idea of Illusive Man. Shepard disagreed with both, and had been fighting against both ideas for the whole ME1 and ME3 games.
As for the Mass Relay (MR) destruction, the game didn’t say “this is a very specific and targeted type of energy dispersal”. It’s just what the ending-defenders say. Plot hole can always be explained away. A plot hole is explainable by fans doesn’t mean it’s not a plot hole, especially such a big one.
Even if the MR destruction is really different this time. Shepard wouldn’t know in advance.
And as you mentioned bringing peace to Quarian and Geth, you should know that Destroy (destroying Geth and EDI too) is also out of Paragon Shepard’s character. But our Paragon Shepard has nothing else to choose.
3. There are other plot holes / continuity errors in the ending:
a) Why is Joker running away? No one knew there would be explosions. And what is Joker running away from? The “wave” damaged Normandy’s engine. So it’s not the harmless R/G/B space magic.
b) When did your squadmates went back to Normandy?
c) If Catalyst (Citadel AI) is controlling Reaper all along, why Sovereign and Saren needed to run around like idiots in ME1? You remember what their objective was?
d) Sovereign said in ME1 that each Reaper is independent, no one built them, they are “eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence”, “the end of everything”, “have no beginning”. These apparently contradict with what Catalyst said.
e) Harbinger said in ME2 that they once considered making a Geth Reaper, which apparently contradicts with what Catalyst said “it’s a method to preserve organic”.
4. Some are not plot holes, but unbelievably brutal:
a) Garrus and Tali would starve to death on that ancient planet. Turian and Quarian need special food. Is this what Bioware writers intended?
b) Without MR, all of the your armada (assuming survived the MR destruction) would be trapped in the Sol System. It takes them decades to travel back to homeworld by traditional FTL flight, provided that they get periodic supplies (food, fuel) along the ride. The most possible consequence is all of them starved to death too. Is this what Bioware writers intended?
5. Some just doesn’t make sense:
a) If Catalyst is in fact trying to protect organic, why not choose some easier ways? e.g.
Kill the synthetics.
Control the synthetics (they are already doing it)
b) Why merging organic and synthetic DNA would prevent any future conflict?
Geth didn’t fight organic because of the DNA difference in the first place.
In fact, Geth never wanted to fight. They were just defending themselves. And Shepard (if you choose correctly) proved there can be peace between organic and synthetic.
Catalyst’s assumption “Synthetic created would always rebel Organic creator” has nothing to support. Yet Shepard just accepted it.
c) Who built the Control/Destroy/Synthesis panels? They, aeons ago, expected someone would eventually design and build a thing called Crucible to use these panels?
In brief, the ending is bad because it’s apparently rushed. Rushed to an extent that they don’t care how many plot holes / continuity errors it created. These errors not just damaged the ME3 ending itself, but damaged the series’ story even back to ME1.
This is why people say “It was as if they had hired an entirely new team of writers to finish the game”. It seems like those writers forgot (or simply don’t know) (or don’t care?) the lores of ME Universe.
Worse, Bioware defended these plot-structural errors and false advertisements by “artistic vision, artistic integrity”.
I salute you you left no stone unturned! I hate when random blog authors attack us fans who clearly see through all the plot holes questioning them then in return be called “whiners”
Here is a tip for the author of the game, next time. Play the game through thoroughly like we did, read/listen every codec.. Exhaust all the info the game has to offer and come back here and tell us again the game did it self justice, even though it broke its own rules.
I agree Craig. You smashed it mate! So i’m going to copy it and use it as a quote later! Well voiced! Good to see people still keeping onto it.
I could argue counter-points to their counter-points all day, but I’d rather not get dragged into an internet comments war. What I will say is this: do not impugn my Mass Effect fan credentials just because I don’t agree with you.
Seriously, try telling my wife I’m not a fan of the series. She wrote an entire article about how I won’t shut up about it.
Michael Ridgaway wrote “do not impugn my Mass Effect fan credentials just because I don’t agree with you.”
If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, but not to dwell on things, just answer me this one question:
How is it that a vessel capable of FTL travel gets overtaken by an explosion? Not really possible when you think about.
I’m not impugning anyone’s fandom, I’m impugning the reaction. I’m sure most, if not all of the people, railing against the ending are diehard fans, but I seriously disagree with their feelings.
Also, with regards to how an explosion catches up with a ship going faster-than-light, the whole FTL technology itself is totally fictional. Therefore, that explosion can be based on totally fictional physics as well.
Except I would argue that in our societies, our opinion is as strong or as weak as the factual evidence which supports it.
You can argue “Counter points” all you like. You can have an opinion that the game was still great all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts that it was served up to us with significant plot holes, which could have been easily addressed.
You can’t argue against fact with just opinion. Or if you do you shouldn’t. And this is the problem “Oh my opinion is equal to your’s rah rah rah”.
We have facts. There’s plenty of ‘anti-whiner’ articles out there but i have yet to see one that takes down each clear plot hole with a fact. They only speculate:e.g. “Oh it was a different type of explosion!” (A theory NEVER mentioned in the game).
We have facts. Break them. Go on! break them! You said you could counter our points, but you can’t do it with fact. You don’t want to, because you have had your “Magical” opinion, which has made you feel better. Phhh and if it wasn’t hard enough for us to complain to a corporate giant, we have to deal with this.
I agree on the the strength of facts reinforcing opinions, but so far the facts presented have not convinced that your opinion is better than mine. The game WAS great, the ending was OK. The ending comprises 0.01% of the play time, and I don’t think the 0.01% of the game merits this much outrage balanced out against how well everything else was done.
As for refuting some facts, I’ll borrow Craig’s list above. Feel free to send some more.
1. It’s Bioware producers who said before launch, that there would be many different endings based on the decisions we made in ME1-3. Casey Hudson explicitly said we won’t get traditional multiple endings like ending A,B,C. But that’s exactly what we got now.
Bioware broke their promise. It’s false advertisement.
—Producers hype the game. It’s what they do. And honestly? For me the ending started after I beat Kai Leng. Getting to Earth, meeting all my various friends and companions, seeing how they were doing in this final hour is an ending in and of itself. And that can have tons of different iterations based on your actions.
2. Shepard’s easy acceptance of all the options (Synthesis, Control, blow up all MR) is definitely out of his/her character.
—What’s in or out of Shepard’s character is subjective.
Synthesis is the idea of Saren. Control is the idea of Illusive Man. Shepard disagreed with both, and had been fighting against both ideas for the whole ME1 and ME3 games.
—I’d argue that Saren’s idea was more like submitting to the Reapers, whereas the Synthesis ending does away with Reaper’s altogether and promotes equality between organic and synthetic. As far as Control goes, you could pretty much follow lockstep with the Illusive Man in ME2, so possibly having Shepard usurp him in ME3 doesn’t seem like too far of a stretch.
As for the Mass Relay (MR) destruction, the game didn’t say “this is a very specific and targeted type of energy dispersal”. It’s just what the ending-defenders say. Plot hole can always be explained away. A plot hole is explainable by fans doesn’t mean it’s not a plot hole, especially such a big one.
Even if the MR destruction is really different this time. Shepard wouldn’t know in advance.
—I agree on the nature of plot holes, but even if they didn’t mention the targeted destruction, I stand by my point. There are many ways to destroy something, all with incredibly different results. And honestly, everyone would have been destroyed anyway if he hadn’t. Sometimes you gotta take a chance.
And as you mentioned bringing peace to Quarian and Geth, you should know that Destroy (destroying Geth and EDI too) is also out of Paragon Shepard’s character. But our Paragon Shepard has nothing else to choose.
—A major theme of ME3 is sometimes you don’t HAVE anything else to choose. Diana Allers specifically mentions people pleading for Shepard to save various people/places they know, but it’s just not possible.
3. There are other plot holes / continuity errors in the ending:
a) Why is Joker running away? No one knew there would be explosions. And what is Joker running away from? The “wave” damaged Normandy’s engine. So it’s not the harmless R/G/B space magic.
—That’s a very good question, and I honestly don’t know. I could speculate, but then you’d label me an “ending defender” and retreat deeper into your camp. I will say I think the ending is very well served by the image of EDI and Joker on a new planet at the end, giving it a whole “new beginning” feel. With regards to the engines, the engine was based off of using Mass Relays, so it’s reasonable to suspect that an energy signature that takes the MRs down would effect linked technology similarly.
b) When did your squadmates went back to Normandy?
—Another good question. They could have decided to GTFO after it looked like you were lost, maybe try to regroup their forces. Reminds me of the end of Shaun of the Dead, actually, where Ed ends up in the shed. They describe it as a plot-hole, but honestly it’s not one that ever concerned me.
c) If Catalyst (Citadel AI) is controlling Reaper all along, why Sovereign and Saren needed to run around like idiots in ME1? You remember what their objective was?
—Sovereign was trying to signal the Reaper fleet and help them jump in. I’m guessing whatever the Protheans did to the Citadel messed with the Catalyst, as it’s only reactivated after Cerberus and the Reapers retake it. Harbinger’s objective was different, namely research the various species, preserve DNA, and create new Reapers. Both Sovereign and Harbinger had been cut off from the Catalyst, hence the running around.
d) Sovereign said in ME1 that each Reaper is independent, no one built them, they are “eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence”, “the end of everything”, “have no beginning”. These apparently contradict with what Catalyst said.
—I rather expect a multi-billion year old entity to think that way. They HAD to come from somewhere, or did you think Sovereign literally they meant they just “poofed” into existence? Also, Reaper’s are grown, not built
e) Harbinger said in ME2 that they once considered making a Geth Reaper, which apparently contradicts with what Catalyst said “it’s a method to preserve organic”.
—Yes, but the Reapers also enslave races they feel are useful. The geth’s synthetic nature could probably be easily fitted into the Reaper network as slave programs.
4. Some are not plot holes, but unbelievably brutal:
a) Garrus and Tali would starve to death on that ancient planet. Turian and Quarian need special food. Is this what Bioware writers intended?
—This is brutal and quite sad, but everyone knew this was pretty much a one-way trip. The quarians do have the means of manufacturing food on their ships, so hopefully that might ease the tragedy.
b) Without MR, all of the your armada (assuming survived the MR destruction) would be trapped in the Sol System. It takes them decades to travel back to homeworld by traditional FTL flight, provided that they get periodic supplies (food, fuel) along the ride. The most possible consequence is all of them starved to death too. Is this what Bioware writers intended?
—Oh, Sol is almost undoubtedly screwed, but less screwed than it would have been with the Reapers. Questioning if this is what the writers wanted is irrelevant and subjective.
5. Some just doesn’t make sense:
a) If Catalyst is in fact trying to protect organic, why not choose some easier ways? e.g.
Kill the synthetics.
Control the synthetics (they are already doing it)
—The Catalyst is not a perfect ending to the scenario and something better could have been done (I have a nice ending in mind, but hey, not my game). Still the point I took away was that in order to promote diversity of organic life and keep it from being wiped out completely it was necessary to “cull the herd” everything so often. A society advanced enough to create synthetic life would probably keep doing so even if their initial forays were destroyed or went awry (i.e. Tali’s dad), and eventually someone might create a synthetic organism that COULDN’T be controlled (sort of like how we get anti-biotic resistant bacteria).
b) Why merging organic and synthetic DNA would prevent any future conflict?
—I don’t know. Maybe it wouldn’t. It’s like asking how the DNA merge happens in the first place, or how you have an element with an atomic number of 0 (implying that it’s NOTHING). It’s a fictional universe.
Geth didn’t fight organic because of the DNA difference in the first place.
—Right, but Javik mentions other societies where synthetics overtook organics. EDI went ballistic at first back on Luna.
In fact, Geth never wanted to fight. They were just defending themselves. And Shepard (if you choose correctly) proved there can be peace between organic and synthetic.
—He did. But you know what they say: “If the billion year old cycle of death and renewal ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Why would they care if synthetics and organics started getting along this one time? EDI was homicidal the first time Shepard met her, what would have happened if he hadn’t shut her down?
Catalyst’s assumption “Synthetic created would always rebel Organic creator” has nothing to support. Yet Shepard just accepted it.
—See above. Also Catalyst is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
c) Who built the Control/Destroy/Synthesis panels? They, aeons ago, expected someone would eventually design and build a thing called Crucible to use these panels?
-I seriously doubt they were built for this purposes, it’s just they were able to be hacked or destroyed in order to futher them. Like how a nuclear reactor is built to supply energy, but with correct manipulation can be made to overheat and explode.
In brief, the ending is bad because it’s apparently rushed. Rushed to an extent that they don’t care how many plot holes / continuity errors it created. These errors not just damaged the ME3 ending itself, but damaged the series’ story even back to ME1.
-The ending wasn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let it sour my experience with ME1 and ME2. Just like how I don’t let the Star Wars prequels sour my love for the originals.
This is why people say “It was as if they had hired an entirely new team of writers to finish the game”. It seems like those writers forgot (or simply don’t know) (or don’t care?) the lores of ME Universe.
—Yep, that sounds write. The people who’s very livelihood, some of whom have spent YEARS working on this series, don’t care about the ME universe. Sounds legit.
Worse, Bioware defended these plot-structural errors and false advertisements by “artistic vision, artistic integrity”.
—Even if you think it’s bad, it’s THEIR artistic integrity, not yours. You can disagree with it but at the end of the day is was their decision to make.
HOLY CRAP that took a while (one of the reasons I didn’t do this right off the bat). OK, next?
[I agree on the the strength of facts reinforcing opinions, but so far the facts presented have not convinced that your opinion is better than mine. The game WAS great, the ending was OK. The ending comprises 0.01% of the play time, and I don’t think the 0.01% of the game merits this much outrage balanced out against how well everything else was done.]
Most ending-protesters agree 95% of the game is great, just the ending being bad. No objection on that.
[—Producers hype the game. It’s what they do. And honestly? For me the ending started after I beat Kai Leng. Getting to Earth, meeting all my various friends and companions, seeing how they were doing in this final hour is an ending in and of itself. And that can have tons of different iterations based on your actions.]
Producers hype all the time. But they hardly hype something as specific as this (It will not be A,B,C endings) and eventually not fulfilled. They even more hardly refuse to apologize when things like this happen. Even THE Peter Molyneux, a producer notorious for making unfulfilled hype, apologized for his hype of the Fable series.
For Bioware, they didn’t just not apologize, they slap in your face by saying it’s “Artistic Vision”.
You can of course have your own definition of ending. But then you can’t blame many others for using a normal definition.
[—What’s in or out of Shepard’s character is subjective.]
Although there are many choices players can make and affect Shepard’s character, some plot are unchangable, which crafted (by Bioware) some basic, unchangable characteristic of Shepard.
For example, Shepard will always go against Illusive Man in ME3, even if you follow lockstep with him in ME2. So, Shepard is always against the “Control” ending, no matter what player chose. This is the objective characteristic Bioware crafted in Shepard.
[—I’d argue that Saren’s idea was more like submitting to the Reapers, whereas the Synthesis ending does away with Reaper’s altogether and promotes equality between organic and synthetic.]
I can agree on this.
[As far as Control goes, you could pretty much follow lockstep with the Illusive Man in ME2, so possibly having Shepard usurp him in ME3 doesn’t seem like too far of a stretch.]
See above.
[—I agree on the nature of plot holes, but even if they didn’t mention the targeted destruction, I stand by my point. There are many ways to destroy something, all with incredibly different results. And honestly, everyone would have been destroyed anyway if he hadn’t. Sometimes you gotta take a chance.]
Take a chance as slim as this and don’t ask even a single question? You are told to blow up all the nuclear plants around the world! And you would just do it and think “oh, it might turn out OK, right?”
Besides, Shepard said more than once, he/she would rather die fighting instead of giving in. But at the end he/she just followed strictly what the Reaper Leader told him/her to do, including an extinction-level-risk action. He/she doesn’t even know if this Reaper Leader is lying!
[—That’s a very good question, and I honestly don’t know. I could speculate, but then you’d label me an “ending defender” and retreat deeper into your camp. I will say I think the ending is very well served by the image of EDI and Joker on a new planet at the end, giving it a whole “new beginning” feel. With regards to the engines, the engine was based off of using Mass Relays, so it’s reasonable to suspect that an energy signature that takes the MRs down would effect linked technology similarly.]
Nature of plot hole we agreed above.
See my *** paragraph at the bottom.
[—Another good question. They could have decided to GTFO after it looked like you were lost, maybe try to regroup their forces. Reminds me of the end of Shaun of the Dead, actually, where Ed ends up in the shed. They describe it as a plot-hole, but honestly it’s not one that ever concerned me.]
At least two of the squadmates were together with Shepard when running to the Citadel Beam. They can have only two outcomes: reached the beam and Citadel, or severely injured by Harbinger’s laser to an extent that they can no longer move. Either case, it’s impossible to see them walk out of the Normandy totally unharmed in the last scene.
[—Sovereign was trying to signal the Reaper fleet and help them jump in. I’m guessing whatever the Protheans did to the Citadel messed with the Catalyst, as it’s only reactivated after Cerberus and the Reapers retake it. Harbinger’s objective was different, namely research the various species, preserve DNA, and create new Reapers. Both Sovereign and Harbinger had been cut off from the Catalyst, hence the running around.]
See my *** paragraph bottom.
[—I rather expect a multi-billion year old entity to think that way. They HAD to come from somewhere, or did you think Sovereign literally they meant they just “poofed” into existence? Also, Reaper’s are grown, not built]
Even being aeons old, I still don’t see why one would say “I have no beginning” when he obviously knew he was built/grown/created somewhen.
And there are many things in this Universe whose “beginning” is still a mystery, such as the Universe itself, or human beings.
There is no guarantee everything must come from somewhere even in reality, much less SciFi.
[—Questioning if this is what the writers wanted is irrelevant and subjective.]
This is relevant, because these are supporting facts (altogether with other plot holes, inconsistencies) that Bioware writers might have just forgotten the ME lore, instead of intending these outcomes. This (if true) makes them even more shameful when they defended these plot holes, inconsistencies, brutal outcomes with “artistic vision”.
[–Still the point I took away was that in order to promote diversity of organic life and keep it from being wiped out completely it was necessary to “cull the herd” everything so often. ]
Reapers doesn’t respect our diversity much. Sovereign said in ME1 that organics are just “genetic mutation”, “accident”. We are “nothing” compared to them.
[A society advanced enough to create synthetic life would probably keep doing so even if their initial forays were destroyed or went awry (i.e. Tali’s dad), and eventually someone might create a synthetic organism that COULDN’T be controlled (sort of like how we get anti-biotic resistant bacteria).]
These are just possibilities, same as the possibility that the organics of a cycle might be immune to indoctrination, or the organics of a cycle might eventually grow stronger than Reaper, defeating Reaper and break the cycle (like ME3).So, as you say, the current solution is also not a good solution.
With the overwhelming power of Catalyst and Reaper, killing the very beings they were trying to protect, spending centuries of time each time, sacrificing several Reapers (each contain an extincted race Catalyst want to preserve) is still the stupidest solution I can think of.
[—I don’t know. Maybe it wouldn’t. It’s like asking how the DNA merge happens in the first place, or how you have an element with an atomic number of 0 (implying that it’s NOTHING). It’s a fictional universe.]
So why can’t something “poofed” into existence? Now you take the “it’s fictional, anything can happen” stance huh? 🙂
[—Right, but Javik mentions other societies where synthetics overtook organics. EDI went ballistic at first back on Luna.]
So there are some examples the synthetic became dangerous, and some examples didn’t. This still doesn’t help Catalyst’s assumption “Synthetic created ALWAYS rebel Organic creator”
[—He did. But you know what they say: “If the billion year old cycle of death and renewal ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Why would they care if synthetics and organics started getting along this one time? EDI was homicidal the first time Shepard met her, what would have happened if he hadn’t shut her down?]
And EDI turned out friendly enough. Human also has homicidal and dangerous guys. This doesn’t mean all humans are bad.
Catalyst might have millions more examples he can show Shepard (and players). But at least in that last conversation scene, Catalyst has given nothing to support his assumption, yet Shepard just accepted it.
[—See above. Also Catalyst is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.]
This is just “Appeal to Authority” fallacy. If Shepard (and players) buys that, Shepard (and players) should have joined Sovereign in ME1.
[-I seriously doubt they were built for this purposes, it’s just they were able to be hacked or destroyed in order to futher them. Like how a nuclear reactor is built to supply energy, but with correct manipulation can be made to overheat and explode.]
Similar questions can be asked with the same logic.
Despite what panels used, who prepared the Control/Destory/Synthesis solutions? They, aeons ago, expected someone would eventually design and build a thing called Crucible to use these solutions?
If it’s Catalyst creating those options on the fly, why do that?
He said Shepard’s being there proved his solution no longer working. But no, Shepard was barely moving at that time. Catalyst can just ignore Shepard (don’t bring him/her up with a platform), or kill Shepard, and continue the massacre, and continue the cycle.
If Catalyst thinks Control/Destory/Synthesis are the ultimate solutions all along, why not him do it himself? He needs Crucible? He created Reaper. He is definitely capable of building what organics can build.
So why Catalyst suddenly decided to fix the “ain’t-broken billion year old cycle of death and renewal”? Shepard’s arrival didn’t broke that.
Still, it doesn’t make sense.
[-The ending wasn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let it sour my experience with ME1 and ME2. Just like how I don’t let the Star Wars prequels sour my love for the originals.]
No matter you let it or not, it already soured. Because it already damaged the ME1 and ME2 story, damaged the ME Universe’s immersiveness.
But yeah, I see how you don’t let it. (See the ***paragraph at the bottom)
[—Yep, that sounds write. The people who’s very livelihood, some of whom have spent YEARS working on this series, don’t care about the ME universe. Sounds legit.]
It’s what people do defines them. And they did ME3 ending.
[—Even if you think it’s bad, it’s THEIR artistic integrity, not yours. You can disagree with it but at the end of the day is was their decision to make.]
*** This is the fundamental difference between us. It’s how we see “plot hole, continuity error”.
From all your “explanations/speculations/guesses”, I can see why you don’t find the ending bad. Because you simply don’t mind plot hole or continuity error. Because you will just imagine some extra plot on your own to fix it.
While you totally have right to do that, you can’t blame others (and that’s many. Not just ME3 ending-protesters. ) for thinking: large plot hole is unacceptable in story-telling.
For me, plot holes and continuity errors are like structural, stability-related defect of a building. Or bugs of a program. It’s nothing related to artistic design. It’s technical mistakes. It’s just “objectively wrong”.
Sacrificing a story/building/program’s structural integrity for some artistic design? That just mean the guy is a bad author/architect/programmer not up to the task.
The fact that you need to explain/speculate/guess to tackle some contradictions, proved the story can’t stand on its own. It’s just you don’t mind that.
You can don’t-mind, but at the end of the day, the ending is objectively broken. 🙂
Those are good points, and in that regard I concede parts of the ending don’t make sense. My wife reminded me last night that the main point I was originally going for are that people are overreacting, and I do stand by that.
You make a really good point about how I see plot holes, and I think you’re dead-on. It reminds of the first time I played Wind Waker and was CRUSHED by what I viewed as the lack of continuity. It kind of ruined the game as whole for me, but then I went back and played it again later and realized that the game did a lot of fun things and was an interesting take on the Zelda universe (even if there was a little too much ocean, IMO). It was then that I realized that, at least for me, I shouldn’t be as concerned with continuity or plot holes I can fill, because in the end if other parts of the game are fun I’d rather focus my enjoyment there than get caught up and spoil a good time. Just my two cents on the matter.
Though seriously, EFF the ending of Fallout 3. Unfortunately other areas of the game weren’t good enough to make up for the ending (and crappy writing all around).
I think the biggest things fans should ask them selves is:
a) How did the game series make me feel on the whole?
I can only answer for myself, but each game was fun, exciting, and, especially wrapping up all the story lines in 3 (the Krogan genophage, cerberus, the geth vs. quarian conflict) made me feel accomplished and satisfied before I even set foot on Earth. A tarnished ending may be worth commenting on and critiquing, but did you get your monies worth for the trilogy? I’d argue, yes.
b) How far is too far?
Lets all sit around and discuss what happened. What we did and didn’t like. The let downs and the positives. That’s game review, in my opinion. At what point does someone start a charity drive to get the ending changed? At what point do we heckle and threaten the life of story writers (I know not directly ME3 related, but still an over reaction to a piece of entertainment). Do you really want to waste your time petitioning artists to change their art because you were lied to by hype? You can constructively comment on something and it’s creator will notice, trust me, you don’t always have to scream at the top of your lungs.
A) It made me feel great through 95% and then like crap at the end, also retroactively significantly damaging the entire series plot in retrospect. For example I’m playing 1 right now, and it’s hard not to laugh at that game’s plot given how silly the ending makes it.
B) You can always pick out the extremes to make any argument seem silly. That doesn’t make the argument wrong. Yea, FTC complaints are idiotic. The ending still simply sucks. Hard.
I’m not denying your opinion of the ending sucking, I’m denying that anyone should react the way a vocal minority of the gaming community did.
Constructive criticism is great. If anything, Bioware’s next game _should_ be better, having learned from this incident, but I’ve got to imagine they would have learned from a lot of people just saying the ending sucked. It’s reinforcing the idea that absurd crusades for VIDEOGAME JUSTICE are viable options to get things changed based on opinion, only reinforcing butthurt, douche bag internet trolls (I’m not calling all Mass Effect players this, just some).
Well, first of all, the Child’s Play petition was more constructive than just complaining on the Internet. After all, it gave money to charity… which is great. (Yes, there were some people who wanted their money back when they realized the money wasn’t paying for a new ending… but that’s just people being dumb.)
But yes, there will always be some extremist vocal minority that will go overboard (death threats, FTC complaints, etc.). They are insignificant and not worthy of discussion, especially when the MAJORITY of those that played Mass Effect 3 to completion didn’t like the ending. I don’t want to conflate a few lame extremists with those who legitimately show that the ending sucks.
I think you misunderstand my use of “constructive”. I mean constructive in, “here I am saying what I want and mean and we can grow from it” not, “I want to bitch about things, publicly and feel good about it because it goes to charity”.
Attempting to guilt a company into changing the ending to it’s story is just as much bullying as everything else that occurred.
As I also mentioned in my previous post, I think a vocal minority was upset about the ending, then everyone else took a side.
I’m not upset that people have opinions about the game, I’m upset that the gaming community is young and fresh and the waters are being tested and if they can band together into some pitchfork wielding mob to get what they want, what’s stopping them from getting worse? We shouldn’t be excited that people like that are getting enabled.
— I think you misunderstand my use of “constructive”. I mean constructive in, “here I am saying what I want and mean and we can grow from it” not, “I want to bitch about things, publicly and feel good about it because it goes to charity”. —
I don’t get this at all. Saying what I mean + money goes to charity > saying what I mean. One delivers more good than the other, and it is in no way “bullying.” You’re not doing anything more than showing that a group of people feel a certain way, plus a good cause benefits from it. Oh, the horror! They did, after all, already pay for the product.
Bullying would be to, for example, try to get people fired; or initiate FTC complaint; or prevent other people from being able to buy the game; etc. An online petition is not that. You’re not making much sense.
— As I also mentioned in my previous post, I think a vocal minority was upset about the ending —
That’s BS. Get 20 people and ask them if they disliked the ending. I guarantee you like 18 of them will say yes. That’s not a vocal minority. It’s more like a silent majority. Of course, only a vocal minority took it beyond not liking it to petitions, etc.
I’m going to start a charity fund raiser for “RedRedSuit is a terrible person, we want a new RedRedSuit” and you can argue whether or not it’s bullying then. You need to have thicker skin than that in this industry, obviously, but denying guilt tripping is bullying is silly. It also wasn’t very constructive. Donating to charity doesn’t say WHY you don’t like the ending. It doesn’t help Bioware improve, it just informs them you want something different. If they re-did it with a new ending and you didn’t like it, would you start ANOTHER charity drive?
I understand you are talking as _you_, and you may be level headed and discuss why the ending sucked, and that’s fine, but you’ve got to understand that not everyone is happy all of the time. If the end of a movie trilogy had sucked (Matrix?) would it have gotten this bad? No, you cut your losses, you discuss your opinion, and you continue with life. The very fact that we’re still talking about it like this is absurd.
Maybe it’s a good thing that people are so passionate about their video games and these characters, but this level is making us, as a community, look like a bunch of whiny brats, and I think that’s the real issue.
Again, I’m fine with people not enjoying the ending (majority), it’s when you get _UPSET_ (minority until everyone saw being upset gets attention) about it that needs to get toned down.
I didn’t enjoy any of the Star Wars prequels, but I don’t feel I need to take up arms against the entertainment I can choose to participate in.
— I’m going to start a charity fund raiser for “RedRedSuit is a terrible person, we want a new RedRedSuit” and you can argue whether or not it’s bullying then. —
That is a ridiculously contrived analogy. I am an individual guy. I didn’t put a product out and sell it to millions of people. If I do, my product is absolutely fair game for criticism — including organized criticism — and it is in no way bullying.
— You need to have thicker skin than that in this industry, obviously, but denying guilt tripping is bullying is silly. It also wasn’t very constructive. Donating to charity doesn’t say WHY you don’t like the ending. It doesn’t help Bioware improve, it just informs them you want something different. —
Absurd. Of course it helps: it helps BioWare understand the extent of unhappiness, better even than a few blogs writing about it. Are you kidding? As far as understanding the complaints about the endings themselves, there are plenty of resources for BW to dig into for that. The charity thing raises the profile of the unhappiness and contributes to a good cause. This is a good thing. It’s not bullying.
— If they re-did it with a new ending and you didn’t like it, would you start ANOTHER charity drive? —
Sure, why not? It brings money to a good cause. It causes zero harm. The worst that would happen is BioWare would ignore it.
— I understand you are talking as _you_, and you may be level headed and discuss why the ending sucked, and that’s fine, but you’ve got to understand that not everyone is happy all of the time. If the end of a movie trilogy had sucked (Matrix?) would it have gotten this bad? —
No, but only because people are typically far more invested into a 120+ hour, $180 game experience than they are into a 6-hour, $45 movie series.
— Maybe it’s a good thing that people are so passionate about their video games and these characters, but this level is making us, as a community, look like a bunch of whiny brats, and I think that’s the real issue. —
No, I think the real issue is that this game has a poor ending that tarnishes what was once so good. A few petitions and blog posts are not a big deal and don’t hurt anything. Worst case, the Extended Cut will still suck. That’s really not that dangerous.
— Again, I’m fine with people not enjoying the ending (majority), it’s when you get _UPSET_ (minority until everyone saw being upset gets attention) about it that needs to get toned down. —
I see nothing wrong with being upset about something that’s important to you. If anything that’s a compliment to what BioWare had accomplished through the first 95% of this series. In fact, BioWare themselves said so and seem to have no problem with it (other than the death threats, FTC complaints, etc.).
Again, I think you misunderstand me.
_I believe_, that this is taking it too far. I believe that we, as a community, can have a more positive, yet entirely influential participation in the game creation process. I believe that people getting upset about something they volunteer to participate in is over the top. I believe that we can improve as people (in general) if we took a step back and looked at the big picture and asked what battles are worth fighting and what’s REALLY important in life, in passion, in video games. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an artist, and a gamer, and I’m passionate about both, but at what point do we demand our money back for everything we don’t like?
In my opinion, this is the issue. The picture this paints of the gaming community and how outsiders, as well as our own, see WHAT we represent. If you don’t want to discuss that, that’s fine. I don’t really care what anyone thinks about the ending of mass effect, I care how they express what they think about it.
— _I believe_, that this is taking it too far. I believe that we, as a community, can have a more positive, yet entirely influential participation in the game creation process. —
What’s more positive than contributing $80,000 to a charity, while also pointing out the problems in the ending (just as you wanted, actually) and raising the profile of the issue? I don’t get it. I really don’t. Impotent whining on message boards is better?
— I believe that people getting upset about something they volunteer to participate in is over the top. —
How?
When I chose to participate in ME1, ME2, and even ME3 (as I avoided all spoilers), I had no idea the end of the road was going to be awful. That’s a lot of investment for poor payoff.
Don’t get me wrong… in the end… it’s just a video game. But if we’re going to be discussing video games, this is a good subject to discuss.
— I believe that we can improve as people (in general) if we took a step back and looked at the big picture and asked what battles are worth fighting and what’s REALLY important in life, in passion, in video games. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an artist, and a gamer, and I’m passionate about both, but at what point do we demand our money back for everything we don’t like? —
The petition didn’t ask for money back. The petition asked for an ending that would provide closure, explanation, and a feeling of accomplishment. It also sent tons of money to a charity. At no point did it petition for refunds.
Yes, some people demanded refunds, but that’s beyond fringe and not what we’re talkind about and is changing the subject.
— In my opinion, this is the issue. The picture this paints of the gaming community and how outsiders, as well as our own, see WHAT we represent. If you don’t want to discuss that, that’s fine. —
That is precisely what I am discussing.
@Colin: Agreed. One thing I’ve learned from my pals in the game industry is that sometimes marketing and development rarely communicate about the actual specifics of the game. Marketing’s job is to get the game sold, the dev team’s job is to make the damn thing. I’m not saying it’s the right way to do things, but I don’t think hurling insults at the devs is the right way to do things. If anything I think it allows the publisher to push for more control, which is already too big of a problem in the game industry right now.
I read this article carefully and diligently. No — the ending still sucks hard. As usual while it does try to address some of the complaints people have, it doesn’t address the totality of them. It isn’t any one thing, like one plot hole, that destroys the ending. There are like 10 different things that all come together beautifully to create an awful clusterfuck.
http://www.cpugamer.com/editorial/bioware-made-a-big-mistake-but-they-are-doing-the-right-thing-now covers it pretty well.
I was more disappointed that the story became a little too much stop Cerberus, then find a way to stop the Reapers. Hey Admiral Hackett, trying to stop the Reapers here, you cant find someone else to go and clear out Station A in Cluster B. Heck to me the assault on taking back Earth could of been its own game in itself, but then I love the series and can never have too much Mass Effect. Was the ending a let down, to me yes, if it is the end of the a trilogy, then if should very well tie up as many loose ends as possible, even the minute ones like what happens to your Love Interest and what happens to the galaxy. Nothing long term, but who got stranded where and what is immediately going on. Bioware and I will respectfully disagree how they ended the story, but i am more interested in the next story than dwelling on them “fixing” this one
@Ian: Yeah, I agree with you on the Cerberus thing. I also seriously doubt that it’s the end of the series since it’s still making money.
As far as the ending “sucking hard,” I’ve seen endings suck hard and this just didn’t rank for me. Fallout 3’s ending sucked hard but no one (except for me) got up in arms about it, then they changed the ending and made you pay to see it.
There’s a simple explanation for that. Very few people actually care about the main plot of a Bethesda game. They’re not the focus of those games. Thus when the ending sucks, it’s a ho-hum reaction.
On the other hand, BioWare stories are the main selling point. Thus when an implausible, vague, tonally jarring, low-production-valued mess caps off a series that has been literally the exact opposite of those things — it hurts.
By itself, this ending is just a poor ending. As an ending to Mass Effect, it’s one of the worst ever.
Sure, it was a Bethesda game, but it was also a FALLOUT game, which I do play for the story. I don’t think Bethesda should get a pass for torpedoing the the story-telling of a venerable series.
Also, one could argue that one doesn’t play Bioware games for the plot, which are generally all the same “save the world” type of deals, but for the characters, which are almost all well-written, deep, and/or extremely funny.
OK, well, Fallout 1 and 2 fans are a niche group compared to who was playing Fallout 3 and Bethesda games in general. All in all the expectations are just different. Of course it doesn’t mean it’s wrong to hate the Fallout 3 ending, but I’m just explaining why, on average, the ME3 debacle is far worse.
As far as not playing for the plot — of course, dialog and character interaction is a huge part of it. (Otherwise ME2 would be worthless, as it contributes next to nothing to the overall plot arc.) However, plot is a MAJOR component as well. It’s OK for it to not be the main focus, but ruining the consistency and feel of a carefully constructed plot and universe at the very is a BIG deal.
Yeah, but by that logic the people who care about the Mass Effect story are a niche compared to gamers who play shooters, and that’s the demographic EA is going for. And yeah, plot is important, but there’s only so many variations you can have on the hero myth you can have.
Not to keep arguing, but regardless of the shooterbro audience EA would like to have for Mass Effect, the audience they do have is people that are into stories. It’s a bit of a difference situation from the relative handful of Fallout 1/2 vets that were playing Fallout 3.
I, for one, can vouch that Mike does care very much about that Mass Effect series. (Trust me, I’m the one that listens to him talk about it all day.) That said, I’ve come to realize that not all gamers care about all the same things. Mike is the type of gamer who cares about a) meeting interesting characters, b) yelling loudly at bad mechanics, and c) saving and/or helping everyone he can. Flawless plot structure doesn’t necessarily rate at the top of his personal priorities list. As far as I can tell, Mass Effect 3 gave him everything he wanted, plus some interesting things to think about at the end. While I can understand that not everyone agrees, it’s still a valid opinion.
Note: This is coming from the woman who officially has more right than ANYONE to tell him when he’s wrong. This ain’t it.
I think that’s a better way of putting what I was saying. Not everyone cares about the same thing. It doesn’t make either persons opinion invalid. Scary things happen when people believe their opinion is more important or the only valid opinion.
sorry but that doesn’t matter. i don’t care wheter you’ve loved the plot or thje characters. the ending is bad because it has alot of plotholes and it’s rushed. even if you don’t care that’s pretty ignorant saying hey it’s not that bad because i didn’t care. well it is , even if we don’t care or do care and there are lots of good videos why it lacks the mass effect feel! it’s because was rushed and it wasn’t checked by all writers and it was also shorted
There’s a difference between “I disagree with those that dislike the ending strongly” and what the author says at the start of the article:
— Well now I have, and I seriously have no idea why everyone is getting sand in their crotch over this. —
Sounds to me like the one initiating the “your opinion is wrong” wars is the article itself.
To be fair, in comparison to most other ending-defending articles (which typically content themselves with “entitled whiner,” “artistically brilliant,” etc.), this was actually well written and thought out. So props on that.
Thanks for the compliment. As for the “sand in their crotch” remark, I found it funny, and this is a gaming humor website. And as the old formula goes, crotch = comedy gold. Also, I do my best comedy on spite. 🙂
I work more than 300 hrs a month, so that when I tell you that I have spent time to play mass effect 1 three times, Mass effect 2 more than ten times, waiting for them to design mass effect 3. And, finally, there it was.I paid top dollar, and was a week late to get the extra game. That sucked. But like before, it was nice, although I understand when thay say that it seems to have been rushed. Then, the end. All that effort to save the universe, and everybody dies. What does’nt suck about that. What was the whole point. If they killed the hero’s in every movie, the movie industry would be dead in a year. We live vicariously through the game and you arseholes have now killed me twice. F/U.
I don’t know about ME3. Honestly Mass Effect 2 lost me when you suddenly needed ammo for your guns.
The weapons in Mass Effect used internal mechanisms to cut tiny slivers of metal off a block and, using mass effect fields, would accelerate them to huge speeds making them deathly powerful projectiles. Since the slivers are so tiny one block can provide ammunition for several thousand shots before needing to be replaced, making the weapons have virtually unlimited ammo (as far as you the player are concerned at least) The tactical risk in battle is over-heating which occurs due to the huge acceleration of the projectiles in a tiny amount of time. This was one of my favorite bits of futurist technical lore ME came up with: No reloading? Cool! That’s certainly different in a shooting game to start off with infinite ammo and Shepherd isn’t even wearing a crazy long head band with the infinity symbol stitched into it.
I turn on ME2 and now there are ammo supplies for your guns… huh?
This makes me endlessly crazy. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO NO RELOADING??? “Nope, forget about that. Just fight the Harvesters while that weird voice says ‘This hurts you’ and make sure you keep picking up those ‘thermal clips’ to reload with.” Eat me BioWare, but I feel like I’m the only one super annoyed by this which I find shocking: its an unnecessary fundamental change to the ME world which only makes it MORE conventional, and that’s super lame and takes me right out of the sci-fi world every time I reload because its not what I did EVER in the first game.
I wasn’t really thrilled with the story in ME2 either so I really don’t care about Mass Effect 3. The fact that so many people are this upset with the ending actually intrigues me a little to see what all the hubbub is about but I’m not about to drop 60 bucks and 10s of hours playing just to satisfy my curiosity. I’ll just stick to my fond memories of Mass Effect and pretend the other 2 games don’t exist. They aren’t really sequels anyway, they are a parallel dimension side-step where you have to scrounge for ammo to load your guns with.
Yeah, I didn’t care for that either, but at least I can chalk that up to trying to implement a different gameplay mechanic. People are going to yell at me for this, but story and setting have to be secondary to mechanics.
In a game series where guns don’t need ammo, and then suddenly they do, I can believe anything.
Jokes aside, you have to admit that whether or not it was wrong, EA absolutely lied in the marketing. And Bioware’s acceptance of the lead writer’s “vision” as the only outcome negates the “wildly different endings” promised.
I’m not saying it is a bad game, just that it was perhaps not a well thought out conclusion to the game, it has really harmed EA’s credibility, and in turn Bioware’s, who up until Dragon Age 2 were (according to many) unable of making a poor game at all.
It is like Star Wars; at the end of it all, the fans become so invested in the series and its rules, that when the creator’s vision changes everything, they do not like it. And whether or not it is wrong, I can understand how and indeed why it pisses them off.