Mass Effect Thread

[DAISHI]

The highlighted part, in my opinion, doesn't matter.

[der_ketzer]

and the destruction of the entire mass relay network

I wonder if that includes the citadel. I really liked the ending of ME1 and the things you found out about the citadel & the Keepers.

[Johro]

From reading that, I don't see how the ending is any worse than any other game. I understand that people are frustrated because they were apparently told that the past 2 games mattered and such, yet in the end, they didn't, but the actual ending isn't really THAT bad.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

However, regardless of Shepard's choice, all three endings result in Shepard's apparent death and the destruction of the entire mass relay network.

...So?

[Johro]

Some people like God endings, I suppose. I guess they should have foreshadowed it and called it Mass Effect³. Some people would've seen it coming then.

EDIT: Oh wait, the box art does look like it's "cubed". How did no one see it coming?

[DAISHI]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

...So?

Yup.

Although someone listed their reasons in a longer way.

1. The endings are extremely sad. This is a much-maligned criticism by individuals who associate depth with the perceived darkness of the endings, and that may or may not be a fair point. Regardless, it stands as obvious that many people were hoping for an ending which proffered some hope beyond that available in even the 'happiest' of endings.

2. The endings contain plotholes. The escape of the Normandy and the teleportation of her crew (including the formerly deceased) are the most obvious, but the lack of sufficient explanation regarding the Catalyst's efforts and origin also makes many of his/its motivations bizarre and unsatisfying.

3. The endings fail to fit in with the broadest themes of the series. Slightly different from 1, this criticism notes that the story of Commander Shepherd has always been a story of achieving the impossible with the help of a close crew and rigorous preparation. The endings as offered do not incorporate the crew, do not change significantly in response to your preparation, and while perhaps technically constitute doing the impossible, fail to meet even that low bar which is a solution that does not have an inevitable cross-racial holocaust and galactic dark age as its result.

4. The endings lack variety. This criticism can be directed at both the artistic and story aspects of the ending – the results of the ending decision not only vary little (at least, and this is important, on a scale which is important to our experiences in the game), but the resulting cinematics have only minor differences, and the various sub-endings result in changes so small as to be entirely unnoticeable. Consider that some way could've been contrived to make the Synthetic option differ from the Control option in a fashion greater than a change in the color of the 'light' and a different Texture for Joker in the games final seconds.

5. The mechanics of the ending are not appropriate. Without repeating the various criticisms as regards the ending closely mirroring Deus Ex's, the culmination of the story with a game-show-esque approach to saving the world very much fails to be satisfactory, especially when Mass Effect has otherwise been about the integration of choice into the experience

6. The endings lack dependency on the player's choices prior to the last five minutes. This is important, because the entire rest of Mass Effect 3 was about reacting to previous decisions; consider that, provided one is able to fill the 'war asset' bar in a satisfactory manner via some other means, the decisions in the third game serve no purpose to explain, shape, or enhance the endings. This seems contrary to the spirit of the other 95% of the experience.

7. The endings do not make sense given the character of Shepherd. As has been state elsewhere, we are playing some heroic badass who has otherwise talked down to, shrugged off, and inevitably defeated everyone who threatened, cajoled, or otherwise tried to force him to do something he didn't wish to do. In the ending to ME3, this character offers no rigorous questioning, no protests, no counter-arguments, no discussion of any kind save a resigned sort of death-march which could not be more contrary to his character. This is distressing.

8. The endings have implications, perhaps unintended, which seem to ruin the ME Universe. Admittedly, many of these implications could be avoided, but the lack of contrary evidence fosters a suspicion that these matters were either otherwise not considered, or supposed to be generally acceptable. Indeed, they might even be, but only with proper elaboration, of which there is none.

9. The endings fail to provide closure. There is, as a diagram that is floating around illustrates, no falling action. No conclusion. I do not know what happened to my squadmates – I do not, for reasons that may be bug related, even know which of them is alive. I do not know what happens to the universe, or to the people I've saved. I do not know how I'm remembered, or if any of the terrible things mentioned above actually happens. There almost could not possibly have been less information provided regarding the ending of the game, and that is incredibly distressing when the intention was to wrap up a series that had otherwise displayed all the signs of excellency and had a fond place in our hearts.

[Rather Dashing]

The only problem with the ending is what happens after you make your choice. The choice itself is fine. The endings being differentiated largely by what color of light fills the screen is a cop-out, and the final cutscene should have shown some drastic changes based on which choice you made, showing a few consequences for the people who lived in your game and other long-term consequences for choices made throughout the trilogy. Death of the main character, destruction of the Mass Relay network, the workings of the Crucible, these things are perfectly fine. The only issue with the ending is that it doesn't show various permutations, so it doesn't feel like player choice made a powerful consequence. The ending should have done a Fallout-style checkup on various civilizations and other people.

All the same, everything about the ending itself up to the actual choice makes sense and is actually really good and solid. The ending cutscene itself is problematic in that you choose a color of light and affect a couple other very small cosmetic changes, even with the "middle road" option which should look far more drastically different than it does, but the idea behind the ending is something I wholly support. I wonder how many people are stumbling around saying "THE ENDING SUCKS IT'S SO OBVIOUS" and agreeing with each other when their reasoning itself is drastically different from that of the next fellow over.

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

...So?

So what Shepard was always fighting for - peace and co-existence - is negated after 100+ hours of the game by a suddenly appearing, god-like creature, the literal deus ex machina. Regardless of your impressive efforts to unite the galaxy's forces in light of the threat, the creature does not want to understand that co-existence is possible. Instead, for ludicrous reasons, it pressures three choices on you to decide the galaxy's fate. The creature obviously has the power to execute every single one of these choices with a snap of its fingers, but seems unable or unwilling to take the responsibility for these choices itself. One is genocide, one is about complete enslavement and one is about a forced amalgamation of races. Your "choice" hardly matters, changes a short sequence before the credits and seems to result in the destruction of space travel either way.

[dahoughtonuk]

All three endings are basically palette swap, and in the end it is a fractured tale, told by a civilisation in the dark ages?

So it's one ending. Hell if these had been a part of a true set of endings no-one would complain.

My hopes were

Hope for the future - Earth and civilisation is saved,and the reapers have retreated for now. Shepard has moved from annoyance to massive problem. But Reapers are beatable, and believed in in
Sacrifice - Civilization saved, but at least humanity fallen and Shepard dead. Reapers also retreated.
Shot in the Dark- Loss but more knowledge added to the beacons
Cycle Unbroken The Reapers win.

These are all better than-

complete destruction of civilisation, if the ending isn't in truth the last one above.

So basically letting the reapers win is a better ending than the canon one.

[Johro]

Games don't always have bad endings, but when they do, they prefer deus ex machina.
Stay shitty, video games.

[DAISHI]

The deus ex machina is a valid criticism to a degree, but the dark ending is not. At all. Author's do have the right to pen an ending.

[dahoughtonuk]

Few of us minded having a deus ex-machina, a plot coupon was going to be needed, but the way it was done did not make sense. Especially considering the darkness of the endings

If you wanted a dark ending don't give us a Deus ex-machina. let the reapers win. Much easier, and more valid.

You didn't need the Deus ex-machina for a depressing ending. It was not necessary. You only need that for a more positive ending.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

So what Shepard was always fighting for - peace and co-existence - is negated after 100+ hours of the game by a suddenly appearing, god-like creature, the literal deus ex machina. Regardless of your impressive efforts to unite the galaxy's forces in light of the threat, the creature will not understand that co-existence is possible. Instead, for ludicrous reasons, it pressures three choices on you to decide the galaxy's fate. One is genocide, one is about complete enslavement and one is about a forced amalgamation of races. Your choice hardly matters and seems to result in the destruction of space travel either way.

"Literal Deus Ex Machina" is catchy, but from a structural perspective the "God Child" does not exhibit the values of a Deus Ex Machina. As you recall, the Crucible itself has been the galaxy-spanning super device that we've been building up to this point. That a VI based on the Reaper's creators is at its core doesn't really change that we've been set on a trajectory to push 2-3 buttons the entire way through.

What does the God Child do to solve all problems that isn't explained by the previous moments? This "God Child" doesn't come out of nowhere, it is an expression of the Crucible. The Crucible is something that has existed for thousands of cycles, so Reaper Builders being at its core makes sense. You finish it by getting a fleet together, attacking the Reapers, and opening the Citadel. Everything the Illusive man has said has come down to you being able to chose between destroying the Reapers and controlling them. A Deus Ex Machina has to come out of essentially nowhere, but the VI child is the culmination of all of your efforts in the game up to this point.

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by DAISHI

The deus ex machina is a valid criticism to a degree, but the dark ending is not. At all. Author's do have the right to pen an ending.

Dark endings are OK, of course. You have to be careful what you're throwing in here, though, and that's a basic problem in writing video game endings. The complete and miraculous victory is a stereotype, but one that renders satisfaction to the gamer who has worked more than a hundred hours towards finding a solution to the problem. In this case, the complete victory wasn't possible any more. They could have left the player with the satisfaction to have saved the universe, although at massive costs. Not the best ending from the storyteller's view, but definitely one the protagonist tried to achieve.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

Dark endings are OK, of course. You have to be careful what you're throwing in here, though, and that's a basic problem in writing video game endings. The complete and miraculous victory is a stereotype, but one that renders satisfaction to the gamer who has worked more than a hundred hours towards finding a solution to the problem. In this case, the complete victory wasn't possible any more. They could have left the player with the satisfaction to have saved the universe, although at massive costs. Not the best ending from the storyteller's view, but definitely one the protagonist tried to achieve.

All three endings meet the criteria for being victory at a great cost.

[dahoughtonuk]

No they don;'t. All three endings are a greater defeat than just letting the reapers win.
Civilisation utterly destroyed never to rise again?

Reapers beaten at great cost is a valid ending. But what we got was fracture fairy tale at best.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by dahoughtonuk

No they don;'t. All three endings are a greater defeat than just letting the reapers win.

Yes they do. All three options break the cycle.

[dahoughtonuk]

You only have the catalyste i(reaper AI) word for that. Sorry can't trust him. But civilisation utterly destroyed never to rise again can be trusted due to the last ending, assuming the entirety is not just a tall tale.

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

A Deus Ex Machina has to come out of essentially nowhere, but the VI child is the culmination of all of your efforts in the game up to this point.

The hero attempts to save the universe, the attempt fails, a god-like creature appears that hasn't said a word before and essentially solves the situation for the hero. That's Deus Ex Machina without a doubt.

It was of course clear from the beginning of ME3 that they were building a machine with an unknown purpose. They weren't building the god from the machine though. That one's always been there and has been orchestrating all these cycles of almost-genocide as his "solution" to preventing complete genocide (?!?).

[DAISHI]

You know what I really dislike about the ending? The game essentially makes you play multiplayer to get the better version since it adds so much to war assets. I hate multiplayer.