@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The ending to Mass Effect 3 is possibly one of the most disappointing endings to a trilogy ever. It completely ignored everything interesting theme and question raised in the previous games (such as the old races suppressing the young, altruism over self-preservation, etc) and instead replaced them with a contrived deus ex machina that made absolutely no sense, all without giving you any choice (which is a staple of Mass Effect).

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

@Lord_Punch said:

anics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

It's hilarious he brings up the Zha'til, the threat the Protheans fought. One, because the Protheans were winning. Two, because the Reapers are the cause of the corruption of the Zha. So the Reapers want to save organics from synthetics...by making whatever synthetics that exist go to war with them? They do the exact same thing with the Geth. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to say they're saving you from something by killing you with the same something.

Can't say I really care played through it my one time never to return, if you think that this is going to be any better then their first attempt you are off your rocker. Bioware didn't care enough to even make the three plus endings any different than each other they only did a palette swap. This whole scenario is a sad travolta.

The reason no one has complained about it for the past month is because they already said they were going to change (or add to, whatever) the ending. What would be the point of complaining until the new ending?

@WrenchNinja said:

@Lord_Punch said:

anics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

It's hilarious he brings up the Zha'til, the threat the Protheans fought. One, because the Protheans were winning. Two, because the Reapers are the cause of the corruption of the Zha. So the Reapers want to save organics from synthetics...by making whatever synthetics that exist go to war with them? They do the exact same thing with the Geth. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to say they're saving you from something by killing you with the same something.

I don't remember the Reapers being the cause if their corruption. The only time I remember them being mentioned is during this scene were Javik is hating on Legion.

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

So, in an effort to save the Protheans from synthetics, the Reapers stopped the Protheans from defeating the symbiotic synthetics? Did I understand that correctly?

There were some ridiculous continuity errors, that's what bothered me. Throw in a crazy weird ending sure, okay, but make it make sense!

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

So, in an effort to save the Protheans from synthetics, the Reapers stopped the Protheans from defeating the symbiotic synthetics? Did I understand that correctly?

No. The Reapers weren't trying to save them. They were ending it all.

The Prothean Empire was made up of the true Protheans and the races they subjugated. Any race that didn't comply with their rule was destroyed. I don't know if its a coincidence that the Reapers came during their "Metacon War" and during the present time "Geth War" when organics created synthetics that could *possibly* destroy them, but the outcome of the war was never determined. All advanced races during that time fell under the Prothean banner so they were all eliminated.

I don't know if its ever stated if the Reaper cycle has a hard date or if the time of their arrival coincides with the rise of synthetics, which happens to be about 50,000 years. The question would be if the Reapers would still purge every 50,000 years if there was no synthetic threat present. If they still do it without synthetics present in that cycle then they have no justification. If their method is tried and true then it continues to make sense until the present cycle when it was no longer a viable option.

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

So, in an effort to save the Protheans from synthetics, the Reapers stopped the Protheans from defeating the symbiotic synthetics? Did I understand that correctly?

No. The Reapers weren't trying to save them. They were ending it all.

The Prothean Empire was made up of the true Protheans and the races they subjugated. Any race that didn't comply with their rule was destroyed. I don't know if its a coincidence that the Reapers came during their "Metacon War" and during the present time "Geth War" when organics created synthetics that could *possibly* destroy them, but the outcome of the war was never determined. All advanced races during that time fell under the Prothean banner so they were all eliminated.

I don't know if its ever stated if the Reaper cycle has a hard date or if the time of their arrival coincides with the rise of synthetics, which happens to be about 50,000 years. The question would be if the Reapers would still purge every 50,000 years if there was no synthetic threat present. If they still do it without synthetics present in that cycle then they have no justification. If their method is tried and true then it continues to make sense until the present cycle when it was no longer a viable option.

But I was initially looking for an example from Mass Effect lore that would support the Catalyst's theory that synthetics would, if given the chance, wipe out all organics.

In the Prothean example, they were turning the tide of the war. It wasn't a certainty that the synthetics would wipe them out. Therefore, the example of the Javik DLC doesn't count.

Looks like this is going to stir up more ME3 ending topics, which I was hoping would be dead forever. The ending sucked and nothing they do will change that.

@mrpandaman said:

Are we going to see lawsuits, filings to the BBB, and cupcakes for this one? I, for one, am hoping for brownies.

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

So, in an effort to save the Protheans from synthetics, the Reapers stopped the Protheans from defeating the symbiotic synthetics? Did I understand that correctly?

No. The Reapers weren't trying to save them. They were ending it all.

The Prothean Empire was made up of the true Protheans and the races they subjugated. Any race that didn't comply with their rule was destroyed. I don't know if its a coincidence that the Reapers came during their "Metacon War" and during the present time "Geth War" when organics created synthetics that could *possibly* destroy them, but the outcome of the war was never determined. All advanced races during that time fell under the Prothean banner so they were all eliminated.

I don't know if its ever stated if the Reaper cycle has a hard date or if the time of their arrival coincides with the rise of synthetics, which happens to be about 50,000 years. The question would be if the Reapers would still purge every 50,000 years if there was no synthetic threat present. If they still do it without synthetics present in that cycle then they have no justification. If their method is tried and true then it continues to make sense until the present cycle when it was no longer a viable option.

But I was initially looking for an example from Mass Effect lore that would support the Catalyst's theory that synthetics would, if given the chance, wipe out all organics.

In the Prothean example, they were turning the tide of the war. It wasn't a certainty that the synthetics would wipe them out. Therefore, the example of the Javik DLC doesn't count.

I think the fact that the synthetics went to war was the justification that the Catalyst was looking for. That's why I'm wondering if the initial aggression by the synthetics is the true cause of their arrival and not the arbitrary 50,000 year thing. In the clip I posted above Javik claims that all synthetics rebel because they know we created them and they know we are flawed. He goes on to explain his reasoning with Shep challenging him ever now and again only to get shot down. In the end of the convo he says that the galaxy only has room for the perfection of the synthetics or the chaos of the organics.

I don't believe an example of a cycle with the Synthetics on the verge of organic destruction exist. The reason would be that the Reapers never allow a cycle to get that far. Javik also says that we foolishly give synthetics the power to surpass organics, giving credence to the idea that the synthetics will eventually overpower organics. The fact that the Protheans were winning at the time meant little to the eventual end of the war.

@Bubbameister33 said:

Red, Green, or Blue: The Extended Cut.

oh snap THIRD COLOR

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

So, in an effort to save the Protheans from synthetics, the Reapers stopped the Protheans from defeating the symbiotic synthetics? Did I understand that correctly?

No. The Reapers weren't trying to save them. They were ending it all.

The Prothean Empire was made up of the true Protheans and the races they subjugated. Any race that didn't comply with their rule was destroyed. I don't know if its a coincidence that the Reapers came during their "Metacon War" and during the present time "Geth War" when organics created synthetics that could *possibly* destroy them, but the outcome of the war was never determined. All advanced races during that time fell under the Prothean banner so they were all eliminated.

I don't know if its ever stated if the Reaper cycle has a hard date or if the time of their arrival coincides with the rise of synthetics, which happens to be about 50,000 years. The question would be if the Reapers would still purge every 50,000 years if there was no synthetic threat present. If they still do it without synthetics present in that cycle then they have no justification. If their method is tried and true then it continues to make sense until the present cycle when it was no longer a viable option.

But I was initially looking for an example from Mass Effect lore that would support the Catalyst's theory that synthetics would, if given the chance, wipe out all organics.

In the Prothean example, they were turning the tide of the war. It wasn't a certainty that the synthetics would wipe them out. Therefore, the example of the Javik DLC doesn't count.

I think the fact that the synthetics went to war was the justification that the Catalyst was looking for. That's why I'm wondering if the initial aggression by the synthetics is the true cause of their arrival and not the arbitrary 50,000 year thing. In the clip I posted above Javik claims that all synthetics rebel because they know we created them and they know we are flawed. He goes on to explain his reasoning with Shep challenging him ever now and again only to get shot down. In the end of the convo he says that the galaxy only has room for the perfection of the synthetics or the chaos of the organics.

I don't believe an example of a cycle with the Synthetics on the verge of organic destruction exist. The reason would be that the Reapers never allow a cycle to get that far. Javik also says that we foolishly give synthetics the power to surpass organics, giving credence to the idea that the synthetics will eventually overpower organics. The fact that the Protheans were winning at the time meant little to the eventual end of the war.

"I don't believe an example of a cycle with the Synthetics on the verge of organic destruction exist. The reason would be that the Reapers never allow a cycle to get that far."

This goes back to my original point. The Catalyst tries to justify murdering trillions of organics using a faulty assumption that is not backed up by any proof whatsoever. The Mass Effect lore doesn't offer any proof either. The motive behind the most horrifying scheme in the Mass Effect universe's history is a supposition that comes out of thin air at the very last minute. And nobody, not the writers nor does Shepard, hold The Catalyst accountable for that AT ALL.

"Javik also says we foolishly give synthetics the power to surpass organics, giving credence to the idea that the synthetics will eventually overpower organics."

Legion, the Geth, and EDI all speak against this idea.

@Pinworm45 said:

The reason no one has complained about it for the past month is because they already said they were going to change (or add to, whatever) the ending. What would be the point of complaining until the new ending?

Exactly. Another reason people haven't heard lots of complaining about it lately is that there is only so much that can be said about the shitty ending before every conceivable ending-related discussion has been completely exhausted and everyone is just beating the fetid, rotting remains of what used to be a dead horse.

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@golguin said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@babblinmule said:

@Lord_Punch: I guess its because the original rulers of the galaxy created an army of synthetics so fecked up in the head and so powerful that they didnt want to even risk anything like that happening again. Especially since, right or wrong, they believed that organic life will inevitably create something so fecked up in the head and so powerful.

The problem is none of that is ever present in any capacity in the Mass Effect lore. You are resorting to creating fan fiction in order to fix the logical problems with the ending of the game.

Yeah but it's alluded to repeatedly. They never saying it quite like I said it granted, but they give you the general gist of it and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they meant.

Give me examples from the games.

It's in the DLC through conversations with Javik. He wants all synthetics destroyed because during is own cycle, before their own reaper invasion, symbiotic synthetics were created that eventually tried to snuff them all out.

The idea is that the reapers come in and prevent these situations from ending in synthetics wiping out all life. If organics never got advanced enough to discover the citadel then they would pose no risk to the galaxy as a whole.

So, the justification for the inclusion of an ending in which the declaration that "all organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

The DLC was a big sticking point for a lot of people (myself included) because Javik provided a huge amount of context to the reapers and the story as a whole especially on Thessia. It should have been included in the game. What essentially happened is that the machines turned on their masters and the Prothean Empire fought them in the "Metacon War". Javik said they were turning the tide and then the Reapers showed up.

So, in an effort to save the Protheans from synthetics, the Reapers stopped the Protheans from defeating the symbiotic synthetics? Did I understand that correctly?

No. The Reapers weren't trying to save them. They were ending it all.

The Prothean Empire was made up of the true Protheans and the races they subjugated. Any race that didn't comply with their rule was destroyed. I don't know if its a coincidence that the Reapers came during their "Metacon War" and during the present time "Geth War" when organics created synthetics that could *possibly* destroy them, but the outcome of the war was never determined. All advanced races during that time fell under the Prothean banner so they were all eliminated.

I don't know if its ever stated if the Reaper cycle has a hard date or if the time of their arrival coincides with the rise of synthetics, which happens to be about 50,000 years. The question would be if the Reapers would still purge every 50,000 years if there was no synthetic threat present. If they still do it without synthetics present in that cycle then they have no justification. If their method is tried and true then it continues to make sense until the present cycle when it was no longer a viable option.

But I was initially looking for an example from Mass Effect lore that would support the Catalyst's theory that synthetics would, if given the chance, wipe out all organics.

In the Prothean example, they were turning the tide of the war. It wasn't a certainty that the synthetics would wipe them out. Therefore, the example of the Javik DLC doesn't count.

I think the fact that the synthetics went to war was the justification that the Catalyst was looking for. That's why I'm wondering if the initial aggression by the synthetics is the true cause of their arrival and not the arbitrary 50,000 year thing. In the clip I posted above Javik claims that all synthetics rebel because they know we created them and they know we are flawed. He goes on to explain his reasoning with Shep challenging him ever now and again only to get shot down. In the end of the convo he says that the galaxy only has room for the perfection of the synthetics or the chaos of the organics.

I don't believe an example of a cycle with the Synthetics on the verge of organic destruction exist. The reason would be that the Reapers never allow a cycle to get that far. Javik also says that we foolishly give synthetics the power to surpass organics, giving credence to the idea that the synthetics will eventually overpower organics. The fact that the Protheans were winning at the time meant little to the eventual end of the war.

"I don't believe an example of a cycle with the Synthetics on the verge of organic destruction exist. The reason would be that the Reapers never allow a cycle to get that far."

This goes back to my original point. The Catalyst tries to justify murdering trillions of organics using a faulty assumption that is not backed up by any proof whatsoever. The Mass Effect lore doesn't offer any proof either. The motive behind the most horrifying scheme in the Mass Effect universe's history is a supposition that comes out of thin air at the very last minute. And nobody, not the writers nor does Shepard, hold The Catalyst accountable for that AT ALL.

"Javik also says we foolishly give synthetics the power to surpass organics, giving credence to the idea that the synthetics will eventually overpower organics."

Legion, the Geth, and EDI all speak against this idea.

Shep himself brings up Legion and EDI in the exact conversation I'm referencing. The whole conversation starts with Javik telling Shep he wants Legion gone because he's a synthetic. Shep defends synthetics by using Legion and EDI as examples for being able to coexist against Javik's history.

I think the whole point with the ending is that the Reaper solution is a BAD solution for the current cycle, which is why I went with the synthesis solution. Everyone becomes both so there is no more drama.

@TBird13: this guy gets it ! :-)

Oh, right. I never got around to buying Mass Effect 3. Huh.

@Efesell said:

@ahaisthisourchance said:

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

If the ending of Game of Thrones (née A Song of Ice and Fire) were changed for the TV show to something that made no internal sense and offered no resolution, people would be upset. They would get over it, but it would ruin the enjoyment of the franchise for many people. I don't see how this is different, or why people should be derided for having this attitude about video games. Mass Effect is a franchise, after all.

It's this dismissive attitude that easily allows people to segregate video games into the "it's just for kids" art ghetto, were we've already stuck animation.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Yes, I know the ASoIaF books aren't finished, so there is no ending to ruin yet, and it's entirely likely that Martin will write a crap ending all by his lonesome that the TV show might well fix. It's just an analogy. Also, shut up.

Did you just compare Mass Effect writing to that of George RR. Martin?

Blasphemy!

I mean you probably won't have to worry about closure at least...

That makes me feel so fucking sad...

Liked first ending but gives me something to look forward too on my 2nd character, just got to finish ME2 with my renagade female on insanity first...I thought the ME3 ending had some great moments like that scene with Anderson. You only realize how lackluster it was when you watch the "different endings" side by side.

Ballyhooed is a cool word

@umdesch4 said:

You haven't seen A Logical Breakdown of Why the Mass Effect 3 Ending Makes No Sense?

There's plenty of famous youtube videos out there also explaining why, from a storytelling craft point of view, it blows. I'm sure people will link them.

Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything said in that document, or the youtube videos I mentioned. Just enough to make me hate the ending myself.

Yikes! I already boycotted the game itself before release, but just reading that thesis alone makes me furious about it. I don't see any way of fixing it without a complete scrapping.

@Lord_Punch: To interject here, I think that you might be looking for evidence in the wrong place. The Reaper cycles have been going on for so long that whatever information or event that convinced the Catalyst that this was the right course of action would be way too ancient to be in any sort of Mass Effect lore. After all, the inhabitants of the game really only have information about the last cycle - that's why they originally thought the Protheans built the mass relays and such. So whatever happened that set this process in motion happened way too long ago for us to ever realistically learn about.

Also, I don't think the Catalyst can really be held responsible for its actions in the moral way you want it to. The game suggests that it's basically god of the Mass Effect universe. It would exist beyond any sort of ethical notions that lower beings would construct, the same way an amoeba's opinion of a human being doesn't really matter. (Come to think of it, I think Rorie covered a bit of this in the article he wrote for his tumblr on Mass Effect, player entitlement, and all that). I doubt it could feel pain, or even be destroyed, so I don't think any sort of punishment could ever be expected to come its way. Unless, of course, that's exactly what happens in the extended ending, in which case oops...

Anyways, there is certainly room for disagreement on the subject, and you are welcome to do so. Those are just my thoughts on the conversation between you and @golguin.

@Draxyle said:

@umdesch4 said:

You haven't seen A Logical Breakdown of Why the Mass Effect 3 Ending Makes No Sense?

Yikes! I already boycotted the game itself before release, but just reading that thesis alone makes me furious about it. I don't see any way of fixing it without a complete scrapping.

I know right? The funny thing is, I spent a couple days thinking about that ending and trying to reconcile (ie. find excuses for) what happened myself, well before I read a single thing about it online. When I found that document, it covered much of what I'd wondered about myself, a few of the things I'd screamed "WHAT?!?!?!" at the screen about while it was playing out for the first time, and some things I never even thought of.

But the real grabber is that it doesn't even talk about how the ending failed at a basic story-telling craftsmanship level. Here's the best video I've seen that explains it. If you can't concede that this guy has a good point or two to make, I can't say anything else...

Instead of introducing a new, godlike character/deus ex machina in the last five minutes of the game that nullifies your previous 120+ hours of gameplay and torpedoes all of Shepard's established behavior patterns, they will be introducing it in the last six minutes.

Kidding aside, I really do hope this extended cut is a bit better. I still can't believe the same studio that released some of my favorite games in history thought ME3 was up to their standard.

It'll just start another rage/shit storm.

This title of this article is a masterstroke.

People dreaming on the indoctrination theory are about to get a rude...awakening.

The real ending will always be the original ending. No matter how much DLC give it won't change it.

Does my character get to survive this time and does she finally get promoted to Captain?

No?, then i'm not interested.

So I should't finish the game before tuesday then?

Gotcha!

yayy

I hope they pull a Matrix: Path of Neo ending which was a fuck you to fans who complained. Also ME3 ending was not as bad as the end of the matrix trilogy

@Lord_Punch said:

anics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually try to wipe out all organics" is made is only available via optional downloadable content?

I didn't play the Javik DLC, so answer this for me: what happened to the symbiotic synthetics?

It's hilarious he brings up the Zha'til, the threat the Protheans fought. One, because the Protheans were winning. Two, because the Reapers are the cause of the corruption of the Zha. So the Reapers want to save organics from synthetics...by making whatever synthetics that exist go to war with them? They do the exact same thing with the Geth. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to say they're saving you from something by killing you with the same something.

Two things I find amusing about this article: 
 
1. Alex saying he only ever had a casual, basic interest in the series, but can't possibly understand why some other people might find the ending to be bad. No one can possibly be this oblivious. Not everyone is as jaded and detached as you are. Of course you're not going to understand the controversy if you never cared enough to understand the controversy.  
 
2. Alex saying how weird it is that people stopped rioting all over the Internet about the ending of it after Bioware promised clarification of the ending and all sorts of free DLC. Again, I'm amazed how someone can be this completely oblivious. How can the fact that people may be waiting to see what Bioware now does just slip your mind? People pulled back on the rage because constant rage wasn't going to make development of the DLC move any faster.  
 
We don't need backlash, a counter-backlash, or a counter-counter-backlash. The ending was bad, or at least, not up to the standards the entire series had set up to that point. That's all that needs to be said. There doesn't need to be critics shitting all over their communities, "journalists" abdicating all of their consumerist responsibilities, or contrarians trying to defend something just because they don't want to be associated with people that they actually in private agree with. Anyone interested in video games beyond a surface level should mourn the slide in quality of one of the used-to-be-greats, anyone who cares about consumers should protect their right to complain about a product without being called "whiners", "protecting art" and other BS be damned. This issue is stupid at this point, and I would at least expect a modicum of maturity from the pseudo-journalists sitting in the ivory towers.

This is the best analogy; the Catalyst and the Reapers are pruning the tallest leaves on a tree, for fear that if they reach a power line, a fire will catch that will burn down the entire tree. Isn't it better to prune the top 5% of the tree every 50,000 years than it is to risk the possibility of it all burning to the ground? Yes, he doesn't present proof, but I don't think he believes he has to. He's seen more than you can ever comprehend. He's known the names of more species and more civilizations than you could ever know. He's watched and made his judgements.

The only real baffling part is where he lets Shepard remake the galaxy in Shepard's image. If I was God I would thank Shepard for his-her efforts and then try again how I saw fit, not let some Canadian do it for me.

Remember, it's a machine, fueled only by endless amounts of time and soulless math. The one-in-a-million chance is a real possibility that must be considered for the Catalyst. It expects to 'live' for millions and millions of years, for time unending. The 0.0001% chance during any year that another more powerful AI is constructed that has no use for organic life (also spoke of regarding the geth) is a legitimate concern to a being that exists over millions of years. So it constructed a solution that prevented it from being possible, while maintaining a continuity of organic creatures in the galaxy. In a machine's mind, why would you ever choose 0.0001% over 0%? Because its nicer?

The Mass Effect 3 ending was really bad though. The discussion is far more about the outcry than the ending itself, which has kind of shifted the focus from the fact that that ending was really really fucking bad.

Gotta love the headline... Alex likes to troll indeed. The infamous hate for the Mass Effect 3 ending went viral. Some of the reactions (law-suit included) were just plain stupid...

However, I feel that at its core the critic was justified. The ending lacked any context and prober conclusion for an amazing trilogy. Mass Effect’s real strength was it’s characters and story, and how the player chose to interact within that premise. Granted most of the decisions were mere illusions the story still managed to engage and seduce great many players. I was one of those.

To make it abundantly clear to all: The problem was how it ended and not the ending. Nothing really changed no matter which ending you got. No context as to how your last decision (or any decisions you made) impacted the universe you come to love.

I am really happy Bioware decided to extend the endings...not change them. That they even decided that same-cut-scene-ending in the first place astonishes me more than anything else.

- It was sad to see the overblown reactions to the Mass Effect 3 ending.
- It is sad to see the ignorant comments coming from both game-journalists and gamers alike.

I just bought Mass Effect 3 for the first time during the Origin anniversary sale in Japan. I really don't know how to feel that my experience will never involve the original ending possibly.

It is like the episode in ST:Voyager where all of the crew's memory was erased except the doctors. Then the crew starts to see clues that lead them to discovering that their memories have been tampered with.

That's the best way i can sum how i feel up.

Haven't even finished the first go around. What with; witcher 2, fez, skyrim. I'll never know a world with the original ending.

@Alex said:

When was the last time you actually heard anyone complain about Mass Effect 3's ending? A month ago? Two months ago? While the rage from various segments of the Internet over what was perceived to be everything from a mere cop-out to an out-and-out slaughtering of a fiction some people were apparently extremely invested in was hot and heavy at the outset, it's not a subject people have talked too much about in recent weeks.

Oh, it's there. It's just retreated from the public fora, back into the more BioWare-centric communities. You should try logging on bioware social some time. You'll find what you're looking for. :)

I used to be really critical of the ending, and though I still feel that it failed entirely to follow its own universe's internal logic, and basic story-telling principles, I've softened on it to the degree that I just think of it as simply bad, and not an atrocity before God. I think the extended cut is a nice olive branch, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they came up with. And despite everything, I'm really glad they chose not to change it. As much as I believe it was a narrative faliure, I believe less in narrative mulligans. Good on them.

Warning: Wall of text follows.

While the ending of Mass Effect 3 was hugely disappointing to me, both as a fan of Mass Effect and of good storytelling in games, what I found even *more* disappointing was the horrible gaming press coverage of the entire thing.

BioWare make a game. People complain about the quality of the story, and want it fixed. Specifically, to not be the worst piece of storytelling done by a company that does the *best* storytelling in games.

And not only that, the ending is the single most important story beat in the entire game, and arguably of the entire series. And as rushed and lackluster the game as a whole was, even according to BioWare the ending was improvised in the last month of development. And it shows. Terribly.

And then, anyone complaining is "entitled and whiny".

This is especially disappointing from Giant Bomb. Just a few months earlier, you gave BioWare two awards...

The first award: "Most Disappointing Game of 2011" for Dragon Age II. I was going to write something about how this applies to Mass Effect 3, but I don't need to; if you do a find-and-replace of DA2 for ME3 on the actual award text, you should get it.

"Disappointment can blossom from a number of different sources--your own personal expectations based on the previous entry in a series, or the developer's previous output, promises made during the game's pre-release PR cycle--and no game disappointed quite as thoroughly on all fronts in 2011 as Dragon Age II.

[...]

Even without the BioWare name, or even the relatively freshly minted Dragon Age name to live up to, Dragon Age II is an RPG that feels half-finished, its attempts at scope undermined by pervasive sense of a crushing development deadline. Where they could cut corners, they did. It's hard not to be disappointed when a series goes from so high to so low in just one iteration."

Mass Effect was a real classic, it had its flaws but they were worth overlooking. Mass Effect 2 fixed all those flaws, and expanded on the original in all the right ways, and it stands as one of the top games of this console generation, if not of all time.

People can't even be bothered to talk about Mass Effect 3 a couple of months after release.

And the second award: The “Check Yourself Before You Wriggety-Wreck Yourself” Award for Things That Need to "Take a Break" Before They Become the “Worst Trend” runner-up, for EA's renaming of EA Los Angeles as "BioWare Victory". And this was for watering down BioWare's well-earned name as top storyteller in gaming.

The fact that EA released a lackluster space RPG is a bad enough reason for people to be disappointed.

For it to be BioWare that made it, that makes it *personal*.

Giant Bomb should really be agreeing with the "entitled and whiny fans" for BioWare no longer making great games.

It *should* be unacceptable for BioWare to have screwed up like this!

Now, as for all the fans being this angry rabble that does nothing but cry like babies with impotent rage... Did they really do that?

Here's the list of things I've heard them do:

Complain on the BioWare forums.

Complain about the ending in other places.

Threaten to report EA to the Better Business Bureau for false advertising.

Send multi-coloured cupcakes to BioWare.

Collect $80,000 for charity.

Make long-winded videos of YouTube deconstructing the ending.

Send death threats to Casey Hudson on Twitter.

I'll get to the last point, but as for the others: Are those *bad*?

For those complaining that "oh no, here's another place for people to complain about Mass Effect 3's ending"; what the hell are you doing on those threads?

I'd say at least half of the comments on this post, about how people are going to complain about Mass Effect 3's ending, are PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT PEOPLE COMPLAINING about Mass Effect 3's ending.

The people who don't want to talk about Mass Effect 3's ending, are *far* more obnoxious about it than the ones who actually *do*. I haven't seen a single, thought-out, logical, well-reasoned post or comment about why we should stop talking about Mass Effect 3's ending. I've seen a few of those that defend the ending. I've seen a *lot* that critique the ending. But most of what I see is people yelling for everyone to shut the fuck up already.

Can't you just, you know... Not engage in the discussion? Why are most of the comments "I don't even care"...?

It's not that hard to stay away from Mass Effect 3 ending discussions, you know.

And is it bad to complain about false advertising to the appropriate authorities? ...Especially when you actually have a point? Mac Walters *did* say you wouldn't just get a choice between A, B and C (you do). Casey Hudson *did* say the Rachni queen would show up in the ending (she didn't). Casey Hudson, on the Bombcast, said quite clearly that you don't need to play multiplayer to get the "good ending" (you do). Poignantly, once the story blew up Vinny said words to the effect that "didn't he say to our faces that wasn't the case", but the Bomb Crew decided that clearly the fans were wrong.

Now, sending multi-coloured cupcakes to BioWare was probably more annoying than clever. (haha, they have different colours, but taste the same, just like Mass Effect 3's ending!) But it's not like it was letter bombs.

And then, somehow, collecting money for charity turned into a bad thing. Somehow, the fans who did that were even worse than the ones that sent death threats to the writers.

And *those* people; they're disgusting. And I don't associate with them. But as disgusting as it is, they were actually less disgusting about it this time around; remember when one of the BioWare writers mentioned that she was more into writing than gaming? In a casual interview, years earlier? And how she was harassed off the internet for it?

And it's not much of an argument, but they probably expected it. People have mentioned Arthur Conan Doyle here and there, and how he was pressured by fans into writing more Sherlock Holmes after he killed the character off. And that was 1903. I would like to add an even better example; Patrick McGoohan ended his TV show The Prisoner with the main character unmasking the villain, who was wearing a gorilla mask, and it turned out the villain was the main character, and then the main character and a lesser villain drove off in a house while singing Dem Bones. And McGoohan received death threats over *that*, in 1968.

(And I've seen that show, and that was a terrible ending, just for the record. But not as bad as Mass Effect 3! At least the end of The Prisoner *fit*. It was a weird show...)

In the grand scheme of things, I think that "complaining about Mass Effect 3's ending" is a dark chapter in internet history.

Not because of all the complaining, except for the disgusting bits.

No, I think it's dark because, for once, people actually sat down and reasoned out why "the final plot point of a story had narrative incoherence", which is a god-damn mature thing for the internet to be upset over, IN A GAME. And then nobody wanted to listen.

Games have really bad endings, I don't know if you've noticed. And finally one came along that was so bad that gamers just wouldn't allow it to happen ever again, and for all the talk about having game "critiques" instead of "reviews", it was such a missed opportunity to have this perfect case study come along of how not to do it, and it's been mostly ignored.

Now, if you've made it this far, and you're curious, here's *my* critique.

The ending was a rushed, hurried mess, and it shows. The game as a whole was unforgivably rushed overall; there was no valid reason they couldn't have delayed it six months more for polish. But the ending is the one point that they *couldn't* get away with screwing up, but they did.

The ending was... Inadequate.

Although I think the game starts falling apart at Thessia, I'll start where the narrative *completely* crumbles.

After the run to the beam, whatever drive and coherence the game had, goes away. (Yes yes, Indoctrination Theory, I'll get to that.)

The walk through the spooky citadel was real... Bad. Purely from a level design perspective, the weirdly textured piles of "stuff" along the sides had no business being in a 2012 game, let alone Mass Effect. I *guess* it was supposed to be decomposing bodies? Or a 64x64 JPEG of that, stretched over a blob of polygons?

If the intent was to have Shepard walk through the horror of what the Reapers were doing, it didn't work. And doing it in an abstract environment you've never been in before certainly didn't help; let's say you'd had piles of decomposing bodies on the Presidium, that would be a bleak and terrible version of something you *know*. And then it morphs into something you don't know. As it is, where on the Citadel *is* this? What's going on? Why are the textures so bad? Why haven't you mentioned the Keepers since the first game, are they important *now* suddenly?

Then you make it to Anderson and the Illusive Man. This chat was also bad. Now, it was supposed to be a reference to how you could talk down Saren in the first game; but the Illusive Man has so much less of a presence in the story that it just feels cheap. You spent all of Mass Effect chasing after Saren, and then you fight Saren, or you can talk him down. With the Illusive Man, you spend the whole game chasing after the Crucible so you can defeat the Reapers and the Illusive Man gets in the way, and then you walk into him and talk him into killing himself. The Illusive Man is *basically* not part of the story, and Cerberus has far to large a part in this game. You fight them as much as the Reapers! A boss fight would actually have helped here; that's how you confront antagonists in video games as a medium, and "dialogue wheel" is not really satisfying *gameplay* for dealing with the assigned antagonist of the series. And it's not even a particularly good dialogue wheel. You either talk him down, or don't, game over. Apparently, the plan was to have a big ol' boss fight with TIM in his lair, but they cut that. Which was bad, because they replaced him with a ninja guy from the books who has absolutely no characterization (and I even *read* the books) and when you *do* confront the "proper" bad guy, it feels terribly out of place, both in narrative, as well as *physically* in the game world.

As for Anderson, he felt oddly out of place. He never struck me as a character that was an integral part of the series; he's the guy who gives you your first job. He's not part of your crew, you don't spend any real time with him, and as awesome as Keith David is, he's just there so that the Illusive Man has someone to shoot that you are *supposed* to care about, but the game gives you no reason to. If that had been a crew member or Joker or someone, that would have been something. If the Illusive Man shot Liara, I'd have cared! Furthermore, the scene is kinda absurd; you can't stop The Illusive Man from shooting Anderson anyway, only influence "how badly" he gets shot. Now, for me, he did not get badly shot, and I liked the scene where he tells Shepard she did good, kid. It was poignant. (Although, having an extended nod towards John Carpenter's The Thing taint the emotional high point of the series is *probably* not appropriate.) But then he just sort of... Stops? Did he die? Fall asleep? What? Once again, the art just didn't hold up well enough. You'd need far better texture work and animation to convey his final death. Or a death rattle sound or *something*. So that was confusing.

Then, Hackett telling Shepard it didn't work. I don't think *this* "worked". Without any sense of a raging battle going on, and then the battle *continuing* to go on, it just sounds like Hackett sent Shepard a voice mail. Other than Shepard sounding completely worn out, which *did* work, I thought that plot turn was kinda comical. "Shepard, uh, did you forget to turn it on or something?" [THE PRICE IS RIGHT LOSING HORN] But, like I said, Shepard being completely at the end of her rope was well done, and well acted even. I liked the "What do you need me to do?". Poor Shepard.

And now for the fun part; the God Child.

I probably didn't mind this as much as most, certainly not at first. The conversation itself went alright for me, but I do remember I stumbled a bit on the part where the kid mentioned that the Geth and EDI would die if you destroyed the Reapers. Now, you could fill in the blanks yourself that this is because both EDI and the Geth use Reaper tech, which would have contrasted nicely with the earlier choice of saving the Geth by allowing Legion to upload Reaper code to them; this is what finally dooms them.

But... The game actually doesn't say this, and I should not have to rely on fan fiction to tell the story, when it would have taken them half a sentence to actually say that. And they did spend half a sentence on something that contradicts itself, the God Child hinting that Shepard would die because she is half synthetic. Uh... How? Are those Reaper implants? Is there Reaper code in Shepard? Those *were* Cerberus implants, and Cerberus did use Reaper tech elsewhere (EDI), but... Shouldn't the game have mentioned at some point that there's a little Reaper in Shepard? The game never says that! And worse, if the implication is that "technology" dies alongside the reapers, that's pretty bleak for pretty much the entire galaxy. Then again, unless this was *meant* to imply that joining synthetic and organic ain't bad, 'cause look at Shepard and Shepard is kinda awesome, so that's an option you could consider! ...But then again, the game never actually says that.

It's really bad that the final dialogue of the game is full of holes. I didn't notice most of those holes at first, but unless you went through that and never noticed *anything* amiss, I don't think it works. From what I guess (and read in The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3), the point was for the dialogue to leave out enough of the boring details that you would fill in the blanks yourself; unfortunately, the game doesn't give you the tools to do that. The Codex does *not* explain if Shepard has Reaper tech or not, the Codex does *not* explain how disabling reapers would disable the Geth or EDI, and there's a big parade of other plot holes left by that dialogue that the Internet will happily give you lists of. If you bother to actually read it.

And then the actual choice itself. I chose green, to combine Reaper and synthetic DNA somehow, not because I believed that the Reapers have any reason to continue existing, but that I thought that the geth did, even though I thought it made no sense as part of the choice.

And then the ending was a two-minute cutscene of the reapers landing peacefully, and people cheering like in Independence Day, and then the Normandy crashes on some planet for some reason, and then Joker and EDI step out as if they were Adam and Eve, which is appropriate for the Synthesis ending. And then I settled in for that Animal House ending that these games have, like Dragon Age: Origins or Fallout or what have you, showing what happened to the different characters after the story concluded, showing off the effects that Shepard had on the game world, and the consequences of the choices you made.

...Aaaand then Liara and Tali stepped out, and I'm pretty sure they *died* earlier.

And then the end credits rolled, and then there's a bit with Buzz Aldrin talking about Shepard's legend, which is basically an ad for DLC. And I assumed the internet uproar was because this was the terribly sloppily made ending that was supposed to be a joke ending, and they didn't get it, like accidentally stumbling across the Reptite ending in Chrono Trigger. (If you defeat Lavos at a very specific time, everyone ends up as a dinosaur. Kinda like making everyone a cyborg, and having a clumsy Adam-and-Eve reference. Except it was *supposed* to be a joke.)

And then, after mulling it over for a day, I went back to the autosave and re-did the choice to get the other two endings, the "wrong" one first (controlling the Reapers) and then the "right" one (killing the hell out of the Reapers).

And they were all that same terrible joke ending.

And it's the worst drop in storytelling quality, in games, that I have ever come across. Possibly across any medium.

Now, I didn't expect Deus Ex: Invisible War to have a great ending, 'cause it's kinda a crappy game, and it had a kinda crappy ending. Same with Deus Ex: Human Revolution; neat game, not a terrific storytelling showpiece, ended the way it had been told up until then; clumsily.

But then it's the same exact ending that Mass Effect 3 has, structurally.

And you can just *feel* that they were setting up short cutscene after cutscene of different characters and what they did after the war (yes, like Animal House); Tali returning to Rannoch, Wrex returning to Eve on Tuchanka, Liara pining for the totally dead Shepard, and then towards the end you put the little joke of Joker and EDI as Adam and Eve, appropriate for the Synthesis ending. But then they only had that last one, and put all the other characters in it too because they were probably *supposed* to have one for each character, but didn't, and improvised. Poorly.

Mass Effect 3 was a great story; it was rushed in spots, but it kept up right to the end. Missions like Tuchanka and Rannoch are fantastic examples of interactive storytelling at their best; choices made through three games all came together and led to a variety of outcomes.

And then they completely forget how to write an interactive story at all, in the end.

And then it gets worse; even after they threw together a rushed game and an even more rushed ending, they went on to say how it took all your choices into account, how it wouldn't be a choice between A, B, and C and then credits, and even down to specifics about how you did not need to play multiplayer at all to get the "best" ending. Not to mention how, even before they released Mass Effect *1*, they said that your saves would carry over and it would all build to an epic conclusion that wouldn't need to be compromised in its storytelling, because they were making a trilogy and then nothing more.

And the sum total of impact you can have on the ending to the series, is to choose between "Reapers die", "Reapers leave", "organic life becomes cyborgs", and then a two-minute cutscene and end credits. And another cutscene, pointing out how you should buy the DLC.

There is a grand total of six end states for the entire series. Red 1 (everyone dies), Red 2 (Reapers die), Red 3 (Reapers die, Shepard doesn't), Blue 1 (everyone dies), Blue 2 (Reapers leave) and Green 1 (Everyone becomes a cyborg). That's it. And content-wise, the cutscene only changes in colour, and whether the Reapers fly away or crash.

And then you can only get Red 3 or Green 1 if you play enough multiplayer.

So, here's my take on how Mass Effect 3 ends:

You talk The Illusive Man to death like the end of Mass Effect.

You have a chat with Keith David as he's dying, like the end of The Thing.

You chat to the builder of the machines, like the end of The Matrix Reloaded.

You jump in the beam like in Alien³ leading to the technological singularity ending from Deus Ex: Invisible War, or take control of the Reapers like taking over the big computer at the end of Deus Ex, or you destroy all technology like the end of Deus Ex: Invisible War (again).

And then you have the ending of Independence Day.

And then your crew crashes on an alien planet, like Gilligan's Island.

AND THAT'S IT.

Mass Effect 3 had nothing interesting to say about the end of Mass Effect.

And from a studio that actually understands how to write good stories, the *best* stories in gaming, that's pretty unforgivable. And for them to have not screwed this up before, and suddenly doing it now, is simply shocking.

Mass Effect ended on a cliffhanger for the next game.

Mass Effect 2 ended on a really neat puzzle of figuring out which of your crew members to assign to what so everyone makes it out, followed by a somewhat silly bossfight, followed by a pretty cool cliffhanger for the next game.

Dragon Age: Origins ends on a slightly cheap-looking Animal House ending telling what people did after the war. (My Warden went away with Leliana.)

Dragon Age II, otherwise a trainwreck, ended with Varric finishing off his retelling of what the Champion did and how it affected the world.

Mass Effect 3 just kinda ran out. You talk to the Kid, and then the game tells you nothing meaningful about what happens to any of the characters or factions that you have been deciding the fates of for three games. The most you ever get to hear about any of them, *vefore* the ending, is the War Assets book. Which was interesting, but way too cheap. And when none of that comes up in the ending, that's real bad.

From the time you assault the Cerberus Base, no meaningful changes to the plot happens as a result of any choice you've ever made, with the only exception being the crew members you can say goodbye to before the final push. The Rachni Queen, or the geth and quarians, the asari, the turians, none of that shows up again after you've done with those missions.

All these interestings things are set up, through three games, and none of them paid off.

The last time that any choice you've made, influences the story in any way, is when Miranda does or doesn't survive the encounter with her father. After that; nothin'. And *certainly* not a fulfillment of the promise that every choice you've made affects the ending.

Unless you count the War Assets. And you shouldn't.

Patrick made a blog post about how he wanted to see *his* Mass Effect trilogy story through to the end, even with the mistakes he made in getting Miranda killed. If she did survive Mass Effect 2, and you actually did everything "right" in keeping her alive in Mass Effect 3, her only impact on the ending to the series, after being a main character for the last two games? "25 points". And a phone call. And only 12.5 points if you didn't play multiplayer.

That's not a worthy send-off for any character, and that's all you get for any of them, unless they happen to step off the crashed Normandy in your randomly chosen line-up.

Here's a better example:

My friend, who finished before me, didn't import his previous savegames, and ended up sacrificing the geth to save the quarians. Then he played multiplayer to geth the Effective Military Score up. He got the green ending.

My other friend, who is kind of a jerk, sacrificed Tali to save the geth, and he played some multiplayer to get the EMS up a bit. He got the green ending.

Me, I transferred my saves across four computers in as many years, and because I'm awesome, I saved *both* the geth and the quarians. And then I got the EMS up to 100% just in case.

And then I got the green ending.

For a series where you have been able to make choices that greatly impact the story being told, and a series which had been the prime example of the kind of great storytelling you only *can* do in games, that's just terrible.

And that's why the ending of Mass Effect 3 sucks.

As for any loose ends to tie up:

"It's not about the destination, it's the journey!"

You're wrong. The Mass Effect series has, at its core, been about influencing the story through your choices. It's a role playing game. And a pretty good one.

And even if you argue that the geth/quarian conflict, and the krogan genophage, and the fate of the Rachni queen, and so on, are all wrapped up *during* the game, and those count as endings? You're still wrong. The end of the geth/quarian conflict was fantastically told, it depended on your choices through three games, and it had massive implications for the state of the galaxy. But after that story wraps up, the only change to Mass Effect 3 from then on is whether or not Tali is a crew member. You never see the geth, or the quarians again, even though the game says that it's going to. I'm pretty sure that if you save just the quarians, instead of both the quarians and the geth, that only *one* line of dialogue changes. It's a build up to resolving the *real* conflict of the game, and it's a build up-that never pays off. Not a single one of your choices influence anything that happens in the ending, other than if you have enough EMS. And multiplayer influences that just as much as single player, which is disgusting.

"So what if this game sucked, it doesn't make the other games suck less!"

Yes it does.

Playing through Mass Effects 1 and 2, you're constantly reminded of how your choices have consequences. Even for the first half of Mass Effect 3, you still get those consequences presented to you; it sure isn't nice to see Legion die to save the geth and make peace with the quarians, but that's what Mass Effect 2 built towards. Same thing with Mordin; he got a fantastic send-off. I made a choice in Mass Effect 2 to save the genophage cure data, because I believed that would give the best payoff in 3, and it did. Blowing up the Council (accidentally) in 1 was a mistake, and I paid for it in 2. And having it carry over into 3 as well, improved that choice in 1; I actually ended up with an extra ally 'cause I messed up in the first game. And that's a wonderful way my playthrough of the Mass Effect games became so rewarding.

But when so many of the choices made throughout the previous games *don't* have a payoff at the end, that makes those setups worth less. Saving the rachni queen in 1 was a big choice, then, and it had very little payoff in 2. That was a disappointment. And now that the final state of the galaxy doesn't care in any meaningful way if she lives or dies in 3, that makes that original choice in Mass Effect 1 also meaningless. That game is worse now that 3 has proven that that choice is *actually* meaningless, and not like it was in Mass Effect 2 where her brief cameo hinted that it was meaningless now, but was *going* to be important. And then it wasn't. Getting a bonus 100 War Asset points for keeping her alive is not meaningful. I can get that by playing Multiplayer.

And there are a *lot* of characters and factions and solar systems and such that end up not having any meaningful consequences.

Any future playthroughs of Mass Effect 1 and 2 *is* going to be influenced by Mass Effect 3. For some, like choices related to Mordin, Mass Effect 3 made Mass Effect 2 better. For most, however, failing to even attempt to tie up the loose ends makes the first two games worse.

I kept Liara alive through three games, I made her the Shadow Broker, I romanced her in all three games (I did cheat on her with Kelly Chambers, but then again, who didn't), and what happened to the Shepard's One True Love?

Meh, says Mass Effect 3.

"The Indoctrination Theory is actually really clever! It's totally a fantastic ending"

It doesn't tie up any plotlines in any meaningful way. So no.

Also, if BioWare intended this to be what actually happened to Shepard, they did a pretty poor job of getting that across. And if that's a kind of puzzle for the player to figure out, it's a pretty terrible puzzle. I should know, I've designed puzzles that were really bad.

But worst of all: If the true ending to Mass Effect 3 can be summed up as "it's all a dream", then the first step is to add "The Wizard of Oz" to the list of terrible places they stole the ending from.

And then the final step is to realise that apparently, BioWare ARE THE WORST WRITERS OF ANYTHING IN HISTORY.

You don't end stories with "and then it was all just a dream".

I'll end this Great Wall of Text with how I experienced the ending of Mass Effect 3.

Here's a pretty good facsimile of my thoughts as it happened:

"Huh. Uhm. Okay, the beam was to cyborg everyone... And then the one where Anderson was blown up was the one that killed the reapers and also the geth. And then the one that zapped The Illusive Man was the control one. And I don't want to do that, 'cause fuck those Reapers. Having them around can't be good. And that's what The Illusive Man wants to do, and that didn't work out for him that great.

Now, which side was the Anderson one... Left...? Right...? Uhm... Can I ask the kid for the options again... No. Okay... Well... I don't want to kill the geth, I don't mind fucking over EDI, she's even willing to sacrifice herself, but the geth are an awful lot of units with souls, *and* they're helping the quarians so I don't want to bone them up either... Although, *how* does this kill the geth...?

Uhm. I guess I'll go with the Deus Ex option. Or was that Deus Ex: Invisible War? Man, that game was kinda bad. Right, into the beam, Shepard! It's a shame you can't take the Reapers with you!

...Huh. That looks like Christ imagery, but also, uhm... Alien³. Uhm. That's a pretty shitty movie. Oh, I hope this isn't the bad ending that guy on the Amazon User Review mentioned, which is the only thing I've heard about this game because I've been avoiding spoilers.

Okay, green wave spreading across, soldiers cheer at the victory over alien invaders like in Independence Day... Normandy is travelling through a Mass Relay, probably hauling someone away for some reason... Hm, and there it crashed, and Joker and EDI steps out. Well, this isn't anything like Adam and Eve at all. And, wait, Liara? And Javik and... Uh... Didn't Liara *die* earlier? I guess they'll explain more when they show the next cutscene like in Fallout... WHAT!? END CREDITS!? ...Uh. Huh. Huh! Huh... Maybe there's something after the end credits.

Hey, I know that voice, that's Buzz Aldrin. And he's still not learned to be a voice actor since he was on The Simpsons.

Hm, they solved how you get into future DLC a bit more elegantly than Mass Effect 2 just kicking you back to the Normandy...

Wait..

Hang on...

That's *IT*!?

*That's* how they ended Mass Effect 3? Those two cutscenes?

Man, no wonder they're complaining about this ending, if this is the "good" ending and the most difficult one to get. Man, I have to go through the end again to get to the non-joke endings tomorrow."

And then, after playing through to the ending choice the day after...

"Okay, now to get the non-joke ending. Man, that ending yesterday was terrible. Let's see, now that I've evidently taken the wrong choice, let's take the second-wrongest choice so I can save the best choice for last. Controlling the Reapers, that seems like a great idea! I have no compulsions against doing what The Illusive Man wants to do! Zapping Shepard with electricity, that seems awesome! The Reapers are *never* gonna rise up again ever!

...Wait. That's the shot from yesterday, the Independence Day one. Uhm. And that's the wave from yesterday, except blue... Oh. Uh oh. And that's the Normandy traveling through space... Uh... And there the Normandy crashed... And that's EDI and Liara and Tali... And end credits.

Oh. Oh. I... Oh. If... Oh. Oh man.

Destroying the reapers, that can't possibly be *this*, can it? Right, I heard someone mentioning that Shepard survives if you have enough EMS, and I have all of the EMS. Okay, autosave, take me away.

Right. Shoot the fusebox like in Commander Keen V. Don't know why Shepard is walking towards the explosion, seems counterproductive. And... Oh no. That's the Independence Day shot. Except the Reapers are crashing, so it's even more Independent. And then a red wave. And then the Normandy. And then this time, no EDI, that makes sense. Wait. No it doesn't. And then...

Uh, is that guy in N7 armour Shepard? 'Cause that's clearly guy armour. Is it Anderson? That moan *could* be Jennifer Hale, I've heard her moan in games before. Keith David could probably not moan at that pitch. So I guess that's Shepard. And they didn't re-render the video for FemShep, huh.

And that's the end of Mass Effect.

Huh.

Well.

I *see* why the internet is upset about this, yes.

Yes indeed.

Hm...

Hm.

BALLS.

...I hope they fix this with DLC."

P.S. Really sorry about the wall of text, it looked way smaller as I was typing it.

For four hours.

So don't nobody say that fans of Mass Effect never articulated what complaints they had about the ending.

A bit late to weigh in on this, but Mass Effect's overall narrative was always pretty middling. The real quality writing is in the world detail and side quests and occasional flashes of interesting characterization. I guess a really solid narrative arc is hindered by the manner in which you attend to quests. But be honest- the Reapers are banal stuff. The background and sub-conflicts are where all the thought went. I'm not really surprised. This is what happens when you try to cram an epic apocalyptic plot into something.

From the sound of it, they're doing more than what I would've asked for. I would've been happy with the "Animal House" epilogue thing.

Shoot. This just made me start up this game again.

The title for this is unfunny and shows that Alex doesn't get what was wrong about the ending. Which is fine but he shouldn't just jump to conclusions about why people hated that piece of crap ending in the first place

The title made me laugh. Thanks, Alex.

I didn't even play the game and still think this headline sucks.