Support NeoGAF

[Petrichor]

Why do they care? Why is one (unsupported by any examples and thematically contradictory) doomsday scenario any more likely, any more worthy of concern, any more deserving of a crazy convoluted cyclical genocide plan?

Why do they care if an artificial-in-origin form of life becomes dominant in the galaxy?

I'd imagine organics would care, and the reaper cycle must have originated from organics, so I don't see how that's a problem. Like I've mentioned previously, the logic is similar to that of a conservation biologist, culling aggressive and dominating species to preserve overall genetic diversity with the ultimate goal of maintaining life. Synthetic life from previous cycles doesn't seem to exist in the "present" cycle, so you would imagine that the reapers destroy them as well once they're finished with organics. Assuming this, sovereign working with the geth in ME1 isn't as much of a plothole as many would think. If you can use some of your enemies to wipe out the rest of them, why not? gives you less work to do.

I definitely think that the ending should have been clearer. A big infodump isn't a particularly exciting way to end a story but I think a little more information at the end would have been nice (also, the synthesis ending was a terrible idea and should never have made it past pre-production). Despite this though I don't see the multitude of problems that everyone else seems to be talking about in the logic of the reapers.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

I see threads everywhere about the end from BSN, ign, gametrailers, gamespot.... 99% about the ending

Yeah, the ending is a big point of contention for gamers, in comparison it's not so much for the gaming press (and certainly not if you look at the meta score) I just find the disconnect between the two interesting, I'd say 'backlash' usually occurs in a very different way

 

[neojubei]

Since everyone hates the ending what would have been a better ending? Heck which game series had a good ending?

 

[Coxswain]

Doing yourself a disservice. Its a fantastic game and worth the play. But the literal last 5 minutes of the game is jaw dropping stupid.

This is pretty much it. No matter how staggeringly bad the ending is, a book is not its last sentence. The game starts weak (Earth intro) and ends spectacularly poorly (Everything from Hackett saying "The Crucible isn't doing anything." onward). The vast, vast majority of everything in between is really well done, and the terrible ending doesn't stop it from being the best Mass Effect game.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I'd imagine organics would care, and the reaper cycle must have originated from organics, so I don't see how that's a problem.

It's an imaginary problem that's utterly meaningless.

 

[Perfect Cha0s]

I guess that's reasonable. A part of me thinks this smells ultimately like the press pandering to EA/Bioware instead of giving an honest opinion - there's no way it'd be so highly regarded across the board if GAF/User reviews are any indication - I'm quite cynical though, I admit that

Well, I can't help but think that, as the internet, we'd have a field day tearing into a reviewer who goes:

"Well, the game is amazing pretty much all around, but the ending, which makes up 15 minutes of a potentially 20+ hour game, is stupid. 70/100."

 

[The Last Wizard]

I finished earlier this morning and the ending sucked, so bad that it's soured what was a great game for me. After 5 years with this trilogy this was supposed to be the big pay off ending wise. I wanted my Shepard to kill the reapers and retire and live the rest of his life with Ashley. I understood that there would be casualties and not everyone would make it and the galaxy would've never been the same but damn did these endings suck, there not that much to differentiate each from another.

Don’t get me wrong the game itself was great, it fixes the things that were wrong with ME2; mainly the pretty much non-existent story. There was a main goal from the very beginning of the game and while playing I always felt like I was making progress. The combat was crisp, the best in the series in my opinion. The choices I had made and the people I helped all the way from ME1 and ME2 had come back for new decisions, outcomes, and cameos. Most important the relationships I built with my crew, friends, and my love interest (Ashley). Everything with everyone was wrapping up pretty well. But then I reached the end of the game and for a while I had so many people complaining about the ending but I pushed it aside saying to myself that people were usually overly critical about the Mass Effect universe but it turns out they were right about the ending.

After building up my allies and war assets throughout the game to get the best possible ending, I ended up with the worst possible ending. There were 3 choices to be made for the ending and each of them were the same thing with 1 or 2 minor differences and then a “True” ending which adds an extra 30 or so seconds to the ending and each were terrible. None of them gave a prologue for all the characters you met throughout the series or what happened to the galaxy after you made your decision it was just a big cliffhanger. The ending themselves were sad, not the good kind more depressing and seemingly rushed. I wanted my Shepard to win the fight and then retire and live the rest of his days with my love interest Ashley .

But I was given something completely different and after 3 game I figured there would be a big pay-off but instead a big fuck-off was given. If your into the series and you look around the internet you’ll see that many fans are angered about the ending. But that’s about it, I just hope bioware fixing the ending.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

Well, I can't help but think that, as the internet, we'd have a field day tearing into a reviewer who goes:

"Well, the game is amazing pretty much all around, but the ending, which makes up 15 minutes of a potentially 20+ hour game, is stupid. 70/100."

Until you play the game and see the ending for yourself?

 

[neojubei]

Until you play the game and see the ending for yourself?

I just did and i still like the game.

 

[Red Blaster]

In addition to the lulzworthy ending, I'd say the more or less entire removal of player agency was a big problem in ME3 and would ding the game significantly for it.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

I just did and i still like the game.

Well like I said, I've not seen the endings. I've just seen people demanding answers from Bioware, an explanation and such, but I think I'd be directing some of those questions to the gaming press too

 

[Rebel Leader]

I just did and i still like the game.

And that is what we(?) all agree on

The game was good

 

[Tomat]

Okay, I ain't reading shit in here because I haven't played the game yet, but I am willing to be sorta spoiled a bit by asking this question: Is it true that your decisions from the first two games don't carry much weight in this game?

I don't need any evidence, just a simple yes or not, or sort of will do. Thanks.

 

[Tookay]

It's reviewers jobs to be more level headed I suppose. I loved the game up until the end. I'd imagine most reviewers aren't as nerdy/emotionally attached to the universe as some of us are. If you give a fuck at all about the first two, you have to play the game to see how it ends for sure. And it's a great ride, that sadly crashes and burns in the last five minutes with the most unsatisfying ending I've ever had in a game.

Trust me, if anything it's the opposite in reality. Reviewers are more likely to give into the hype, emotion, and spectacle than any of the ME fans in this thread. They were uncritical about the ending because they are impressionable fanboys, plain and simple. Anything with AAA Hollywood production values, backed with EA's aggressive marketing, was going to attain a favorable rating.

That's not to say this game isn't good, but the fact that nobody in the press said the things that everybody in this thread is saying about the ending shows how useless the media is when it comes to being discerning gamers and storytellers.

Okay, I ain't reading shit in here because I haven't played the game yet, but I am willing to be sorta spoiled a bit by asking this question: Is it true that your decisions from the first two games don't carry much weight in this game?

I don't need any evidence, just a simple yes or not, or sort of will do. Thanks.

They are practically negligible.

 

[Petrichor]

Okay, I ain't reading shit in here because I haven't played the game yet, but I am willing to be sorta spoiled a bit by asking this question: Is it true that your decisions from the first two games don't carry much weight in this game?

I don't need any evidence, just a simple yes or not, or sort of will do. Thanks.

They make certain things more difficult / impossible but in terms of the story branching majorly depending on past choices, then no. Everyone will play through essentially the same story regardless of past choices.

Since everyone hates the ending what would have been a better ending? Heck which game series had a good ending?

It's funny, most people seem to think that the game's story was fine up until the denouement. I'd have felt more insulted if the crucible had been the big deus ex machina it first appears to be, with the game ending happily with this magic weapon destroying an unstoppable threat without any consequences. Seems most people would have been fine with such an ending though.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

Trust me, if anything it's the opposite in reality. Reviewers are more likely to give into the hype, emotion, and spectacle than any of the ME fans in this thread. They were uncritical about the ending because they are impressionable fanboys, plain and simple. Anything with AAA Hollywood production values, backed with EA's aggressive marketing, was going to attain a favorable rating.

That's not to say this game isn't good, but the fact that nobody in the press said the things that everybody in this thread is saying about the ending shows how useless the gaming press is when it comes to being discerning gamers and storytellers.

Yeah that's pretty much how I feel about the whole thing
I guess it's nice now I can have lowered expectations from actual credible reviews (i.e not 'journalists') and can prepare myself for a bad ending!

 

[Red Blaster]

Okay, I ain't reading shit in here because I haven't played the game yet, but I am willing to be sorta spoiled a bit by asking this question: Is it true that your decisions from the first two games don't carry much weight in this game?

I don't need any evidence, just a simple yes or not, or sort of will do. Thanks.

Maybe like twice in ME3 do your decisions in past games matter.

 

[WiiredShawn]

Since everyone hates the ending what would have been a better ending? Heck which game series had a good ending?

There are at least two methods of establishing a better ending:

Refuse: as a fourth option, Shepard gives the middle finger to the Catalyst child and takes a chance on the fleet being able to win against the reapers. If your assembled forces are sufficiently prepared (a rating of 4000+ or higher, say), then you will win, and live to celebrate; if not, everyone dies and Shepard must live with the consequences of this choice (maybe commit suicide, who knows).

Dream: the whole sequence post-elevator ride is the game's final dream sequence, in which Shepard makes a metaphorical, rather than literal, choice, which then impacts the the direction of the ending. Importantly, more stuff happens than just Joker flying away from a death beam in each scenario.

Plus, plenty of game endings are good. Take Majora's Mask, for instance: that game is chock full of sadness, struggle and sacrifice - and even though it's bittersweet knowing that Link must still wander alone and unacknowledged, the people of Termina are happy and alive. The ending manages to create closure, and even offers celebration, without rejecting outright the themes established throughout.

Okay, I ain't reading shit in here because I haven't played the game yet, but I am willing to be sorta spoiled a bit by asking this question: Is it true that your decisions from the first two games don't carry much weight in this game?

I don't need any evidence, just a simple yes or not, or sort of will do. Thanks.

Before the ending, there are plenty of places where past decisions come into play, and it's satisfying to see those acknowledgments happen. The problem is, the ending does render them "practically negligible," as the poster above said, because the final choices are barely related to anything that came before.

 

[Tomat]

So despite your choices not carrying much weight, you guys still enjoyed the game?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

They make certain things more difficult / impossible but in terms of the story branching majorly depending on past choices, then no. Everyone will play through essentially the same story regardless of past choices.




It's funny, most people seem to think that the game's story was fine up until the denouement. I'd have felt more insulted if the crucible had been the big deus ex machina it first appears to be, with the game ending happily with this magic weapon destroying an unstoppable threat without any consequences. Seems most people would have been fine with such an ending though.

It still is a big deus ex machina.

Then the Catalyst comes in and is an even worse REVERSE deus ex machina that, instead of solving a problem out of nowhere, introduces a problem out of nowhere.

 

[Rebel Leader]

But how can it be a dream when the cidital is shattered and Shepard takes a breath?

 

[branny]

Why do they care? Why is one (unsupported by any examples and thematically contradictory) doomsday scenario any more likely, any more worthy of concern, any more deserving of a crazy convoluted cyclical genocide plan?

Why do they care if an artificial-in-origin form of life becomes dominant in the galaxy?

This is exactly what ME3 failed with. ME3 messed up because it completely ignored ME1.

I think the biggest problem is trying to assign a "noble" purpose to the looming antagonists of ME1. There's no reason why their high and mighty enlightened selves should even be concerned with what's going on in the galaxy beyond protecting their position as its most powerful beings. The beauty of ME1 is that we knew nothing. We had no clue if they were even completely corporeal. We didn't even know if the information Sovereign gave was fabricated to intimidate us. Everything was unknown. Vigil gave us a warning, some speculation, and ultimately concluded that Reaper motive didn't matter when everyone was in danger. Reapers were basically some intangible, otherworldly force.

The stuff about taking genetic material from other species to form some merged civilization based around the consciousness of many beings at once in ME2 remains bizarre. We don't truly have answers for why they specifically messed with the silly human reaper stuff. Or the hubbub about dark energy. All we learned is that you can't say "creeper" without "Reaper." And, really, ME2 didn't need to elaborate on that since ME1's ominous handling of them was perfectly adequate. We didn't need all that extra info. But one of the small successes was at least some additional insight to Reaper investment/motive that was still shrouded in mystery.

Now we have ME3. Vigil was nearly the complete opposite of the Catalyst, providing a conversation that was ironically more interactive. ME3 left us with answers that only created more questions, an NPC that should've elaborated quite a bit more, and a main character that seemed to have just given up the will to properly negotiate. Maybe all those injuries finally caught up with Shepard?

Reapers are saviors of organic life by killing advanced organic life because they prevent the creation of synthetics that could potentially eradicate ALL organic life. What happened to infallible, deific beings that were incomprehensible because they were leagues more advanced than us? Functioning on some weird, silly paradox that goes against everything occurring in ME1 is technically incomprehensible but for all the wrong reasons. These creatures ended up being stupid, their purpose bewildering. What's the point? Why intervene? Not only that, but they ended up being created by some entity calling the Citadel a part of him/her/it. What.

Why bother with a cycle in the first place? Why "be merciful" leaving less advanced species intact? Why suddenly go through the facade of masquerading as benevolent guardians of universal order? Why wouldn't they continue with the original plan of taking over the Citadel to shut down all the mass relays? Why would the Reapers need to control the keepers at all with star kid being the creator of the Reapers? Why wouldn't the star kid just be able to allow the Reapers through the back door to begin with? Why would he/she/it be completely oblivious to the geth despite Reapers reaching out to them in the past? Why would the "eventuality" of synthetics overthrowing organics matter so much even if the current peace between Quarians and the geth were acknowledged? If the Crucible was the reason why the star kid was drawn out of the Citadel in the first place, how is that even possible? How did the party members get back on the Normandy? Where did the Normandy end up? How would that galactic army sustain itself after being stranded in Sol? Wouldn't the relays blowing up in the first place cause widespread damage to everything nearby, anyway? Was this all a hallucination? To top it off, we have the worst possible epilogue saying that it was just a story, and some details may have been fudged here and there. And even if someone were crazy enough to attempt defending the fucked up ending as grandpa getting tired, he goes and starts another story. UGH!

Side note: thinking about the Conduit and Cerberus, why do all of Mass Effect's macguffins start with the letter "C"?

 

[dragonelite]

And that is what we(?) all agree on

The game was good

The game is excellent but just like Hero of the day said

Yep. You can serve me the best dinner on earth, but if you shit in my mouth for dessert, there's only one part of the meal I'm going to remember.

Im slowly moving into accepting phase i think i do have fun in multiplayer.
And probably will replay the series this summer again. Gotta do something when school is over in the summer and you have no homework to do in the evening.

 

[Empty Space]

Okay, I ain't reading shit in here because I haven't played the game yet, but I am willing to be sorta spoiled a bit by asking this question: Is it true that your decisions from the first two games don't carry much weight in this game?

I don't need any evidence, just a simple yes or not, or sort of will do. Thanks.

Results vary on certain missions from time to time and certain NPCs will show up that would not otherwise depending on said choices. Tat being said they have little weight on the games overall story and are there for flavor. Taking of all of that into consideration I liked the way my previous choices effect things even if they meant nothing

 

[The Librarian]

I still don't understand how the AI of the Citadel is suppose to work with a project that's being worked on in secret by organics between cycles, the same organics it tries to wipe out, or how organics in each cycle found it and managed to keep it hidden from the Reapers, or...

...

 

[Rebel Leader]

So despite your choices not carrying much weight, you guys still enjoyed the game?

Oh yes.... untill the ending

I will buy it later ($20) .. just to get some character depth like how me and garrus had a chat on the cidital(sp)

 

[Tookay]

Since everyone hates the ending what would have been a better ending? Heck which game series had a good ending?

There have been a bunch of suggestions in this thread. They all have their problems, but the dark matter motivations for the reapers would have been better, the Crucible just being a deus ex machina that killed the Reapers would have been better, your war assets actually being crucial to the battle and just beating the Reapers in a traditional space fight would have been better...

Just having Shepard activate the Crucible and die alongside Anderson would have been better.

As Petrichor said, it's not like the entire ending was bad; it was just the stuff after the Illusive Man dies that kills the ending for me. We leave the universe on such a weird, off-key note. We see the relays blow up, possibly stranding races far away from home, we make choices that have little or no build up, we see the Normandy and crew flung across the universe for no reason, and then we get credits.

That's not a proper send-off to a massive sci-fi universe at all. We don't get the satisfaction of seeing what our choices did, what our sacrifices earned the galaxy, what become of our crewmembers/the other races, anything.

I'm not asking for a Harry Potter 7 epilogue, where we see who had babies with who (*shudder*), but having some sort of understanding of what happened after our decision gives some weight to our actions. Hell, just having people CELEBRATE at the end would have been something, because it acts as a counterpoint to the bleakness we experienced throughout the game.

Instead we hear a bedtime story and get a PR note from EA about becoming more of a legend by buying DLC.

 

[Apophenia Overload]

I can't wait to see how Yahtzee weighs in, especially since he favors good writing/characterization/immersion over just mechanics. Do you guys think his review will be out next week, or will it take the week after?

 

[Rokam]

I still don't understand how the AI of the Citadel is suppose to work with a project that's being worked on in secret by organics between cycles, the same organics it tries to wipe out, or how organics in each cycle found it and managed to keep it hidden from the Reapers, or...

...

Stop. Your brain is going to shut down.

 

[GorillaJu]

The reviews ARE overhyping it, though. Edge has got it right with their 8.

The presentation, voice acting, graphics are all great. But the core game isn't perfect - its not a 9 or a 10 game.

The ending doesn't make me forget about the rest of the game, it just helped me to wake up to some of the deception surrounding the core game, which isn't all that amazing. Like MGS4, ME3 is almost entirely an emotional gauntlet of fan service and when you're powering through it on a high from your expectations and attachment to the series, it's easy to get swallowed up in the slick presentation.

It's a good game still, but the reviews are too high. Does this really surprise anyone though?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I can't wait to see how Yahtzee weighs in, especially since he favors good writing/characterization/immersion over just mechanics. Do you guys think his review will be out next week, or will it take the week after?

It shall be glorious.

People shall praise him until he dislikes a game they like.

 

[Digoman]

Yeah that's pretty much how I feel about the whole thing
I guess it's nice now I can have lowered expectations from actual credible reviews (i.e not 'journalists') and can prepare myself for a bad ending!

I'm going to side with conspiracy people on this one. I think the "gaming journalists" are just to scared to anger EA. If you trying to be impartial, then yes, the ending does not take away from the rest of game. It still is a great game for 99% of the time. But there is no way you can avoid at least saying "the ending may not offer a lot closure for some people". Instead in almost all reviews I read (after playing the game) it was "a great conclusion to the series".

Also, given the reaction in forums like gaf or even the Bioware social site, you would think that one bigger sites out there would mention it by now.

 

[WiiredShawn]

But how can it be a dream when the cidital is shattered and Shepard takes a breath?

Obviously, the endings would be changed to reflect the more metaphorical, less literal interpretation of Shepard's "choice." I imagine that in the Dream ending, you could choose "Control," but instead of Shepard becoming a reaper, Shepard simply never wakes up from the dream, leaving the Reapers to take control. Alternatively, one of the other choices could result in Shepard waking up in time (or the squad mates waking her up rather than bailing out like jackasses) in order to turn on the Crucible, thus wiping out the Reapers. It could work out practically and thematically, without dissolving into ineptitude.

 

[GorillaJu]

Hah. The ending was not a great conclusion to the series, it was pretty much detached from the series entirely and raises more questions than it answers!

 

[Trokil]

Because the rest of the game was fucking great? The majority seem to acknowledge that.

What majority. Have you seen the user reviews and scores. The difference is mind blowing.
It is even worse on the PS3.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Return to Shitadel.

Personally, I always thought Shepard would die to save humanity, so my ending worked. The fallout from my decision was lame.

Should've ended with Anderson and Shepard looking out and seeing the Reapers get destroyed.

Cut to cheering and maybe FO3 style black photos with descriptions of how your choices played out.

Cliche? Yes. Still better though.

 

[Coxswain]

Since everyone hates the ending what would have been a better ending?

I was talking about it with a friend earlier. While changing as little about the game's plot as possible, this is what we came up with:


Given that
- The Catalyst is, or is housed in, the Citadel itself
- The Catalyst explicitly states that it controls the Reapers
- It's part of the Mass Effect lore that the Citadel is made of some unknown, apparently indestructible material

The idea is that the Crucible's function is to essentially disrupt the integrity of the Citadel, and leave it vulnerable to direct attack - and in being destroyed, so would the Catalyst, which would (in this hypothetical ending) cause the Reapers to shut down.
So once Shepard is brought up the elevator to speak with the Catalyst, it would present its case to her, outlining what the Reapers are doing and why they're supposedly doing it (I'm in the camp that says their whole explanation is stupid as fuck and should have been something different, but again this is trying to change as little about the game's story as possible), and why it's now come to believe that the Reaping cycle is unsustainable.

You're then given the choice between ordering the fleet you gathered to attack the Citadel directly while the Reapers try to defend it (and your EMS could factor in heavily here as to whether the attack is successful, and to what degree), or going along with the Catalyst in some variant of the Synthesis and/or Control endings.


In both cases, the two 'unavoidable' outcomes of the ending could be maintained, since Bioware apparently wanted them to be in every instance: Shepard dies, either because she was on the Citadel when the fleet blew it up, or because she needs to sacrifice herself for the Synthesis/Control endings. The Mass Relays can be removed from play, either because the Citadel itself regulates them, because the green Space Magic blast of the Synthesis ending destroys them, or because Shepard taking control of the Reapers (essentially becoming the new Catalyst) isn't also capable of powering/controlling the relays.

It also doesn't force Shepard into meekly going along with the Catalyst's shitty ideas, doesn't have to directly contradict major themes of the game and the franchise, places some actual importance on the strength of the War Assets you manage to gather, and would actually offer some variation between endings beyond the CG explosion being a different colour.



Ideally, the ending just wouldn't have any stupid shit in it to begin with. But that's the best I could come up with that wouldn't require the game to be changed completely.

 

[DTKT]

What majority. Have you seen the user reviews and scores. The difference is mind blowing.
It is even worse on the PS3.

Hahaha.

User reviews.

 

[Bowdz]

This is exactly what ME3 failed with. ME3 messed up because it completely ignored ME1.

I think the biggest problem is trying to assign a "noble" purpose to the looming antagonists of ME1. There's no reason why their high and mighty enlightened selves should even be concerned with what's going on in the galaxy beyond protecting their position as its most powerful beings. The beauty of ME1 is that we knew nothing. We had no clue if they were even completely corporeal. We didn't even know if the information Sovereign gave was fabricated to intimidate us. Everything was unknown. Vigil gave us a warning, some speculation, and ultimately concluded that Reaper motive didn't matter when everyone was in danger. Reapers were basically some intangible, otherworldly force.

The stuff about taking genetic material from other species to form some merged civilization based around the consciousness of many beings at once in ME2 remains bizarre. We don't truly have answers for why they specifically messed with the silly human reaper stuff. Or the hubbub about dark energy. All we learned is that you can't say "creeper" without "Reaper." And, really, ME2 didn't need to elaborate on that since ME1's ominous handling of them was perfectly adequate. We didn't need all that extra info. But one of the small successes was at least some additional insight to Reaper investment/motive that was still shrouded in mystery.

Now we have ME3. Vigil was nearly the complete opposite of the Catalyst, providing a conversation that was ironically more interactive. ME3 left us with answers that only created more questions, an NPC that should've elaborated quite a bit more, and a main character that seemed to have just given up the will to properly negotiate. Maybe all those injuries finally caught up with Shepard?

Reapers are saviors of organic life by killing advanced organic life because they prevent the creation of synthetics that could potentially eradicate ALL organic life. What happened to infallible, deific beings that were incomprehensible because they were leagues more advanced than us? Functioning on some weird, silly paradox that goes against everything occurring in ME1 is technically incomprehensible but for all the wrong reasons. These creatures ended up being stupid, their purpose bewildering. What's the point? Why intervene? Not only that, but they ended up being created by some entity calling the Citadel a part of him/her/it. What.

Why bother with a cycle in the first place? Why "be merciful" leaving less advanced species intact? Why suddenly go through the facade of masquerading as benevolent guardians of universal order? Why wouldn't they continue with the original plan of taking over the Citadel to shut down all the mass relays? Why would the Reapers need to control the keepers at all with star kid being the creator of the Reapers? Why wouldn't the star kid just be able to allow the Reapers through the back door to begin with? Why would he/she/it be completely oblivious to the geth despite Reapers reaching out to them in the past? Why would the "eventuality" of synthetics overthrowing organics matter so much even if the current peace between Quarians and the geth were acknowledged? If the Crucible was the reason why the star kid was drawn out of the Citadel in the first place, how is that even possible? How did the party members get back on the Normandy? Where did the Normandy end up? How would that galactic army sustain itself after being stranded in Sol? Wouldn't the relays blowing up in the first place cause widespread damage to everything nearby, anyway? Was this all a hallucination? To top it off, we have the worst possible epilogue saying that it was just a story and some details may have been fudged here and there. And even if someone were crazy enough to attempt defending the fucked up ending as grandpa getting tired, he goes and starts another story. UGH!

Side note: thinking about the Conduit and Cerberus, why do all of Mass Effect's macguffins start with the letter "C"?

Quoted for the truth. Great summation of my thoughts about the ending. I still go back and watch the conversation with Sovereign from ME1 and get goosebumps.

 

[dragonelite]

I'm going to side with conspiracy people on this one. I think the "gaming journalists" are just to scared to anger EA. If you trying to be impartial, then yes, the ending does not take away from the rest of game. It still is a great game for 99% of the time. But there is no way you can avoid at least saying "the ending may not offer a lot closure for some people". Instead in almost all reviews I read (after playing the game) it was "a great conclusion to the series".

Also, given the reaction in forums like gaf or even the Bioware social site, you would think that one bigger sites out there would mention it by now.

I see some Blog site/reviewers put forth the endings and how they weren't what they expected them to be.

inbe4 we have to spend another $60 worth of dlc to see the complete epilogue.
You can bet you''re ass on it we are going to get some new crew member dlc too Jack and Zaeeds place is still empty as far as i know.

 

[Keasar]

What majority. Have you seen the user reviews and scores. The difference is mind blowing.
It is even worse on the PS3.

Alot of people did seem to enjoy the rest of the game, I did too. It is the ending and all other blunders that has everyone sticking pitchforks and torches to Bioware, including me.

 

[Minion101]

I like the dark matter ending for the final choice it provides. It also makes more sense then the hypocritical motivations in the final game

 

[JoeBoy101]

Hahaha.

User reviews.

Yeah. I hesitate to call consensus on things, but I can guarantee that using user reviews on metacritic as the foundation for a consensus is flawed from the start.

 

[Tookay]

Also, given the reaction in forums like gaf or even the Bioware social site, you would think that one bigger sites out there would mention it by now.

Oh no doubt in a couple weeks/months/years, all the mainstream sites will be posting articles like "What the hell happened to Mass Effect?" and "Why the ending doesn't work," to tap into the general consensus on the conclusion and generate ad-clicks, while ignoring the praise they gave it previously. Then they'll retroactively act like they always thought those flaws were there when reviewing ME4, but with the disclaimer that "this time it's different!"

We've seen that before on any number of games, from GTAIV to MGS4, particularly in reviews of their sequels. For example, I remember reviews of Ballad of Gay Tony DLC all talking about how "this one has all the absurdity and fun the original lacked," when that very site/reviewer had praised the original GTAIV for its seriousness. Hell, I've even seen it for ME3's reviews, when some brought up how "unlike ME2's sparse plot, this is a meaty tale" when they praised the second game's storytelling to high heaven just two years before.

It'll happen for ME3 too.

 

[Empty Space]

I like the dark matter ending for the final choice it provides. It also makes more sense then the hypocritical motivations in the final game

How long has that Dark matter ending been floating around? I had always thought that was how the serious was going to end did I guess right a long time ago or could I have been exposed to it like a year ago?

 

[BlazingDarkness]

Yeah. I hesitate to call consensus on things, but I can guarantee that using user reviews on metacritic as the foundation for a consensus is flawed from the start.

And ME3 proves that using 'professional' reviews on metacritic is also flawed from the start

The score is evidently just another part of the media circus surrounding it's release

I'd love to see a collection of post-mortem reviews from the press, in say, 6 months time

 

[Tess3ract]

How does a game with a metacritic score of 94 (the 8th highest scoring 360 game) garner such scorn as there is in here? I've not seen the endings, all I can assume is that there's a massive disconnect between the gaming media and actual gamers. The difference in reception is very interesting to me

I love how you think a metacritic review translates into the actual real world quality or "fun" of a game. How...naive.

*pats head*

Also reviewers are just that, people. They don't represent the whole scope of gamers which outnumber them 10:1. It's also a bit of a misrepresentation to take reviewers who show that they're either bought out in the past, or take the (VERY STUPID) academic score to games of anything below a 7 is a BAD GAME when it's anything below a 5 which would be the REAL average to be a bad game as conclusive evidence that a game is good.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

I love how you think a metacritic review translates into the actual real world quality or "fun" of a game. How...naive.

*pats head*

Um, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, it doesn't.

 

[Rokam]

Since people are good at responding here, can I repick my class from ME1 in ME2? Don't really feel like playing 1 again and would rather just take a complete character but change classes.

 

[Coxswain]

Yes, you can choose your character class if you import a save.