Do you think the ending to Mass Effect 3 sucked?

[Ares]

Discuss.

 

[Novak]

The whole game sucked but the ending sucked even more. Horrible. Worst ending to a game EVER probs.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I didn't even finish it. Game was horrible.

 

[Novak]

So the poll shows almost everyone in agreement that mass effect 3 sucked eggs. This is interesting..

 

[HighJump31]

I didn't play the game immediately when it came out, so I missed the original infamous ending. The first time I beat it, I had all the DLC downloaded.

So this is my opinion, with all the DLC included. I thought the game was great and it was the best Mass Effect game out of the three. If you like story, the Leviathan DLC was awesome. If you wanted some personal closure with each character, the Citadel DLC was a great capstone for the trilogy. The From Ashes DLC, which added Javik, was great as long as you kept Javik in your squad at all times. His unique dialogue was one of the more fascinating parts of the game. Loved Mordin's ending. Loved the Tali/Legion ending. Loved all the old characters making comebacks in the DLC.

For the ending itself, I was ok with it. I would have liked more closure with what happened to Shepard. I know that if your EMS is high enough, he (or she) lives. But I want to see what happens after the camera goes to black when he (or she) takes that breath at the end. I was alright with the pick-a-color or shoot Starchild. Each one represented the overlaying ideas throughout the series.

As for why I think it's the best of the three- the gameplay mechanics totally destroy ME1 and ME2. Go back and play ME1 and see how terrible the gunplay and powers are. ME3 was such a comfortable third person shooter. ME1 and ME2 might have better overall stories, but when it comes down to it, the game has to have gameplay that feels responsive and natural. I do prefer ME1's inventory and leveling system the most. ME2's was absolute horseshit. ME3 had the best weapons and powers.

TL;DR- No, I like colors.

 

[botfly10]

lol, this thread

Personally loved ME3. Thought it could have been better but also love it as it is.

 

[Ares]

The question is about the ending specifically.... the game as a whole was fun.... I made alot of choices.... then I talked to some weird starchild and picked a color.... that part was lame.

 

[remydat]

I suppose the answer to that question is a matter of what one thought they were getting from the series. To me the series was never about the ending but the journey that took place along the way. I was far more emotionally invested in the decisions made along the way than I was about the actual mechanism by which you end up defeating the Reapers. To me the whole trilogy stands as my all time favorite series. So I was perfectly fine with the original ending to the trilogy because by that point I had resolution to all the major plot points and the ending flowed logically from all the decisions I made leading up to it.

Destroy - In playthroughs where I resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict peacefully, it was clear this would never be an option as my Shepard had worked too hard trying to erase the mistakes of countless generations and cycles before me and in getting the Geth and Quarians to resolve their differences had proven to organics, synthetics, Starchild and the Reapers that we could collectively resolve our differences without the Reapers. So this option was only ever a consideration in playthroughs where the Geth were eliminated which were a minority of my playthroughs.

So then for the majority of my playthroughs, the decision boiled down to control vs synthesis which ultimately depended on what I considered the greater evil. Playing god by serving as overseer to the galaxy and risk being corrupted by that kind of power or playing god by fundamentally changing the DNA of everyone in the galaxy in the hopes that by doing so it would end the conflict. Ultimately I tended to side with the latter option only because I don't think anyone should wield the power that control offers.

So to me the decisions seemed fairly consistent with the overall themes throughout the course of the trilogy. Ultimately, I think a lot of people wanted an ending they felt in complete control of ie a resolution that didn't involve Star Child. However, given the scope of what we faced, a God like techno-organic entity that had essentially defeated synthetics and organics for billions of years, I never expected it to be a clean win and once I understood the Reapers actual purpose and programing, I thought it made sense that ultimately you didn't defeat the Reapers outright so much as your actions led to the Star Child coming to the realization that his solution was no longer the most optimal solution. I don't think you were every going to defeat God when he had a 13 billion year head start on you so the point was to get God to realize he erred in not trusting you to resolve your own problems.

 

[botfly10]

The question is about the ending specifically.... the game as a whole was fun.... I made alot of choices.... then I talked to some weird starchild and picked a color.... that part was lame.

Why so fixated on the colors? Each of the 3 decisions had different consequences. Not sure why the colors cause a blockage. And the "starchild" was just an interface for the citadel, no different then the conduit at the end of ME1. Don't see what the big deal is.

My problem with the end has nothing to do with that stuff. Here is what I thought could have been better:

1. Play through the final battle rather then be totally removed from it
2. better, more natural, "goodbye" scene with companions, especially with romanced companion
3. more detail in the epilogue

 

[botfly10]

I suppose the answer to that question is a matter of what one thought they were getting from the series. To me the series was never about the ending but the journey that took place along the way. I was far more emotionally invested in the decisions made along the way than I was about the actual mechanism by which you end up defeating the Reapers. To me the whole trilogy stands as my all time favorite series. So I was perfectly fine with the original ending to the trilogy because by that point I had resolution to all the major plot points and the ending flowed logically from all the decisions I made leading up to it.

Destroy - In playthroughs where I resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict peacefully, it was clear this would never be an option as my Shepard had worked too hard trying to erase the mistakes of countless generations and cycles before me and in getting the Geth and Quarians to resolve their differences had proven to organics, synthetics, Starchild and the Reapers that we could collectively resolve our differences without the Reapers. So this option was only ever a consideration in playthroughs where the Geth were eliminated which were a minority of my playthroughs.

So then for the majority of my playthroughs, the decision boiled down to control vs synthesis which ultimately depended on what I considered the greater evil. Playing god by serving as overseer to the galaxy and risk being corrupted by that kind of power or playing god by fundamentally changing the DNA of everyone in the galaxy in the hopes that by doing so it would end the conflict. Ultimately I tended to side with the latter option only because I don't think anyone should wield the power that control offers.

So to me the decisions seemed fairly consistent with the overall themes throughout the course of the trilogy. Ultimately, I think a lot of people wanted an ending they felt in complete control of ie a resolution that didn't involve Star Child. However, given the scope of what we faced, a God like techno-organic entity that had essentially defeated synthetics and organics for billions of years, I never expected it to be a clean win and once I understood the Reapers actual purpose and programing, I thought it made sense that ultimately you didn't defeat the Reapers outright so much as your actions led to the Star Child coming to the realization that his solution was no longer the most optimal solution. I don't think you were every going to defeat God when he had a 13 billion year head start on you so the point was to get God to realize he erred in not trusting you to resolve your own problems.

Agree almost totally with this post. Especially the journey sentiment.

As far as which choice...

Well, there was a shit-ton of foreshadowing throughout the whole series.

Imo, the there was lots of momentum leading to these events:

Shepard was probably going to die
Shepard was gonna have to choose for the universe, one way or another
And that for the destructive cycle of synthetic vs biotic to end, some sort of synthesis had to occur.

The narrative was quite clear about how as civilization advances, ai is eventually created and conflict with said AI eventually leads to end of the civilization.

To me, the synthesis option represented a lynchpin or turning point, an evolutionary leap where the conflict between synthetic and biotic is solved by merging and establishing a new web of life. As remy said, the entire geth storyline basically foreshadows this, as well as the arachnid queen thing storyline.

 

[botfly10]

Also, here is a great video about choice in video games:

[video=youtube;45PdtGDGhac]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45PdtGDGhac[/video]

 

[botfly10]

The real question about the end of ME3 is why or how did it break the illusion of choice for so many players?

 

[remydat]

Shepard was probably going to die
Shepard was gonna have to choose for the universe, one way or another
And that for the destructive cycle of synthetic vs biotic to end, some sort of synthesis had to occur.

The narrative was quite clear about how as civilization advances, ai is eventually created and conflict with said AI eventually leads to end of the civilization.

To me, the synthesis option represented a lynchpin or turning point, an evolutionary leap where the conflict between synthetic and biotic is solved by merging and establishing a new web of life. As remy said, the entire geth storyline basically foreshadows this, as well as the arachnid queen thing storyline.

Yeah I never got why people were hung up on Shepard living as I always assumed given the threat that he was most certainly going to die and frankly should die from a narrative standpoint.

And yes the organic/synthetic conflict is really no different than the conflict that has plagued humanity since the dawn of civilization and boils down to how we define us vs them. We have a penchant for recognizing the differences between each other and in so doing dehumanizing those that aren't us ie them. Synthetic life in the end just represents the most extreme form of this dichotomy as the bourgeoisie (organics) creating their own grave diggers with the synthetics representing the proletariat ie mere tools of labor. In that context synthesis was the most obvious solution although it still doesn't guarantee that a Krogan-synthetic hybrid won't find some reason to beef with a Salarian-synthetic hybrid. Although synthesis allows them to at least compete on a somewhat even playing field because it eliminates the advantage of the exponential capacity for learning that a pure synthetic had over a pure organic.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I suppose the answer to that question is a matter of what one thought they were getting from the series. To me the series was never about the ending but the journey that took place along the way. I was far more emotionally invested in the decisions made along the way than I was about the actual mechanism by which you end up defeating the Reapers. To me the whole trilogy stands as my all time favorite series. So I was perfectly fine with the original ending to the trilogy because by that point I had resolution to all the major plot points and the ending flowed logically from all the decisions I made leading up to it.

Destroy - In playthroughs where I resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict peacefully, it was clear this would never be an option as my Shepard had worked too hard trying to erase the mistakes of countless generations and cycles before me and in getting the Geth and Quarians to resolve their differences had proven to organics, synthetics, Starchild and the Reapers that we could collectively resolve our differences without the Reapers. So this option was only ever a consideration in playthroughs where the Geth were eliminated which were a minority of my playthroughs.

So then for the majority of my playthroughs, the decision boiled down to control vs synthesis which ultimately depended on what I considered the greater evil. Playing god by serving as overseer to the galaxy and risk being corrupted by that kind of power or playing god by fundamentally changing the DNA of everyone in the galaxy in the hopes that by doing so it would end the conflict. Ultimately I tended to side with the latter option only because I don't think anyone should wield the power that control offers.

So to me the decisions seemed fairly consistent with the overall themes throughout the course of the trilogy. Ultimately, I think a lot of people wanted an ending they felt in complete control of ie a resolution that didn't involve Star Child. However, given the scope of what we faced, a God like techno-organic entity that had essentially defeated synthetics and organics for billions of years, I never expected it to be a clean win and once I understood the Reapers actual purpose and programing, I thought it made sense that ultimately you didn't defeat the Reapers outright so much as your actions led to the Star Child coming to the realization that his solution was no longer the most optimal solution. I don't think you were every going to defeat God when he had a 13 billion year head start on you so the point was to get God to realize he erred in not trusting you to resolve your own problems.

Can you please summarize?

 

[botfly10]

Sorry for the spam, but this is my thought on how the "starchild" broke the illusion of choice at the end of ME3.

At the end of the day, the starchild was really just an exposition device.

Thats it really. Just a device for delivering a whole bunch of information very quickly. And as is well established, exposition tends to be the worst way to transmit info or narrative without breaking immersion and generally makes it less likely the player will care about the info than through other delivery methods.

The real solution would have been an additional 5-10 hours added to the game in which the player discovers all the same information but through gameplay. Through a gradual, interactive acquisition of the lead-up information, players would have felt much more connected to the final choice. The inevitability and restrictiveness of the end would have been much better disguised and the illusion probably much stronger. Through the clever design bioware has repeatedly demonstrated, they could have bread crumbed the player up to that point much more gradually and naturally so the experience wasn't so jarring and dismembered from the rest of the narrative arc.

 

[botfly10]

Yeah I never got why people were hung up on Shepard living as I always assumed given the threat that he was most certainly going to die and frankly should die from a narrative standpoint.

And yes the organic/synthetic conflict is really no different than the conflict that has plagued humanity since the dawn of civilization and boils down to how we define us vs them. We have a penchant for recognizing the differences between each other and in so doing dehumanizing those that aren't us ie them. Synthetic life in the end just represents the most extreme form of this dichotomy as the bourgeoisie (organics) creating their own grave diggers with the synthetics representing the proletariat ie mere tools of labor. In that context synthesis was the most obvious solution although it still doesn't guarantee that a Krogan-synthetic hybrid won't find some reason to beef with a Salarian-synthetic hybrid. Although synthesis allows them to at least compete on a somewhat even playing field because it eliminates the advantage of the exponential capacity for learning that a pure synthetic had over a pure organic.

I think the self vs the other is a core theme of the whole series. I personally saw a synthesis type scenario coming from a long way off.

Also, I think a lot of people that have a problem with the ending actually have a problem dealing with Shepard's death. So many people had such a real emotional connection with shep, I think a lot could not process his death and rejected it. To me, it was a testament to the success of the series that Shep's death was so goddamn momentous.

As far as joining synthetics and biotics, you mention the advantage of limitless learning of knowledge of synthetics. The advantage of biotics was emotional awareness and intuition. Like you said, synthesis unites those advantages into what I interpreted as a higher life form (of many species).

 

[Ares]

Why so fixated on the colors? Each of the 3 decisions had different consequences. Not sure why the colors cause a blockage. And the "starchild" was just an interface for the citadel, no different then the conduit at the end of ME1. Don't see what the big deal is.

My problem with the end has nothing to do with that stuff. Here is what I thought could have been better:

1. Play through the final battle rather then be totally removed from it
2. better, more natural, "goodbye" scene with companions, especially with romanced companion
3. more detail in the epilogue

Yeah all 3 of those would have made a start for a better ending.

Nothing about the final battle really mattered.... you make a choice and it results in virtually the same video showing the relays getting blown by a different colored energy... the similarity in how the endings played out after your make your choice coupled with how little anything you did affected the final battle or the overall fate of the galaxy made the ending feel extremely linear.

ME1 and ME2 had real obvious consequences for how you played through the game.... especially ME2.... how you played and what choices you made directly influenced your final battles and who survived the mission and what happened to the Collectors.... in ME3 you get to the final battle and you do not truly influence it, then you get on to a linear path where each choice results in a different colored video that looks and feels the exact same. You can lie to yourself and feel like you made a difference with that final "choice" but how did it truly impact the ending you saw?

[video=youtube;rPelM2hwhJA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA[/video]

 

[botfly10]

Yeah all 3 of those would have made a start for a better ending.

Nothing about the final battle really mattered.... you make a choice and it results in virtually the same video showing the relays getting blown by a different colored energy... the similarity in how the endings played out after your make your choice coupled with how little anything you did affected the final battle or the overall fate of the galaxy made the ending feel extremely linear.

ME1 and ME2 had real obvious consequences for how you played through the game.... especially ME2.... how you played and what choices you made directly influenced your final battles and who survived the mission and what happened to the Collectors.... in ME3 you get to the final battle and you do not truly influence it, then you get on to a linear path where each choice results in a different colored video that looks and feels the exact same. You can lie to yourself and feel like you made a difference with that final "choice" but how did it truly impact the ending you saw?

[video=youtube;rPelM2hwhJA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA[/video]

Its not true though. The affect of your choices on the end of the ME1 and ME2 are almost total illusions. Both games end in the same place, the same way no matter what. The only real difference any choices created was whether some of your crew died at the end of ME2. But even then, the core narrative was the same.

The real mastery of ME1 and 2 is not the amount of choice, but how well they maintained the illusion. Which again, is where the end of ME3 failed. It broke the illusion of choice for too many people.

 

[Ares]

Even if you didn't hate the ending.... watch dis.... lulzy if nothing else

[video=youtube;4H_A7SeawU4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_A7SeawU4[/video]

 

[Ares]

Its not true though. The affect of your choices on the end of the ME1 and ME2 are almost total illusions. Both games end in the same place, the same way no matter what. The only real difference any choices created was whether some of your crew died at the end of ME2. But even then, the core narrative was the same.

The real mastery of ME1 and 2 is not the amount of choice, but how well they maintained the illusion. Which again, is where the end of ME3 failed. It broke the illusion of choice for too many people.

So that is why it sucked.... happy? You are not making me like their shitty ending any more....

And I do agree... its all illusion of choice and they did it masterfully in ME1 and ME2.... and failed miserably in ME3.