Wasn't it confirmed the leaked script some months ago that the ending was actually different? My main issue, and why I am willing to believe the hallucination theory, is the ending feels so goosed and so hamfisted. We get static shots of crew members and the same cinematics for all the endings. It literally feels like something that was cobbled together in the last four months of development.

@Napalm said:

Wasn't it confirmed the leaked script some months ago that the ending was actually different? My main issue, and why I am willing to believe the hallucination theory, is the ending feels so goosed and so hamfisted. We get static shots of crew members and the same cinematics for all the endings. It literally feels like something that was cobbled together in the last four months of development.

The script that leaked the first time, with all the endings and most of the major story points, did have the endings basically as they are in the game. The big differences are that back then it wasn't set in stone that Shepard would be talking to a glowy ghost kid, it just said that "all the answers of the universe would be revealed to him" or something like that. Then it went into picking your options of destroying, controlling, or synthesis, with the variations on each about whether or not the Earth is destroyed or Shepard lived through the process. So really, not much changed at all except that they added the glowing kid and removed the planned dialogue wheel from that conversation for the sake of causing more speculation, and that they added that goddamn stupid scene with the Normandy and the part with the kid and his grandpa. Also, I seem to remember that the Mass Relays could only be destroyed originally in the worst versions of each ending choice. I might be wrong about that, it's been a while.

@Napalm said:

Wasn't it confirmed the leaked script some months ago that the ending was actually different? My main issue, and why I am willing to believe the hallucination theory, is the ending feels so goosed and so hamfisted. We get static shots of crew members and the same cinematics for all the endings. It literally feels like something that was cobbled together in the last four months of development.

More like the last 2 months, they were still experimenting with endgame ideas around November. Forget where I read that but I definitely read it somewhere.

Kessler misuses 'deus ex machina' so much

Kalros is not a DXM, it's just a plot device. A DXM is a very specific subset of plot devices. Overuse just dilutes the meaning of the word.

@Chubbaluphigous said:

And to the bloke who digs mechanical keyboards: Fucking A! I'm typing this up on a Das with Cherry blues.

Das Keyboards are superb. That's what I have at work. I'm using a Razer BlackWidow for gaming, because I needed backlighting, but fuck yes! Let's be Keyboard Buddies!

@Napalm said:

Wasn't it confirmed the leaked script some months ago that the ending was actually different? My main issue, and why I am willing to believe the hallucination theory, is the ending feels so goosed and so hamfisted. We get static shots of crew members and the same cinematics for all the endings. It literally feels like something that was cobbled together in the last four months of development.

The script that leaked the first time, with all the endings and most of the major story points, did have the endings basically as they are in the game. The big differences are that back then it wasn't set in stone that Shepard would be talking to a glowy ghost kid, it just said that "all the answers of the universe would be revealed to him" or something like that. Then it went into picking your options of destroying, controlling, or synthesis, with the variations on each about whether or not the Earth is destroyed or Shepard lived through the process. So really, not much changed at all except that they added the glowing kid and removed the planned dialogue wheel from that conversation for the sake of causing more speculation, and that they added that goddamn stupid scene with the Normandy and the part with the kid and his grandpa. Also, I seem to remember that the Mass Relays could only be destroyed originally in the worst versions of each ending choice. I might be wrong about that, it's been a while.

@Sackmanjones said:

I thought I also heard that Shepard did get indoctrinated in the other endings and there was gameplay where you couldn't control him? It was either in the leaked script or the final hours app. Either way just curious if you know

@Sackmanjones: That was in the Final Hours thing from what I heard, alongside the part where they mentioned that they took out the dialogue wheel for the star kid because they figured that players didn't need more information about that stuff. It's interesting, but considering they took it out, and mention they couldn't implement that section, it kind of shoots the indoctrination theory in the foot.

@MattBodega: I really enjoyed the podcast and will subscribe now. It did kind of bother me that a few of the complaints about the game were wrong. The one that really got to me and stood out was the comment about how there is no dialogue with Liara after Thessia gets destroyed. I don't know maybe I got this scene because I am romancing Liara, Tali is alive and I talk to just about everyone after every mission so I could be wrong. The scene between Liara and Javik was mentioned but if you go to talk to her after Tali is standing by the mural (if she is alive). She is talking about Garrus and you can choose to support her and you say you will go talk to her. When I went into her room she was sitting on the bed and I got a scene about the whole Thessia thing.

@DeShawn2ks: Wow, how weird. I somehow missed that scene, despite making an effort to wander around the ship and talk to everyone after every mission.

You guys are TOTAL negative nancy's to ME3 and super hyperbolic and reductive.

Beyong that, this is my first time listen and you guys are good so far keeping on topic and trying to be coherent, nice podcast, I might add it to my feed

@Matt: I have seen all the endings and videos pertaining to the outrage against the ending. At this point, I believe we have reached an impasse. I respectfully and completely disagree with what you're saying. In my past posts I've explained how this ending, abstract as it may be, still is as satisfying an ending for the trilogy as I could have hoped for, to a certain extent. It ends Shepard's story in a few different, interesting ways and it allowed me to say goodbye to all the characters I had come to care deeply about. For me, it respects the idea of The Reapers enough not to just piss away the mystery of what has been set up. If The Reapers were killed or controlled or not killed at all, all these particular avenues still allowed for a satisfying, moving and thought provoking ending. Yes, the series has been about choices but it has also been an amazing, arguably one of the best science-fiction narratives in a while and I'm happy to have made my own choices in this story but in the end it is still a story being told by someone else and I can respect that... and I have even come to agree with that. Art is not about the receiver, ultimately it is ALWAYS about the creator. There will always be a massive disconnect between the author and the reader, thats just the way subjective reality is constructed. You may have issues with that but that is ART and you may have legitimate issues by saying then art is hugely flawed and I would agree with that but it is still ART. Art is about the transmission of one's inner most essence to another. When you start caring about who is receiving it, it becomes a business... which isn't a bad thing... its just not as pure an art as it should be then. its still art, just not very good and rather spineless.

If any part of the ending disappointed me its that it wasn't weird enough. And, the fact that people are now using the whole "take the ending at face value" argument with the hopes of disproving the indoctrination theory is just silly. THAT'S exactly what people are doing with the indoctrination ending... we're taking the images that have been presented to us, the context and background at face value and the indoctrination theory is as simple and logical a conclusion that we can come up with. This isn't like seeing Jesus in a pile of hay. This is about certain things that are presented to us that logically lead to something resembling an indoctrination. Again, I am open to being proved wrong but what I analyze from the images and sounds that are presented to me "at face value" logically leads me to an indoctrination theory. I don't understand the weird outrage against this theory. The podcast got heated in a manner like as if Ron had just admitted to being a racist homophobe who kicks puppies in his spare time. Comparing it to the arguments of a "born again Christian" or whatever was said in the podcast is just ridiculous.

@Renachan: You can take umbridge with that statement but it seems like a weird thing to disagree with. The objective of art is to covey one's inner most thoughts and your true being in ways that cannot be properly conveyed otherwise. Such an act is inherently flawed because it will never be fully understood by the reciever. Never. Art is ONLY about the sender's intent and message. The receiver will see it whatever way they want and it'll never be true to what the artist intended. Art is flawed, horribly, horribly flawed but thats also the beauty of it. To try and view something that you have no reference points for, some thing that you truly will never full understand. When an artist tries to make something with the receiver in mind, there's nothing wrong with that, it just becomes another form of art, kind of a commerce. An artist will never understand how the receiver views the world and so to think about art from the point of view of the reciever and sender is just silly.

I never said the recievers cannot pull things from an art that was not intended. they are obviously welcome to do so, it would just be wrong from the point of view of the artist which just furthers my point that art is flawed. I completley disagree with your point that if a receiver takes something from an art that was not intended, it would be unintentionally supported by the text. NO. No, it wouldn't. If I create a peice of art that is personal and abstract to me and means something to me and is, essentially, my experiences and influences wrapped into one peice of music or painting or video game or whatever, and you see it as something you get drunk to and wanna fuck to, THAT was not my intent, from my point of view you missed my point. Nothing in my text suports that reaction and therefore you have missed my point but you are still welcome to do whatever you want with it, you'll make your own experience around that but it still wrong from my point of view. And, then to complain to me about my art is just dumb. Again, it just furthers my point that art will never be fully understood. Its what makes it so interesting and so frustrating at the same time.

Video games are a bit trickier. Yes, you do interact with it but, I'm sorry, I hate to break it to you but Bioware is well aware of all the variations of all the stories Shepard can be apart of. No matter what you choose, you are still be driven through a narrative that is very much contructed by someone else and is a story with a beggining, middle and end. Until we get to a point in interactive art where you LITERALLY write your interactions into someone else's world and create your own purpose, all forms of video games are just the same as other forms of art. The fact that all of our Shepards became a passive being at the end just makes it more of a story. I have no problem with that. I did not fool myself into thinking that I truly was Shepard but I knew that I was just watching a film of a different kind.

The worst thing ever: People pretending that the "secret ending" isnt important. I think (whats his name on the podcast) talking about the indoctrination theory was good until he made a complete left turn at the "so who destroyed the reapers?" question. It was like he completely forgot what his point was there. I'm a supporter of the theory but the way he described it made it sound like he was panicking, that he didnt actually come to the conclusion himself and when faced with a difficult question had no answer and immediately went on the defensive. it was mortifying to hear :(

The point of it being reaper indoctrination is that none of it happened, it was a trick on the gamer. Anyone who didn't get the perfect destroy ending were lead to believe these "truths". The reapers are still alive, the citadel is not destroyed, the mass relays are still there, the fleet is fighting the reapers, and the crucible hasn't been used yet. But the worst part is how this ending may tell the tale of the sad truths of the games industry, that meeting the bottom line can create some bad situations. before the game came out the message changed from "your decisions will really matter for the ending" to "we are excited to see people's reaction". I think its good "legacy publicity" here, it keeps people talking about the game longer, though the reaction is far more negative than they'd wanted. I remember casey hudson saying he wanted the game to have an ending that wouldn't be forgotten, that people would talk about and discuss for months" Theres rumors that we may get ending dlc in april or may, (pax panel in may) which is months away from now.

Yeah it means the game was released incomplete, but theres still ways for bioware to make good on it. I'll pay for it but if its free like the rumors say that would be the best case scenario. it'd also be nice to, once the ending dlc is out there, for bioware to explain why it wasnt in the base game. my explanation: they had to get the game out for this fiscal year no matter what, so they decided to cut down the ending and spend extra months working on it. Distance from cert to DIGITAL release is faster than cert to MANUFACTURE to release. ME3 had to go to cert back in january to meet that date.

The PAX panel is probably when we'll hear the "announcement". I'm just worried that people will be too heavy on them already. :(

I hope the rumors of it being free are true. I also hope they patch the face importer, because fuck. fuck is all. goddamn too.

Enjoyed the podcast!

@KatyGaGa said:

Art is ONLY about the sender's intent and message.

Being as respectful as I possibly can be, that is an ignorant statement that many artists themselves would disagree with. Authorial intent is but a small part of interpretation, which is the beauty of art.

But to claim that that's ALL that art is is limiting and untrue. Art means different things to different people. If that's your vision, by all means, but that's certainly not the ONLY valid way to look at it.

Wanring Lack of Grammar to follow:

@MattBodega: @evildeadron: Awesome podcast. Only a few issues I have:

Disclaimer: The you in this answer is for whoever was putting forward the kind of interesting "everything was in Shepard's mind" ending. Also spoilers to follow obviously.

If your theory is right, why is the ending the same for all of them.

Whether I decide to be indoctrinated I get the same ending, the whole adam and eve thing. The logical answer from your platform is that the cycle did end because the reapers got what they wanted. Except that the Reapers motive was always to combine synthetic and organic life to do their bidding. It's about them taking all the advancements from the current organic life and bring it into themselves. Its not about just making organic life synthetic.

Also Shepard was definitely wearing his armor after being hit by the laser. There are weird lines at the edges of the screen, only when talking to the Illusive man. This is because the IM is indoctrinated and trying to exert his control over Shepard.

Now if the finale was really a dream sequence why is it that all the ending follow what the kid said. If it was truly just a dream sequence why is it that we see whatever the kid says come to pass. If you control - the reapers leave earth. If you destroy the reapers die. If it was a dream sequence and a team went up after Shepard they would have to be faced with the same three choices.

Now the colors of the endings I'm not sure about but I'm assuming the Illusive Man was the paragon choice because it included the least amount of loss of life. The geth and edi are still alive. Anderson's is red because he's doing "the ends justify the means" ending. Which is a renegade choice. The synthesis seems like the correct ending. It's the peaceful everyone is alive ending.

I think it was just a poorly executed ending honestly. I like the over arching idea but it was just hamfisted.

Is it really so hard to even be willing to acknowledge the idea that if all 3 games were about choices that Bioware is giving you the choice to see the ending how you see fit? I think the biggest mistake Bioware has done was overestimating this series' fans. You have a room full of people that refuse to accept that this game, which has been praised since its first entry, has a bad ending because it didn't wrap everything up in a nice little bow. It's abused how dumb everyone but Ron seems in this Poscast. First of all, how many things did they get wrong? I kept saying to myself "that's not what happened". I am not saying that the Reapers were destroyed with the "red" option but that is Shepard lying in the rubble at the end. You only get to see that scene if you have a high enough EMS at the end. Why do you think that is? I feel bad for Bioware that they have to deal with the backlash they are because they gave the bulk of their fans too much credit that they wouldn't need everything spelled out for them.

Thanks that podcast was alirght! I didn't agree with some parts, but whatever, I definately needed a spoilercast for that

Some alternate-reality timeline splits you guys mentioned sounded really cool. Mass Effect 3 is an amazing game.

I wish that guy would've fucking shut up about the indoctrination theory until the end though. I like that theory and think it's super cool, but jesus christ fucking leave it alone for a while, right?

EDIT- Oh and then he does a really flimsy job of explaining it, great.

@MattBodega Just checked it out, was jazzed to hear your opinions on ME3. When it comes to these types of games ARPG or Crpg I always think you are on point and interesting. Are you still doing shit for GB now?

@KatyGaGa said:

@Oni Um... What im claiming is that art is very unexplainable and there is no right or wrong answer in it, which is telling. The fact that I'm saying that means I'm overtly saying that art can not be limited by other people's opinions and shouldn't. What you and others that I'm arguing with are saying is that the sender's intent is a small portion of the full experience, and I'm saying that's nonsensical and, furthermore, if artists did take into account how others would react to their work, it would make their art very redundant and constraining. They would need to resort to using broad reference points for their work... There isn't anything wrong with that... It's just going to as flawed as anything else and, on top of that, wouldn't even be a pure vision. Ironically, at that point the art would become the process and it would still be about the author, so your point still doesn't stand. My point throughout all this has been art can never be defined and will mean different thing to different people... How the hell is what I'm saying limiting? If anything, when you take into account others in your artistic work, it adds constraints... Do you see the irony of what you're accusing me of?

That's odd. It seems to me that interpretation by the audience removes constraints rather than adds them. Isn't it more constraining to limit a piece of art to only what the artist felt? A message that is transmitted, but not received is not really a message at all. The reception is integral to the process.

It's true that the artist should not change their art to suit the audience. But that's why it's called interpretation. The very ambiguities you mention are what give a piece of art richness and allow for different people to find meaning. If you focus only on the artist's intent, and feel it necessary to make sure that that and only that is communicated, that is when a piece of art is constrained, for that intent can only be truly felt by the artist. At that point the piece has been constrained to a single person! That's horribly restrictive. For what it's worth, I consider myself something of an artist as well, though not a professional one.