User Avatar Image

Mass Effect Thread

posted by WARP10CK on - last edited - Viewed by 3.7K users

WARNING SPOILERS FOR MASS EFFECT 3

Just finished Mass Effect 3 and was having a great time until the last 5 minutes of the game.

The ending you get is probably the most depressing ending and since this is mass effect that´s probably the bad ending right ?

Nope all the endings are almost identical no matter what you do and the outrage on biowares forums are huge.

I would not mind a sad ending but there is no explanation to what happened this is the gaming equivalent to the sopranos ending.

Nothing is really resolved and there is not even an epilogue.

Oh well just look at biowares forums then you know

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/category/355/index

359 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @KuroShiro said: That 5 minute sequence in ME2 was more than enough, thanks. :p

    I have to agree on that.

  • @Alcoremortis said: Honestly, if the choice is between Mordin and the entire Krogan race... fuck the Krogans, I'm keeping Mordin. When I play ME3, I plan to have him and Garrus flanking my alien-loving Femshep as she fights her way to the universe's demise.

    Sadly, Mordin still won't come with Shep, if I remember correctly. And what ends up happening is that you convince Mordin to not cure the genophage yet, and if Wrex is still alive, he finds out, gets pissed, and you'll have no choice but to kill him.

  • I haven't played ME3 yet. I have played ME2, loved it, but never finished it. If the complaint is that the ending sucks, well....endings to video games suck more often than not. I still have nightmares of spending all week beating the NES game 1942 only to have it just give me a black screen with "CONGRATULATION" written in tiny font on the center, and then back to title screen. Or the horrendously bad "ending" in the otherwise decent budget title Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened. And Final Fantasy VII had a great story, but the ending to that was pretty controversial also.

    However, it seems like the developers were actively promoting the game as having many wildly different endings that are depending on the many decisions your character has made during the course of the trilogy and DLC. It really was kind of a big selling point for the series. (see this thread for details). Apparently there are only three different endings, with minimal differences? And the only important decisions that affect it are near the very end of the game? Regardless of the quality of the actual ending, that doesn't seem right.

    This all kind of reminds me of Neon Genesis Evangelion, actually. The studio was rushed and short of money and the director was having a nervous breakdown, so the final two episodes ended up being an incoherent mess that had little relation to the episodes that preceded it, which left viewers going "Huh? That was it? WTF just happened?" Of course, the demand for the series was so high and the complaints were so vitriolic that he eventually made the movie The End of Evangelion as an alternate ending. The movie was also bizarre, but it felt like a more appropriate conclusion that fit in with the rest of the series.

  • EA probably rushed Bioware to finish the game I'd wager.

    Because the more I think about it, the more the ending doesn't seem to fit.

    Maybe they planned it all along. Rush that game out; see how people react to the ending, then if its too negative, convince EA to let them change it as DLC.
    (The writers must surely of had several different endings in the pipeline, just in case)

    Scheduling is everything these days. Artistic intergrity doesn't mean diddly squat if the game has to be finished by X date. Cuts are made. Placeholders can become final. Things are cancelled outright.

    Its worse on large-scale projects since the huge teams tend to hemmorage money for a company the longer they stall.

    EDIT: I just kind of feel that its not like Bioware to just turn around and change the ending, unless they already knew how people would have reacted, and had put resources by in preperation to work on it.

  • @Shadowknight1 said: Sadly, Mordin still won't come with Shep, if I remember correctly. And what ends up happening is that you convince Mordin to not cure the genophage yet, and if Wrex is still alive, he finds out, gets pissed, and you'll have no choice but to kill him.

    Aww.

    This makes me sad. I always took Mordin everywhere with me just for the comments. Oh, and because he could one-hit kill Harbingers. That too.

  • http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/mass-effect-3-ending-what-do-game-writers-think/

    Some interesting points there.

    Steve Gaynor's bit kind of bugs me:

    “There’s great value in thinking about the story of a game as a collaboration between the player and the developers. In the collision of fiction and game mechanics, my experience of a game is never exactly the same as yours; the more systemic and divergent the results of the player’s contribution, the better. Much of the player’s experience of Deus Ex or Skyrim is the story of how the player played that game, and how they shaped the gameworld to express themselves; the experience of Minecraft is entirely that. It’s incredibly powerful.

    But things like “cutscenes” and “endings” are completely authored by the developers, and the developers altering the authored content of a game after the fact has nothing to do with the systemic player-developer collaboration described above. It’s no different than a movie or book being released and, upon fan outrage, being edited and re-released to pander to the most vocal dissenters in the audience. It’s not unique to games; it is unique to a certain type of entertainment media that attracts fans who feel entitled to dictate exactly how the product should bend to their desires, instead of standing as a unique experience to be enjoyed, or not, on its own merits.”

    Should there really be such a distinction, artistically, between the interactive and non-interactive segments of a game? Something about that feels wrong, though I'm having trouble coming up with a specific point against it.

    Also I think Chuck Jordan missed the point of the backlash against direct control. :| Or at least, what he perceived as being the main argument against it doesn't gel with what my argument against it was. Oh well. Still stings to be included in a point which boils down to "guess fan feedback is worthless sometimes, haha"

  • @RetroVortex said: EA probably rushed Bioware to finish the game I'd wager.

    Because the more I think about it, the more the ending doesn't seem to fit.

    Maybe they planned it all along. Rush that game out; see how people react to the ending, then if its too negative, convince EA to let them change it as DLC.
    (The writers must surely of had several different endings in the pipeline, just in case)

    Scheduling is everything these days. Artistic intergrity doesn't mean diddly squat if the game has to be finished by X date. Cuts are made. Placeholders can become final. Things are cancelled outright.

    Its worse on large-scale projects since the huge teams tend to hemmorage money for a company the longer they stall.

    EDIT: I just kind of feel that its not like Bioware to just turn around and change the ending, unless they already knew how people would have reacted, and had put resources by in preperation to work on it.


    Yeah, that was always my impression, it was rushed. I presume EA didn't want to delay it, so they rushed the ending so it would be ready in time to print. It explains the lack of choice inclusion(Let's face it, taking into account a good couple of choices from the trilogy would take quite a lot of time to implement) and also the palette swap endings.

  • @LuigiHann said: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/mass-effect-3-ending-what-do-game-writers-think/

    Some interesting points there.

    Steve Gaynor's bit kind of bugs me:

    Should there really be such a distinction, artistically, between the interactive and non-interactive segments of a game? Something about that feels wrong, though I'm having trouble coming up with a specific point against it.

    Also I think Chuck Jordan missed the point of the backlash against direct control. :| Or at least, what he perceived as being the main argument against it doesn't gel with what my argument against it was. Oh well. Still stings to be included in a point which boils down to "guess fan feedback is worthless sometimes, haha"

    That's not what it boils down to really. It's just, if the authors wanted all three endings to be negative, they're all going to be negative. They can revamp the choices and make it more robust, but changing the ending because people don't like it robs the authors of control.

  • I guess it's just like, don't you agree to give up some control when you decide to make a video game instead of a film or a novel? If you allow your players to decide what sort of person they want their character to be, shouldn't that choice be reflected in some way even in the non-interactive portions of the game?

    Also, the Chuck Jordan point I was making was more of an aside

  • @LuigiHann said: I guess it's just like, don't you agree to give up some control when you decide to make a video game instead of a film or a novel? If you allow your players to decide what sort of person they want their character to be, shouldn't that choice be reflected in some way even in the non-interactive portions of the game?

    Also, the Chuck Jordan point I was making was more of an aside

    I think with a videogame its different, because its interactive.
    The devs and the gamer have to work in harmony with each other, to create the best experience.

    Mass Effect 3's ending is bad because it forces the control away from the player.

    Now in Bioshock its different. That control is taken away, but the game doesn't give you investment (or illusion of investment in this case...) at the level Mass Effect does, (its very linear), so a player tends to feel a little less cheated.
    The signs that it would happen were subtle, but they were there, so in reflection, the player goes "oh right. That makes sense now".

    In Mass Effect 3, its not there. Its kind of a "big lipped aligator" moment. Its alienates the audience, and considering the huge build-up, its understandable that the player feels betrayed, feel like all their effort was pointless, because Bioware flipped the table, or just screwed the rules because they had money.

    Now again, Metal Gear Solid series is different. The game tells you exactly how its going to be from the start.
    Its going to take control away from you alot. Its going to play out like a film for most of it. Heck! It starts like a film!

    Transparency is important. Sure a story can be unpredictable, themes can change at any time, but without the right cue, then its going to leave the audience confused.
    There has to be some context, some understanding.

    All the gameplay context, the decisions you make, the actions you do to prepare yourself for the conclusion, are just made completely irrelevant.

    Hell, after seeing the ending for myself, I don't even want to go and buy and eventually play Mass Effect 3.

    I've been spoiled on 1 and 2 before, but I still WANT to play those games.
    The endings are satisfying by themselves. The gameplay is not the focus point of the game. Its there to let the story sink in, and provide the player with a goal to progress to the next "chapter" as it were.

    EA/Bioware dropped the ball in thinking people would ever seriously care about changes to the gameplay.
    Multiplayer? It was not necessary in the first two, and it still isn't.
    Put that in a seperate game where its designed to have its own significance, don't just tack it onto this game.

    All that effort and resources wasted in working on the multiplayer, could have been put into making sure Mass Effect 3 works by itself, and concludes that contract between the player and the dev with satisfactory results on both sides.

Add Comment