(Spoilers, obviously)

So, I've been spending some time off and on, thinking about what the ending of ME3, and how it can/probably will affect inevitable future games. First off, if you've already drank the indoctrination bullshit kool-aid, this topic isn't for you.

Like many, when I found out about the truth behind the ending, I was.. I'd say enraged. My story was a simple one. I'm kind of old, and like the old man that I am, I picked the wrong ending; not the ending I actually wanted. I thought the two paths to either side weren't paths, but like.. just backdrop. So I went up the middle thinking it would present me with some kind of tree to choose what I wanted. It didn't. I fell in, and thought.. "oh, well I didn't want to do that, but Ok. Well, that ending was weird. I guess I'll go back and.... hmmm. I'm actually before the whole illusive man base? So, I have to play like an hour's worth of game to try a different ending? Let's see if YouTube tells me it's worth it... wait.. they're all the same...? FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

Unlike many, though, I've actually come to terms with it, and realize the series as a whole was a really fun experience. Watching videos of all the different shit that could have gone down if you chose different paths is crazy. It was a good game, and a good series.

So, that out of the way, I really think it's safe to say that nobody, NOBODY actually wanted a simple a b c ending like what was presented. I feel it's impossible that anybody played the whole series and didn't at least want some kind of customized tailored ending that was based on all the choices you made through the game, regardless of how you ultimately felt about the ending. Like it or not, or whatever, you had to have wanted and expected more when the ending finally came. I literally can't believe anybody going into this ending really was just hoping for something as funneled as what we got. Sorry, I started ranting there.

Put that into the context of the developer specifically saying the ending would be customized, and it wouldn't end the way it did (ABC). Here's my theory on that: They originally wanted a finale to the series. The developers really wanted to close the series off with exactly the endings they said. They wanted an actual cap, and conclusion on the Shepard story with all of the different possibilities dependent on what you did.

In marches EA. The problem with ending it that way, would be that there could be no further ME games involving those characters and specific settings. They say, no. This story doesn't end here. This is a franchise, and average Joe doesn't want to start a new story with a new "epic" plot of some kind with an all new cast. Let's continue with what we have.

It was hard enough incorporating all of the choices you had made to make the third game as it is, but making some kind of reconciliation with whatever you ultimately chose would literally make it impossible to work with all of those kinds of endings, and put those characters into some kind of future game. The only way to continue the "series" is with some kind of easily incorporated ending that can be picked up on for a new game. So, all three endings; reapers defeated, mass relays destroyed, Joker et al end up on mystery planet, Shepard's current status: Unknown.

I really think they are literally taking this down the Deus Ex path. They specifically mentioned that "This is NOT the last time you hear from Commander Shepard." I think they are going to do some kind of thing where Shepard is merged with the Reapers, or synthetics, or some shit, and his newfound virtual omnipotence will play some kind of role in upcoming games. I think there will be another game, essentially Mass Effect 4: The Search for Spock (err, Shepard.)

What do you think?

Actually, as soon as they dump you back into the game, you can just select "Restart last mission" and it dumps you inside of the Citadel right past the Conduit beam, so you just have to limp your way to Anderson and TIM.

Edit: Also, no.

(This couldn't go in an existing ending thread?)

@Scofthe7seas said:

They specifically mentioned that "This is NOT the last time you hear from Commander Shepard."

I'm pretty sure that was about DLC. I don't know. I still love Mass Effect, but I need a break from it after all this shit.

I would tend to not get all that conspiratorial on EAs side of things. A lot of games, books, TV shows, and movies have not so great endings. Most likely the ending and plot arc at the start was not story-boarded scene by scene to the end, so it is going to not have that sort of consistency (Hello Battlestar Galatica?) a movie can.

Ultimately, if the gameplay is solid, have a relatively poor ending is a more or less forgivable issue anyway. It makes people angry, but nobody would care if the story was garbage all the way through, or the action still felt like ME1. So expecting that to be the highest priority out of the series seems a bit much. Not that there is anything wrong with calling it out for being what it is, but if 95% of it is good.....still worth playing.

I wasn't complaining about the ending, just my theories on why it ended the way it did. I don't believe EA had nothing to do with how the ending played out. If nothing else, it was rushed. It's only logical to think that they would have future games in mind. This is just a theory, but we'll see how it pans out.

@onan said:

Edit: Also, no.

(This couldn't go in an existing ending thread?)

You know that this doesn't mean anything, right?

And Jesus guys. Like fuckin' piranha. You jumped on this shit seconds after I posted it.

@Scofthe7seas said:

I wasn't complaining about the ending, just my theories on why it ended the way it did. I don't believe EA had nothing to do with how the ending played out. If nothing else, it was rushed. It's only logical to think that they would have future games in mind. This is just a theory, but we'll see how it pans out.

@onan said:

Edit: Also, no.

(This couldn't go in an existing ending thread?)

You know that this doesn't mean anything, right?

And Jesus guys. Like fuckin' piranha. You jumped on this shit seconds after I posted it.

It was in response to the last thing you said, " I think they are going to do some kind of thing where Shepard is merged with the Reapers, or synthetics, or some shit, and his newfound virtual omnipotence will play some kind of role in upcoming games. I think there will be another game, essentially Mass Effect 4: The Search for Spock (err, Shepard.) What do you think?"

It's "no" for loads of reasons, but most of all because they don't want to continue on maintaining all of these unique choices, they desperately want to hit the reset button. Also, Shep is dead (or barely breathing) and the Reaper threat is over. It's funny you'd dismiss the indoctrination theory but come up with that, though.

And hey now, I gave it 10 minutes. I was busy stripping a cow of all flesh in another thread.

@onan: My theory is speculation based on future possibilities, not nonsensical interpretation regarding something that has already happened. The reason you gave for saying no is exactly why I think what I said will happen. They funneled the ending down specifically so they can "reboot" it like you said. Negating all the choices by making all your choices lead to the same conclusion. Also, Shepard didn't die. Perhaps in a traditional sense, his/her body is gone. Maybe. But at least two of the endings have him/her somehow merging into the "system" in some way. You are right that the reaper threat is negated, and I don't believe they will have much/anything to do with future games. I think Shepard is going to pop up all Lawnmower man style.

I'm not saying this is good news, or that I'm excited about this possibility.

@Scofthe7seas said:

@onan: My theory is speculation based on future possibilities, not nonsensical interpretation regarding something that has already happened. The reason you gave for saying no is exactly why I think what I said will happen. They funneled the ending down specifically so they can "reboot" it like you said. Negating all the choices by making all your choices lead to the same conclusion. Also, Shepard didn't die. Perhaps in a traditional sense, his/her body is gone. Maybe. But at least two of the endings have him/her somehow merging into the "system" in some way. You are right that the reaper threat is negated, and I don't believe they will have much/anything to do with future games. I think Shepard is going to pop up all Lawnmower man style.

I'm not saying this is good news, or that I'm excited about this possibility.

One ending has him "merging" with the reapers specifically, and possibly the Citadel. At most, if you want to ignore what the Catalyst says about him dying, he might become a part of the Reaper consciousness, or he might even become the new Catalyst, but since they pulled that out of the ending (it was in the leaked script and removed), I doubt that's going to be the case. They foreshadowed that ending with Legion sacrificing himself to improve the Geth as a whole, and Legion's gone. Legion was just data, you'd think they'd just be able to restore him from a backup, but no. Shepard isn't nearly as resilient as a Geth, so Shepard's definitely gone.

Synthesis was tearing him apart on a molecular level and distributing his genetic template across the galaxy. That's more of the "Jesus Christ salvation through sacrifice, everyone eats a piece of me for everlasting life and happiness" thing. There's no coming back from that.

Destroy is pretty clear, he's either dead, or barely alive, but not merging with anything. So that brings you down to one, possible zero endings where Shepard finds some sort of digital life after death.

Bioware's already come under enough fire for their handling of the ending, I doubt they want to build on such a shaking foundation. Also, according to them, Shepard's story is over. Why put themselves through that much headache when they could easily just get a new protagonist?

Shepard will be around for pre-ending DLC, but that's it. They'll mention his sacrifice generically in the next game and it won't have any real effect on the next trilogy. Revan was marginalized in KOTOR 2 and SW:TOR, The Hero of Ferelden was ignored in Dragon Age, and Shepard will be a footnote in the Mass Effect series going forward.

@onan: Well, I don't think Shepard is going to be any kind of real presence in the next game, I didn't mean to make it sound like the focus of my theory was on Shepard coming back, or still being alive. He may or may not pop up, but that's actually inconsequential. The real point is that all of the characters (or most? some?) went to that weird planet, the reapers were defeated, and the mass relays were destroyed. That's mostly what I meant. Just that the three endings merge into one, from which a nearly direct sequel can come. It's just an explanation for why the ending was the way it was. Just a simple setup for future games.

It's weird. You tank a well crafted theory that actually has in-game experiences that add to it's validity as a possible explanation of the events of the game's ending, and yet you poop out a new theory that makes even less sense than the current ending taken at face value, while actively ignoring things that devs of the game have said in public forums.

Let me just say this. If you take the ending at face value, and didn't get the worse one where Earth is destroyed & everyone dies, than you have to admit this: If you selected the Blue or Green endings, Shepard is dead. Straight up disintegrated. You don't come back from that. If you can somehow explain how he got back onto Earth after being blown up on the Citadel in the Red ending, then this creates a canon ending - something that the devs have said they do not want to do. If the only way to play your theoretical DLC or ME4 is to say that ME3 had one right ending and two wrong ones, it's going to make a lot of people upset, telling them they played the game wrong.

And how would they merge the three endings into one? That honestly makes no sense at all. You can't destroy the reapers, control them, and magically fuse their DNA into every living being in the universe. What you're saying is that the Green ending is canon, while discounting the other endings.

And as far as the other bit with what the devs have said - FTL travel didn't go away - aliens can still get home & travel the stars. The devs have straight up said this, and if the ME series continues, and the relays really are destroyed, than this provides a way to continue the series.

@Potts: Well the endings aren't really that different because either way the reapers lose, the mass relays are destroyed and the the normandy is stranded along with the rest of your squadmates. You could say that synthesis is the best ending as there is basically peace but with the destroy and control endings, there could still be wars. Even though they seem different, bioware didn't put much variation in to mass effect 3. e.g whether you rewrote or destroyed the heretics in ME2 is irrelevant as the geth still fight against you. So ME4 could still start off from all ME3 endings but it would be pointless as they might not that much effort in to it.

@mikeerik said:

@Potts: Well the endings aren't really that different because either way the reapers lose, the mass relays are destroyed and the the normandy is stranded along with the rest of your squadmates. You could say that synthesis is the best ending as there is basically peace but with the destroy and control endings, there could still be wars. Even though they seem different, bioware didn't put much variation in to mass effect 3. e.g whether you rewrote or destroyed the heretics in ME2 is irrelevant as the geth still fight against you. So ME4 could still start off from all ME3 endings but it would be pointless as they might not that much effort in to it.

Not sure what you did to piss them off, but the Geth fought on my side in ME3. Choosing to rewrite/destroy makes a difference in 3 considering what can happen with the Geth. What pisses me off is exactly what you mentioned with the Geth thing: Does it effect the ending of ME3 directly? Not really. The Geth don't really figure into the very end of the game in any significant manner, no matter what you did with them through 2 & 3. Do your experiences with the Geth vary greatly depending on your actions throughout 2 & 3? Yes. You can hand over Legion to Cerberus, you can befriend him, you can ally the Geth with the Quarians or start a war which will wipe one side out, depending on who you take sides with. You can lose squad members, and depending on your actions, significant parts of the story are lost to you. The same goes for any other squad member in 2, actions you took in 1 (Ashley/Kaiden, Wrex, smaller things like the Bring Down the Sky mission & the reporters), deciding to let people live or die, all of these decisions, made throughout the course of the three games, make for wildly different stories, all of which come to the same ending.

However, the ending is not fully dependent on the choices you made on your way there. ME1 had one ending. You were always going to fight Saren, no matter what you did on your way there. ME2 had one ending, with a choice involved in that ending. But you always went to the collector base, and killed all the collectors there. ME3 has one ending - when taken at face value, you eliminate the reaper threat, sacrificing yourself in the process (with the one exception,) and the mass relays are destroyed. So, no matter what your actions were, the galaxy is in pretty much the same state: reapers gone, rapid transit system gone, space-navies decimated, etc. Why can't ME4 happen?

So, after two games presented you with exactly ONE ending, why are people so pissed off that ME3 does the EXACT same thing? I'll tell you why - because the ending DIDN'T MAKE ANY GODDAMNED SENSE.

Until you apply the Indoctrination Theory.

Also, the Synthesis (green) ending is stupid. LETS DESTROY THE REAPERS, AND THEN BECOME THEM! Good idea.

I think it pissed people off at the fact that bioware used false advertising because they said things like your choices will heavily affect the ME3 ending but that's not what we got far from it.

Plus if the reapers wanted to preserve organics and so call save them from synthetics, why don't they just kill synthetics. What bothers me is that you can't reason with the catalyst.

I think that they cut parts out of the ending because of their budget. I've heard that there was meant to be a scene where shepard is intoctrinated by they cut it out as it caused too many glitches and it was difficult to control.

I made my own endings on ign because i really hated the end. This is the link if you want to see it.

http://www.ign.com/blogs/mikeerik/2012/05/28/my-own-mass-effect-3-ending-choices/

I don't see one honestly, unless another company takes up the franchise. Wouldn't be the first time Bioware took a brake from major franchises.

@Potts:

I'm confused by you saying the 3 endings couldn't merge into one, and then your next post says that all three endings have the exact same outcome. My theory is that if something like a new game comes out, they're just going to have a kind of blanket statement. "Well, that was some kind of crazy (insert color) fireball! Man, we really (insert verb)'d those reapers gud!"

There were a lot of tangents going on through this topic. I'm going to stick to my guns and claim that my first post is "canon" and everything I said below diverged into nonsensical drivel. Mostly because I don't want to re-read what I wrote.

@mikeerik

I made my own ending here, but nobody looked at it. http://www.giantbomb.com/mass-effect-3/61-29935/create-your-own-mass-effect-3-ending/35-540446/

ALSO, does anybody have any idea how to "follow" a forum thread (get emailed when new posts or put up)? I had no idea people were still posting in this because nothing informed me as such.

@mikeerik said:

I think it pissed people off at the fact that bioware used false advertising because they said things like your choices will heavily affect the ME3 ending but that's not what we got far from it.

Plus if the reapers wanted to preserve organics and so call save them from synthetics, why don't they just kill synthetics. What bothers me is that you can't reason with the catalyst.

I think that they cut parts out of the ending because of their budget. I've heard that there was meant to be a scene where shepard is intoctrinated by they cut it out as it caused too many glitches and it was difficult to control.

I made my own endings on ign because i really hated the end. This is the link if you want to see it.

http://www.ign.com/blogs/mikeerik/2012/05/28/my-own-mass-effect-3-ending-choices/

Trust me - this game wasn't cut short because of budget. Bioware isn't exactly in financial trouble, even with developing SWTOR. If anything, they ran out of time.

@Scofthe7seas said:

@Potts:

I'm confused by you saying the 3 endings couldn't merge into one, and then your next post says that all three endings have the exact same outcome. My theory is that if something like a new game comes out, they're just going to have a kind of blanket statement. "Well, that was some kind of crazy (insert color) fireball! Man, we really (insert verb)'d those reapers gud!"

Note:

@Potts said:

Let me just say this. If you take the ending at face value, and didn't get the worse one where Earth is destroyed & everyone dies, than you have to admit this: If you selected the Blue or Green endings, Shepard is dead. Straight up disintegrated. You don't come back from that. If you can somehow explain how he got back onto Earth after being blown up on the Citadel in the Red ending, then this creates a canon ending - something that the devs have said they do not want to do. If the only way to play your theoretical DLC or ME4 is to say that ME3 had one right ending and two wrong ones, it's going to make a lot of people upset, telling them they played the game wrong.

And how would they merge the three endings into one? That honestly makes no sense at all. You can't destroy the reapers, control them, and magically fuse their DNA into every living being in the universe. What you're saying is that the Green ending is canon, while discounting the other endings.

@Potts said:

However, the ending is not fully dependent on the choices you made on your way there. ME1 had one ending. You were always going to fight Saren, no matter what you did on your way there. ME2 had one ending, with a choice involved in that ending. But you always went to the collector base, and killed all the collectors there. ME3 has one ending - when taken at face value, you eliminate the reaper threat, sacrificing yourself in the process (with the one exception,) and the mass relays are destroyed.

I dunno, I think I make myself pretty clear. I'll explain myself though, for those who did not quite understand what I was getting at.

There is one way that ME3 can end: the reapers are stopped, one way or another, and the mass relays are destroyed. The ending varies in the method of reaper stoppage, or whether or not Shepard lives or dies. My point was that when you look at it from afar, and forego the details, ME3 has one ending, just like ME1 & 2. The three "endings" for ME3 all lead to the same result, and therefore, ME3 has one ending.

My first post wasn't saying that the endings were radically different, it was saying that the canon would be all messed up in a ME4 that took place a short time after ME3, as there are multiple ways to get to the same ending.

Now it's 3:30am, and I'm tired, so I'm not sure I getting my point across well enough, but hey.

@Potts

I see what you're saying. To be honest, I mostly skimmed a lot of this thread because I had a ton to catch up on. As for the canon issue, I think they'll just bullshit their way out of that. Maybe some stupid early game question; "Say, if you had some giant evil robots at your disposal, what would you do witch them? Also, what's your favorite color?" Or maybe a more veiled set of questions to gauge your personality. A save game check could do it, or, and this is what I think, they'll just make a vague sweeping answer about the situation "The reapers... went away." Probably not that simple. Or, they literally could just boil it down to whatever "Actual" ending they decide. Would it really be so shocking if they removed the only shitty single choice you were given for the ending?

As for the FTL travel; I don't buy it. Look how much fuel it takes to get from one solar system to the next. Not to mention the time it takes to do that. It's even explicitly mentioned that space travel to new civilizations would be virtually impossible without ME relays because of the sheer distance. The absolute closest nebula to Earth is 1,344 light years away, and that's where the citadel is supposed to be. Annd, that's not very far on the galactic map from Sol. In one of the books FTL is supposed to be 50 times faster than the speed of light. So, at a constant rate it would take about 27 years to get there. (and no, I'm not fucking sorry for nerding the hell up there.)

Then there's the whole "Entirety of the galaxy's military force stranded in the Sol system" ordeal.

Who knows how it will happen. What will be (no doubt shittily) explained, glossed over, what ever. My point is that the crummy ending is meant to set up some kind of future extrapolation of the current world without them having to work very hard explaining things. I'm pretty sure there will be more mass effect games, with some characters from the original games in some capacity.

@Scofthe7seas said:

@Potts

I see what you're saying. To be honest, I mostly skimmed a lot of this thread because I had a ton to catch up on. As for the canon issue, I think they'll just bullshit their way out of that. Maybe some stupid early game question; "Say, if you had some giant evil robots at your disposal, what would you do witch them? Also, what's your favorite color?" Or maybe a more veiled set of questions to gauge your personality. A save game check could do it, or, and this is what I think, they'll just make a vague sweeping answer about the situation "The reapers... went away." Probably not that simple. Or, they literally could just boil it down to whatever "Actual" ending they decide. Would it really be so shocking if they removed the only shitty single choice you were given for the ending?

As for the FTL travel; I don't buy it. Look how much fuel it takes to get from one solar system to the next. Not to mention the time it takes to do that. It's even explicitly mentioned that space travel to new civilizations would be virtually impossible without ME relays because of the sheer distance. The absolute closest nebula to Earth is 1,344 light years away, and that's where the citadel is supposed to be. Annd, that's not very far on the galactic map from Sol. In one of the books FTL is supposed to be 50 times faster than the speed of light. So, at a constant rate it would take about 27 years to get there. (and no, I'm not fucking sorry for nerding the hell up there.)

Then there's the whole "Entirety of the galaxy's military force stranded in the Sol system" ordeal.

Who knows how it will happen. What will be (no doubt shittily) explained, glossed over, what ever. My point is that the crummy ending is meant to set up some kind of future extrapolation of the current world without them having to work very hard explaining things. I'm pretty sure there will be more mass effect games, with some characters from the original games in some capacity.

You also are not taking into account the inevitable IT confirmation that will be released in the next few weeks here.

Shepard snaps out of it, kills reapers, Mass Relays are not destroyed, everybody's happy because the ending makes sense now.

If you chose blue or green, you're fully indoctrinated & get to kill all of your friends. :D

@Potts

Poppycock. The indoctrination theory is absurd.

Further, I'm going to be VERY ANGRY if it is "confirmed" because I'm positive it just means they decided to go with the explanation that was invented for them.

The future is Wii U

@Potts said:

There is one way that ME3 can end: the reapers are stopped, one way or another, and the mass relays are destroyed. The ending varies in the method of reaper stoppage, or whether or not Shepard lives or dies. My point was that when you look at it from afar, and forego the details, ME3 has one ending, just like ME1 & 2. The three "endings" for ME3 all lead to the same result, and therefore, ME3 has one ending.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the details are what define the ending of Mass Effect, and can't be forgone in representation of this theory. Not only does the ending vary in the method of Reaper "stoppage" and whether or not Shepherd lives or dies, but also whether or not the Reapers still exist or not, and the future of life itself.

If you destroy the Reapers, all synthetics are destroyed as well, effectively leaving a universe purely of organic life.

Controlling the Reapers will stop the cycle as well, but the Reapers still exist. Organics and synthetics coexist together in the universe.

Synthesis absorbs Shepher's energy into the Crucible and sends it across the universe, combining organic DNA with synthetic life, creating a new "evolution" of life.

These are radically different states of existence for the universe and its inhabitants after the cycle has been stopped, and don't at all conclude to the same result. The only definitive similarity of importance in the ending is that the cycle has ended, and the mass relays are destroyed. I don't see how the after effects of this event can rationally be discarded, when clearly things are extremely different. Universe A, B, and C each have drastically different states, and therefore by definition are not of the same result.

@Hizang said:

The future is Wii U

Who does EA expect to buy ME3 on Wii U?

@Hailinel said:

@Hizang said:

The future is Wii U

Who does EA expect to buy ME3 on Wii U?

Masochists.

@Hailinel said:

@Hizang said:

The future is Wii U

Who does EA expect to buy ME3 on Wii U?

I dunno, I will, just to see how it compares to the console version.

@Scofthe7seas:

I knew that you weren't a fan, that's why I brought it up.

Doesn't change the fact that it's the only explanation that makes any sense. :D

There is a ton of stuff going on throughout the game that suggests that this was the route they were going for originally, before the ending got cut for time or whatever happened. I believe that it's what they'll go with, but I'm not going to be pissed if they come up with something else. You should keep an open mind - just because you don't understand how it would work, doesn't mean it's not how it's going to.

@Wallzii said:

@Potts said:

There is one way that ME3 can end: the reapers are stopped, one way or another, and the mass relays are destroyed. The ending varies in the method of reaper stoppage, or whether or not Shepard lives or dies. My point was that when you look at it from afar, and forego the details, ME3 has one ending, just like ME1 & 2. The three "endings" for ME3 all lead to the same result, and therefore, ME3 has one ending.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the details are what define the ending of Mass Effect, and can't be forgone in representation of this theory. Not only does the ending vary in the method of Reaper "stoppage" and whether or not Shepherd lives or dies, but also whether or not the Reapers still exist or not, and the future of life itself.

If you destroy the Reapers, all synthetics are destroyed as well, effectively leaving a universe purely of organic life.

Controlling the Reapers will stop the cycle as well, but the Reapers still exist. Organics and synthetics coexist together in the universe.

Synthesis absorbs Shepher's energy into the Crucible and sends it across the universe, combining organic DNA with synthetic life, creating a new "evolution" of life.

These are radically different states of existence for the universe and its inhabitants after the cycle has been stopped, and don't at all conclude to the same result. The only definitive similarity of importance in the ending is that the cycle has ended, and the mass relays are destroyed. I don't see how the after effects of this event can rationally be discarded, when clearly things are extremely different. Universe A, B, and C each have drastically different states, and therefore by definition are not of the same result.

I'm not neglecting it - the details are what make the Mass Effect games good.

What I was saying is that while there may be endings that vary in the events that transpire, and the implications of the consequences of said events, in the end, the major state of the universe is the same: Reaper threat neutralized, Mass relays destroyed, Normandy crew inexplicably stranded on mystery planet. While the endings do differ in small ways, with differing long-term implications, they all are essentially the same, as they all result in identical situations.

Unless you think of it this way:

Synthesis: Use Space-Magic to preserve the Reapers in every living organism in the galaxy. Shepard sacrifices himself to do it. Reapers Win.

Control: Shepard sends the reapers away for this cycle. Shepard dies doing so. Reapers come back in the future. Reapers Win.

Destroy: Shepard tells the reapers to go fuck themselves, blows them up, supposedly dies. Shepard then wakes up on Earth, inexplicably. Reaper victory unknown, because Shepard waking up on Earth suggests that all events past Shepard leaving Earth did not actually happen.

Also:

How would Synthesis even work? ME is a franchise that tends to fall on the Science end of the Science Fiction spectrum. You can't just re-write an organism's entire DNA code, and even if you could, it wouldn't make them part synthetic. Synthesis is complete bullshit, and in no way would ever work in the real world.

How would Control work? This one makes the most sense, but still - why would a Master Remote Control Panel for the Reapers electrocute the user? Didn't Humans design this thing? Or at least build it? Someone would be bound to notice this particular (major) design flaw, and fix it.

How would Destroy work? How exactly does shooting a conduit until it explodes cause every reaper in the Galaxy to suddenly die? Reapers existed before this thing was built - it's not like they require this particular conduit to exist in order to survive.

.

Refute these points. Please. I want to know how any of the endings work. If you buy the ending at face value, I want to know how you can explain how any of the choices you make in the end would possibly work. I want to know how you justify it.

Although it in no way lived up to the expectations set forth by Bioware, I'm actually OK with the three way ending in general. The ride through the three games was really fun. The part that really pissed me off was the 'tell me another story, grandpa' shit they tagged onto the end. Completely unnecessary.

@Potts

Now you’ve done it.

Here’s why I don’t buy the indoctrination theory:

a. You didn’t think of it. In fact, 99.999 percent didn’t (I’m saying, like one dude did) come to this conclusion. Said dude came to this conclusion, put it on the internet, and then spread it around like it was too much cream cheese for the bagel he bought. If you say you did come to this conclusion on your own, and smugly sat in your chair going onto the internet to find your equally genius brethren to share and revel in your true understanding, I will call you a fucking liar. There is nothing you will be able to say to waver my conviction that you are a fucking liar, Because..

b. It’s way too elaborate. There are too many little details that blow this theory up. You really think they recorded an entire large series of dialogs with Martin Sheen, Lance Hendrickson, and Keith David, only to throw it all out and pretend it didn’t really happen? That it was all in Shepard’s head? Or that they paid these actors for this scene annndddd mooooreeeee! That’s coming on the DLC. How big is this DLC going to be? Is it really going to just explain, “Ohhh, it was all in Shepards heeaaadddd. Woooo. You may or may not have won.” That’s almost as stupid as the real ending. How does the game even actually end then? If you people are right, and destroying them is only way to not get indoctrinated, does Shepard then crawl out of the rubble, climb up to the really real citadel, and then use the Catalyst to save the day? But we don’t get to see that, because they decided to be even more clever with their deep and mysterious ending that you’re supposed to be able to puzzle out. This isn’t inception. This isn’t even Fight Club. NOBODY ELSE came to this conclusion. It’s not like people weren’t smart enough to figure it out like the above two mentioned movies, it’s that it would be impossible for anybody to come to that conclusion, especially if they picked one of the other two “bad endings” without talking about it online. People were always supposed to look on the internet and see Youtube videos of each ending so they could learn which one was the right one? Or supposed to play it multiple times to try and piece the puzzle together, always rejecting the “true” bad ending because they knew there was some kind of secret that would explain it all? You really think they were surprised that nobody would be satisfied, so they made two obviously veiled and IMPOSSIBLE to understand endings that are actually the “wrong” ending? People who don’t have the internet (somehow) or don’t care to check just don’t get to know if there is a good one, and then the conclusion dawns on them? Is this ending so brilliant that they knew people would have to talk about it to puzzle it out?

c. It’s evil. So many IT(ists?) think it’s the most daring and clever ending ever. It’s not. It’s a horrible thing done by a (potentially) horrible company. They actually made the ending so secretive that they knew the public would be so angry as to vote them the NUMBER ONE WORST COMPANY of the year, so they would finally then be able to reveal the true secret so all of the dimwits who didn’t understand it, could have their tiny idiot hands held through the truth. A shitty ending is going to be water under the bridge. It’s a videogame; nobody in the press is going to care if a videogame has a shitty ending. A video game that was created and sold for full price with NO ACTUAL ENDING; one that has to be downloaded after the game has ended, is going to make it into real news.

d. Indoctrination has never been portrayed as this. Ever. You people have literally invented some kind of deep concentrated indoctrination beam, that instantly hypnotizes Shepard into a dream sequence that he can somehow fight against, and win, if he happens to choose a certain path. Who in the game has ever struggled against indoctrination and won? Who? Everybody who says they were indoctrinated described it as a whispering in their head, gradually winning them over to the reaper way of thinking. Everybody who was indoctrinated eventually falls into it completely. Only in the end being able to break away from it for possibly one last second of redemption. People say “ohh, he was actually being indoctrinated through the whole series!!” So, through the whole series, he’s just been able to resist it completely, COMPLETELY. No sign of it? Oh, there are signs whenever you pick a naughty Shepard option. That explains why no matter how you behave you’ve been FIGHTING THE REAPERS, and KILLING THEM, through the whole series of games, only to ultimately possibly betray the galaxy.

e. What about PC users? What about people who bought the game and sold it? Too bad? PC users have to reinstall the game in order to see this DLC? Or they shouldn’t sell their game, because it’s precious and that’s not fair to EA, and blah blah blah.

If you really believe this theory, then you have to really believe that most people are supposed to have come to this conclusion on their own. You have to believe that Bioware, and EA, both believed that most people would come to this conclusion on their own, and be happy about it because they knew “the truth”, and not angry like most people who played through this game are. There is literally no way that they assumed this. No way.

I’m going to toot the fuck out of my horn; I’m a pretty bright guy, but I didn’t come anywhere NEAR this answer after having played through. As I said above, I just thought it was weird. And then like everybody else I got angry. I’m sorry; it’s just a horrible nonsensical ending. Trust me, I don’t want it to be. I WISH it wasn’t. I wish it could somehow be a good ending. But it isn’t. It’s just stupid stupid lazy shit. Ask me any question about why certain mysterious things happen at the ending sequence. The answer to all of your questions is that it’s just a stupid plot hole.

(And seriously, is there really no way to get email notifications when someone posts on a thread you want to follow? Do I really have to troll my own posts, checking periodically to see if anybody has written something on it?)

@Scofthe7seas:

So, let me get this straight.

Your main argument against IT is that there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE that corroborates it?

If you don't think it's true, that's fine. I don't care. I couldn't give two shits whether anyone else believes it or not.

But if you actually take the time to read through the evidence, it all corroborates pretty well, and does a very good job of explaining the end of the game.

.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying you're right. What I was saying with my last post is that there's something going on with that ending, and IT seems to explain it pretty well.

I also thought it was a stupid ending, and thought that something was off. I looked up on the forums and came across the IT thread, and it made a lot of sense. I didn't invent it, and never claimed to. That fact doesn't diminish it's validity as a theory. Do you call BS on the Theory of Relativity because your Physics teacher didn't come up with it?

Yes, the ending was badly executed. That doesn't mean that they don't have something up their sleeve. And for people who uninstalled or sold the game, well, that sucks for them. Boo Fucking Hoo - they'll have to reinstall the game or YouTube the ending. Me? I kept busy with multiplayer and Skyrim and Saints Row 3.

Also, I don't know about email notifications. That's why I try to "reply" or "quote" people, so they'll get a notification on GB.

I think they added gameplay of shepard being indoctrinated but they cut it out because of too many glitches. If the IT was true though it would be in the game. Plus if they put it in the game and we could control shepard after we supposedly we destroyed the reapers, half of the people would be " oh it was an indoctrination" and the other "what was the point in that."

@Potts

I have no idea where you got the notion that any of my reasoning against it was because there was too much evidence. What do you mean by that?

I have read the "evidence" about it. But my points remain. What I meant about you not thinking it, is specifically that there is absolutely no way that Bioware or EA would believe that anybody would ever come to that conclusion. Not any chance of it. That alone wrecks the possibility for that ending. The evidence you site is just not enough for anybody to pick up on in their play-through to imply it as a viable ending.

Plus, there is NO way, not ANY way they would possibly allow two of the endings to actually make you lose the game, and die. Not any way. I think that might have made people even more angry if that were an obvious explanation. As for your Boo-Hoo bullshit. This is exactly the kind of shitty, obnoxious, elitist attitude that people have about PC gamers. We exist and stupid post ending actual ending DLC is absurdly inconvenient. What if saves are deleted? Like you said, go on Youtube, and that's what I'll do, but it's still shitty. You have no idea how many WON'T go online to check into this stuff. Don't forget that this game specifically came with a multiplayer mode to appeal to the more casual gamer. These people? Aren't going to go online to see an extra ending, or figure out these theories. My brother is playing it right now. When he finishes it, he's just going to be annoyed. He won't look it up. He'll just be mad, because that's how he is. That isn't fair to casual customers. And again, to the boo-hoo attitude, fuck that, and fuck people who think that way. People paid full price for this game (which when did 65 dollars become that?!), and this is horrendous customer service.

You know what? Maybe they did intend for something like that, but there would have definitely been more, a lot more, that just isn't there. The theory can work on "could have been, should be there". The "truth" even if you're right, is that the shitty stupid ending, just IS the shitty stupid ending. :(

(this was edited because my computer blew all the way up. Had to reinstall windows, and only had IE8 when I wrote it, which this ridiculous forum setup doesn't support)

But GUYS, what about the Shepard VI?!?

@Hizang: Those are fake and the console graphics comparisons are just dumbed down so everyone will buy the wii u.

Its funny to watch people still cling to this game. Do you know what happens when EA games get a hold on a franchise? Death and a brutal one. ME3 was just a taste.

And I'm sure this new extended DLC will be equally as shit as the bloody game.

Everybody get your hats ready.. It's almost dinner time!

What future? The ME universe is dead

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

*pisses on the smoldering ruins of Bioware*

@TeflonBilly: man just making your runs on every thread toady huh?

@TeflonBilly said:

What future? The ME universe is dead

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

*pisses on the smoldering ruins of Bioware*

Dude. They just announced a new sequel. I'm tellin' ya. Search for Spoc-- er.. Shepard.

http://blog.bioware.com/2012/11/12/an-update-from-bioware-montreal/