Mass Effect 3 Ending, opinions and feelings?
- Thread starter Flecktarn92
- Start date
Kerr Avon
Master Member
How is it not accurate though? The game itself may have been fantastic, enjoyable, sheer excitement, much like all the hot and heavy action. But then, the climax is the peak of both activities, and if it results in a pretty woman vomitting on you, that'd sour the entire experience. Games with bad endings are like that. You're not going to be able to forget how badly it all ended, it'll always be in your mind how that ended.
Chronos
Sr Member
There's a big difference though. A movie is set in stone and it is how it is (unless you're George Lucas...). With the game, it's Bioware's narrative, but it's supposed to be the player's story by their own admission. In addition, a movie costs like $10, a game costs $50-60. I expect it to be good for that price. I want things to make sense. What they did was great up until the end, then they feed us some BS that makes no sense at the end. It's like they couldn't figure out how to end it, then just made something nonsensical.
On the point of the FTC thing, that is ridiculous.
I'm not angry at all, just disappointed that they came up with such a lame ending. It doesn't help when you come in here and insult people though either. If you liked the ending, great, just don't come in here and call people childish and nerds. Unless I'm wrong this is a discussion of this exact topic, in case you missed the header.
booksandcorsets
Sr Member
Here's a blurb from the BioShock creator about this: BioShock creator saddened by Mass Effect 3 controversy - GameSpot.com
I partly agree with him. I think the main thing people wanted was just an ending that made sense. As far as I'm concerned they can keep it how it is and let it be known as the worst series ending in gaming history. If the ME team is fine with that, so am I.
I partly agree with him. I think the main thing people wanted was just an ending that made sense. As far as I'm concerned they can keep it how it is and let it be known as the worst series ending in gaming history. If the ME team is fine with that, so am I.
After going over several walkthroughs and bits of details regarding quests I couldn't complete and areas I didn't explore, part of me firmly believes the this game was a rushed product that suffered from two critical areas. The staff is largely different and the game has this pretty big imprint that it's designed to work for new gamers even in imports.
Evidence of being rushed
Scale
While the original Mass Effect had what many gamers called a dreaded driving sequence in the game, it did offer some distinct advantages to the game on it's own. For one thing it gave the worlds you visited a sizable scale rather than being restricted to a one-building setting. Noveria, Illos and even the side quest planets all offered a variety of different locals that were both expansive and interactive. ME2, while no longer essential parts of the game play, did have the free hammer head DLC, and incorporated it flawlessly into the "Project Overlord" DLC. In ME3, it's just a plain shooter.
Hubs
Probably the biggest missing piece of game play element was the variety of worlds Shepard could visit and actually interact with in a non-combat way. In ME2, there was Omega, Illium, the Citadel and the Shadow Broker base. All of these different locations offered quests, different shops and unique characters. In ME3, you only have the Citadel and stores that you don't even need to visit thanks to Cortez's shop on the Normandy. Plus putting everything on the Citadel can make things annoyingly crowded, which brings us to...
Mission System
Someone from the previous two games who knew how to make the mission tracking work obviously didnt return for this game, because the system is quite different in ME3, and none of it is better. To say that this system that keeps tracks of your mission progress is inferior to the previous systems is a gross understatement. I would say it's broken. When you accept quests from NPCs, it lists only the planet that the goal is located on where as in ME1 and ME2 it would list the cluster, solar system and planet. I had to look online just to finish half the quests. I didn't need to do that for ME1-2. And the fact that a vast majority of quests are handed to you on the Citadel either through direct contact or hearing some conversation makes finishing the quests a daunting task.
Characters and Plot elements that have been downsized or ignored
- Harbinger, a very vocal antagonist who was responsible for all the bad things that happened in ME2 is only rarely mentioned and doesn't have one line of dialogue in the whole game.
- Morinth, a former evil squad mate makes a return in the game's end not as a unique character that Shepard recognizes, but as a regular banshee with a simple name change and no dialogue.
- Hannah Shepard, Shepard's mother is only mentioned and has no speaking part. I LOVED her in ME1....
- Dark Matter Sun. During Tali's recruitment mission, she notes that the system's sun has been going through a lot of unnatural changes that shouldn't be happening. Several hints about how big of a deal this is are heard before and after Tali's trail, but it's never brought up again in ME3.
- The significance of saving/destroying the Collector Base. Only a 10 point difference in war assets.
- Shiala, a character who if spared in ME1, receives help from Shepard again in ME2 (with some hint at being a potential LI) is reduced to an email and war asset number.
- Rachni, a race of beings who Shepard could spare in ME1, swear to stand by and fight along side you should the time of war come in ME2, and only appear once in ME3 needing rescue AGAIN. After that, they're simply an asset number who are never seen nor mentioned again.
- Elcor tanks. Freaking let down of the year. The Elcor ambassador gives Shepard a quest to help evacuate his home world, but for some reason has you probe his home world's moon for an artifact instead. Despite how awesome canon mounted Elcor sounds, they are never seen nor mentioned in the final battle.
- Tali's face. Take comfort in knowing that BioWare dedicated more time and resources in bringing Jessica Chobot to life than putting in an ounce of work into Tali's face.
- Emily Wong. Death by twitter. Never seen nor mentioned in the entire game.
Evidence of being rushed
Scale
While the original Mass Effect had what many gamers called a dreaded driving sequence in the game, it did offer some distinct advantages to the game on it's own. For one thing it gave the worlds you visited a sizable scale rather than being restricted to a one-building setting. Noveria, Illos and even the side quest planets all offered a variety of different locals that were both expansive and interactive. ME2, while no longer essential parts of the game play, did have the free hammer head DLC, and incorporated it flawlessly into the "Project Overlord" DLC. In ME3, it's just a plain shooter.
Hubs
Probably the biggest missing piece of game play element was the variety of worlds Shepard could visit and actually interact with in a non-combat way. In ME2, there was Omega, Illium, the Citadel and the Shadow Broker base. All of these different locations offered quests, different shops and unique characters. In ME3, you only have the Citadel and stores that you don't even need to visit thanks to Cortez's shop on the Normandy. Plus putting everything on the Citadel can make things annoyingly crowded, which brings us to...
Mission System
Someone from the previous two games who knew how to make the mission tracking work obviously didnt return for this game, because the system is quite different in ME3, and none of it is better. To say that this system that keeps tracks of your mission progress is inferior to the previous systems is a gross understatement. I would say it's broken. When you accept quests from NPCs, it lists only the planet that the goal is located on where as in ME1 and ME2 it would list the cluster, solar system and planet. I had to look online just to finish half the quests. I didn't need to do that for ME1-2. And the fact that a vast majority of quests are handed to you on the Citadel either through direct contact or hearing some conversation makes finishing the quests a daunting task.
Characters and Plot elements that have been downsized or ignored
- Harbinger, a very vocal antagonist who was responsible for all the bad things that happened in ME2 is only rarely mentioned and doesn't have one line of dialogue in the whole game.
- Morinth, a former evil squad mate makes a return in the game's end not as a unique character that Shepard recognizes, but as a regular banshee with a simple name change and no dialogue.
- Hannah Shepard, Shepard's mother is only mentioned and has no speaking part. I LOVED her in ME1....
- Dark Matter Sun. During Tali's recruitment mission, she notes that the system's sun has been going through a lot of unnatural changes that shouldn't be happening. Several hints about how big of a deal this is are heard before and after Tali's trail, but it's never brought up again in ME3.
- The significance of saving/destroying the Collector Base. Only a 10 point difference in war assets.
- Shiala, a character who if spared in ME1, receives help from Shepard again in ME2 (with some hint at being a potential LI) is reduced to an email and war asset number.
- Rachni, a race of beings who Shepard could spare in ME1, swear to stand by and fight along side you should the time of war come in ME2, and only appear once in ME3 needing rescue AGAIN. After that, they're simply an asset number who are never seen nor mentioned again.
- Elcor tanks. Freaking let down of the year. The Elcor ambassador gives Shepard a quest to help evacuate his home world, but for some reason has you probe his home world's moon for an artifact instead. Despite how awesome canon mounted Elcor sounds, they are never seen nor mentioned in the final battle.
- Tali's face. Take comfort in knowing that BioWare dedicated more time and resources in bringing Jessica Chobot to life than putting in an ounce of work into Tali's face.
- Emily Wong. Death by twitter. Never seen nor mentioned in the entire game.
I'm not trolling at all. I genuinely feel like some of the people so enraged over the ending are overreacting and unknowingly embarrassing themselves. Nothing done out of an emotional response is rational. And a lot of this stuff is quite irrational.
And, once again, I have no problem with people having a subjective opinion and not liking the end of the game. That's all well and good. It's the crossing of the line and demanding BioWare "make good" by giving you what you want and not what they wanted that I can't help buy shake my head at. Sorry. And whether it's a movie, a poem or a $60 interactive game art is the vision of the artists, not us. We can critique the art using our own world view... but forcing the artist to create something in OUR vision? Nah, not going there.
BTW, I own and have played all three Mass Effect games on Xbox 360. It's absolutely been one of my favorite series. I played ME2 several times, probably have over 200 hours clocked in that one alone. I play Paragon with my prime play throughs and went with the "synthesis" choice at the end of ME3. This was just 3 days ago, when I finished. I was aware that there was controversy over it, but didn't know more than that because I hate spoilers, so I avoided all discussion until I finished.
At the end of my game I was left thinking, "Wow, I gotta see what all the hoopla is about now" because, for me, the ending worked on a thematic level. It's not how I would have done it, but I can live with it as it was emotionally affecting and dealt with some big philisophical issues. But I could already see where others would feel differently. Which is totally fine. What I wasn't prepared for was this amount of indigence, the utter seething, blind rage against BioWare, and these demands to "Hold The Line" and try to force BioWare into amending their own story. And if that happens (and it sounds like it might) it may be setting a precedence that I personally find quite unsettling.
Be upset over the ending. Let BioWare know that (in at least a semi-tactful way). Boycott their products if so choose. That is everyone's right and is not what I'm shaking my head over. It's everything beyond that... Demanding a do-over... the sense of ownership & entitlement that many may not even be aware is coming through.
And, once again, I have no problem with people having a subjective opinion and not liking the end of the game. That's all well and good. It's the crossing of the line and demanding BioWare "make good" by giving you what you want and not what they wanted that I can't help buy shake my head at. Sorry. And whether it's a movie, a poem or a $60 interactive game art is the vision of the artists, not us. We can critique the art using our own world view... but forcing the artist to create something in OUR vision? Nah, not going there.
BTW, I own and have played all three Mass Effect games on Xbox 360. It's absolutely been one of my favorite series. I played ME2 several times, probably have over 200 hours clocked in that one alone. I play Paragon with my prime play throughs and went with the "synthesis" choice at the end of ME3. This was just 3 days ago, when I finished. I was aware that there was controversy over it, but didn't know more than that because I hate spoilers, so I avoided all discussion until I finished.
At the end of my game I was left thinking, "Wow, I gotta see what all the hoopla is about now" because, for me, the ending worked on a thematic level. It's not how I would have done it, but I can live with it as it was emotionally affecting and dealt with some big philisophical issues. But I could already see where others would feel differently. Which is totally fine. What I wasn't prepared for was this amount of indigence, the utter seething, blind rage against BioWare, and these demands to "Hold The Line" and try to force BioWare into amending their own story. And if that happens (and it sounds like it might) it may be setting a precedence that I personally find quite unsettling.
Be upset over the ending. Let BioWare know that (in at least a semi-tactful way). Boycott their products if so choose. That is everyone's right and is not what I'm shaking my head over. It's everything beyond that... Demanding a do-over... the sense of ownership & entitlement that many may not even be aware is coming through.
Now this kind of criticism I can get behind.
I'm not really upset by a lot of those myself, but I get it.
Certainly some corners were cut and strong decisions were made in regards to things being left out. Truthfully, that is the kind of stuff I worried about when EA bought BioWare a few years back... forcing timeline and budget restraints upon them. That kind of thing has ruined many a game in the past and will unfortunately continue in the future under these huge publishers.
But I also think some of the things on your list were probably honest creative decisions as much as anything... just like the ending.
BTW, in my 1st playthrough it was Jack that showed up as a Phantom during the battle on the Cerberus base, probably because i lost her loyalty in particular ME2 import I used (damn MY loyalty to Miranda's posterior. lol)
Sadly Square does the same thing with the companies they publish. Deus Ex: Human Revolution looks nothing like it does in the extended "Icarus" trailer: the scene when he uses the shuttle to land at the oil rig is different, when he's attacked at the start is different, and the black russian girl is shown in the middle of the riots which you don't see in game unless it's for a DLC they didn't put out. The ending left me unfulfilled too. Which is a shame as it's the best cyberpunk game I've seen, makes me with Fasa/Microsoft would have done Shadowrun that way.
Agreed. It's an unfortunate by-product of how big the games industry is now. A few really big corporations publish most of the big games and sometimes their execs can flat out ruin games. Thankfully, 2k has yet to do this with their big developers like Irrational Games & Rockstar, who they pretty much leave alone.
Anyone else remember what LucasArts did to Obsidian with KOTOR II? Man they all but butchered that game.
Bethesda's doing that same type of thing with the Fallout franchise, they should sell it back to InXile (founded by the creator of the franchise and interplay games). 2K is putting out the x-com games this year so i'm hoping it goes well. My one animation teacher worked in the industry and he said that the folks funding stuff and running the company had no clue about gaming.
That doesn't surprise me at all, actually. It's almost like the Hollywood studio executives who wouldn't know a good movie if it landed on and crushed their latest Ferrari.
And then there's what Activision did to the guys who created Infinity Ward (who were only responsible for Call of Duty, the biggest game franchise of all time). It's a pretty cutthroat industry.
Square's going to be out of business at some point. They are now contracting out Final fantasy games, they skipped over the Front mission 5 game release here saying it wouldn't make money then they gave us the Front mission: evolved that sold so bad it's 3.00 on amazon at times. they lost their touch and drove away employees.
I keep an eye out for small game studios as they usually manage to keep a good product.
I keep an eye out for small game studios as they usually manage to keep a good product.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
I haven't picked up the game yet, but I will. This whole deal reeks of fanboy false sense of entitlement to me though. It's a video game. Just like any other story telling medium, there's a chance that when you get to the end of it you won't like how it unfolds. Did anyone petition JK Rowling to change the end of Harry Potter? Do you think George is going to ever make Han shoot first again? Perhaps we could get Peter Jackson to finally give Tom Bombadill his due? It is what it is, and if they buckle and change the game for all the whiners no one wins. Not to mention the precedent it will set. Don't like how the next Zelda wraps? Just complain, they'll fix it for you. What about Tetris? I really think the percentage of long pieces is off, let's put that on our to-do list. If I could roll my eyes any harder at this hullabaloo they would fall out of my ears.
All of those example have little to nothing to do with why fans don't like this ending. You think fans would have been unhappy with Shepard and friends some years later seeing what all their hard fights and sacrifices were worth in a galaxy that is free of the Reapers?
And really, Tom Bombadill? We already have awesome characters from ME1 and ME2 who don't make any appearances in ME3. While some complain about that (Here here!), this is not the reason why we hate this ending so much.
This ending... This is like if Frodo was just about to destroy the ring, and than out of no where some glowing person walks up to Frodo and says it is responsible for corrupting Sauron into making the rings because eventually all the races will be killed by the Orcs. So this being's solution to preventing that from happening is to corrupt someone into ruling over the Orcs so that they can slay all the races of Middle Earth. Make sense? Well, Frodo is than given a choice to either destroy the ring, keep the ring or control the ring. All options lead to 80% of Middle Earth submerged under water, and the Fellowship falling through some crack in the ground where they magically end up in a different world. No one questions from where they are, what's going on or what happened to Middle Earth. They just happily accept the situation they're in the moment they realize they're someplace different. Oh, and despite the fact that Sam was with Frodo the whole time while this was happening, he is with the Fellowship.
There are some problems with that ending...
Satxer
Sr Member
To sum it up: Too many questions...
I finished the game the other night, I loved the game as a whole, but like everyone else, the ending just didn't suffice. Endings of games, especially ones that they claim aren't gonna have any more made after, need to have closure. Again, if this is "my story", I want to know how everything is gonna end. We don't need a Sopranos ending.
Wes, I am glad you brought up Fallout, because they did the same thing in 3, but corrected it with the DLC.
I finished the game the other night, I loved the game as a whole, but like everyone else, the ending just didn't suffice. Endings of games, especially ones that they claim aren't gonna have any more made after, need to have closure. Again, if this is "my story", I want to know how everything is gonna end. We don't need a Sopranos ending.
Wes, I am glad you brought up Fallout, because they did the same thing in 3, but corrected it with the DLC.
Or how about Fallout New Vegas? Now there's a game that offered closure for everyone and everything your character interacted with OUT OF THE BOX.
- NCR rules New Vegas
- Caesar's Legion rules New Vegas
- House rules New Vegas
- Courier rules New Vegas
This isn't some vague army fighting another vague army just for control. Each side has their own agenda in why they want to rule New Vegas, so having one side win will greatly affect the wastes afterwards. And all of these endings have a good, neutral and bad side to them, so that's four story changing endings with three different varieties. You also get endings for every one of your companions that vary greatly depending on how you interacted with their stories, as well as the towns and districts you visited along the way. Even "Dead Money" offers up two new endings.
- Courier dies in the Sierra Madre vault.
- Courier and Elijah join forces and uses the Sierra Madre's technology to conquer the Wastes.
- Courier watches over the Big Mt. crater keeping it's scientific discoveries safe.
I love that game.
