Who said an Omega DLC would be playable AFTER the end of ME3?
Mass Effect 3 SPOILER THREAD: LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE
- Thread starter XANDER CAGE
- Start date
- Status
Who said an Omega DLC would be playable AFTER the end of ME3?
Do we have any explanation for this yet?
Synthesis.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
It doesn't though, if the whole thing after getting shot by harbinger was a "dream" then that means the game still hasn't even ended yet, and we didn't get an ending with our 60 dollar purchase, and Shepard is still laying there in the rubble waiting for the DLC to download.
If people think it's indoctrination AFTER Anderson dies, then it's impossible. TIM coming in shows you what indoctrination looks like, you get black lines on the screen and Shepard can't control himself.
Indoctrination is subtle, takes days or weeks, it doesn't happen like that. Replay ME1 and listen to Benezia, once you're indoctrinated that's it for you. You can't break free. Shepard didn't fight anything at the ending.
I say again, it's not indoctrination. Trying to find any other meaning to the ending than what you're shown is exactly the point of giving us this shitty ending, the asshole wanted people to speculate about it. Stop doing it.
HarryHengst
Member
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
I've noticed the only people that are as vehemetly ok with the ending as people who are not ok with it are journalists. I think they're doing the "Oh look how dumb these gamers are for not understanding this art form like we do."
HarryHengst
Member
I fear that the whole ending thing will cause multiplayer to fizzle out, which is a shame because i really enjoy it. Even though gold matches kinda feel like bashing your head against a wall at times.
I am more than OK with the ending, I don't want it changed to be happier or explain more, the lack of difference and the post credits scene are the only few things that bothered me about it. Keep it vague but don't just change the color palette on the end CGI sequence, lazy as shit.
The rumors of THE TRUTH DLC makes the entire situation worse, they had an ending but kept it away from us and we are left with a jumbled mess.
That is one of the arguments for the ending that I hate most. It implies that some outside force decides that organics will forever be repeating history over and over without any hope for forward progress.
There's a new age of galactic unity unlike anything seen before? Organics and synthetics are at peace and helping each other in a new society? A race once thought to be violent and chaotic has set itself upon a more civilized path and once again has hope for a future?
Doesn't matter, organics must live in caves and hunt chickens for sustenance. Why? Because we said so. Game over.
Its horseshit. The entire series has been about overcoming odds and the freedom to choose for yourself. The freedom to choose a better way of life for everyone. That's all its EVER been. The ending we have now is just a big "fuck you" to all of that and I think it tastes very sour to fans.
ElectricBlue187
Member
That was just blatantly exploitative. I was disgusted for a moment that they would do that shit and then forgot about it.
At the end they send right before the Cerberus attack.
I really don't even see why people are debating the indoctrination theory anymore. It's obvious that is what happened, or the Starchild wouldn't have been introduced at the beginning of the game in the first place. He also fits all the criteria of indoctrination. Ghostly images and dreams, sounds, headaches, hallucinations and blah blah. They weren't trying to be that subtle, really.
Now the point in which the indoctrination happened is still debatable, but I say the mental battle began as he was knocked out by Harbinger's beam. His mind was left open for attack at that very moment and the Reaper's took it.
That's my theory and I'm stickin' too it.
Now the point in which the indoctrination happened is still debatable, but I say the mental battle began as he was knocked out by Harbinger's beam. His mind was left open for attack at that very moment and the Reaper's took it.
That's my theory and I'm stickin' too it.
It will be before, but the shitty ending would ruin it. It isn't going to very interesting to play when you know it gets blown up 30 minutes later.
It there any way to make anything that isn't a new ending worthwhile? Nothing that happens is going to matter.
ElectricBlue187
Member
TWO relays lol and no garden worlds around. That station is a goner no matter what
"Play multiplayer to increase Galactic Readiness to make it easier to get the best ending!"
In theory a decent enough plan, but what if most people don't like any of the endings? Why try to improve readiness, then?
Also, I'm curious to see how Mass Effect 3 will do with DLC. I've seen several people ask why bother buying DLC that adds to the middle of the story when the ending makes it irrelevant? Which, to me, is a pretty good question. Wonder if Bioware is going to see significantly lower DLC sales than projected over this. That'd cause EA to notice, I think.
Riposte
Member
If the end game choice was something like "Destroy Earth" or "Destroy the Citadel and shut down all the Relays" and basically Shepard as going to die no matter what you do (this is what I was predicting to happen, though with less aliens being stranded on Earth), I would be fine with it. That's pretty bleak stuff I would think.
One of my problems with what actually happened is the relays blow up no matter what you do and it is basically an afterthought. The fact they blew up (which is very bad news for anything in the surrounding area) like no big deal is pretty silly too.
EDIT: Though it makes you wonder, did the unactivated relays blow up?
One of my problems with what actually happened is the relays blow up no matter what you do and it is basically an afterthought. The fact they blew up (which is very bad news for anything in the surrounding area) like no big deal is pretty silly too.
EDIT: Though it makes you wonder, did the unactivated relays blow up?
ElectricBlue187
Member
Lots of Speculation from errbody
Arjen
Member
It's just that everything that happens after you've been shot makes no sense, my dragon armor just magicly disapeared for example. Now that can be either really sloppy, or you've been lying on the ground the entire time.
Is this real? Gotta be fake, right?
The bottom image is real, Mass Effect 3 had its CG trailer revealed on The Walking dead, it was just used as promo material
Is this real? Gotta be fake, right?
What's fake?
They made that rendition because the trailer launched during an episode of The Walking Dead.
He was seeing the kid at the beginning of the game. I personally think it's indoctrination but the creators will not tell people (or have DLC about it.) They want people to talk and interpret.
I swear some people act like hidden meanings are crazy. You'd be surprised how many artist put a subtext in their work
someone didn't play ME1. great sex with Liara
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Last Hearth
Member
Interesting take by a screenwriter on why ME3's ending was bad storytelling.
1. The ending feels jarring and out of place and there is little closure, this is a sympton of the ending failing to live up to what we come expect from the story. As I've previously said, "Mass Effect is a conventional story with conventional expectations". A conventional story, almost all stories, follow a pretty standard plotline: Introduction - Ascending Action - Climax - Descending Action - Resolution. In film we break it up into 3 acts, roughly: the first act is the introduction, the second act is the rising action and longest act of the story, and the third act is the climax and resolution.
Mass Effect 3 and the previous games follow this plotline both as individual stories and in the grand scheme of things as a trilogy (a trilogy is basically the three act structure writ large), that is until the final moments of 3. For reference, The battle for Earth is the climax of the series and the run across no man's land to the Citadel beam is the climax of the specific game; with this in mind, the Citadel sequence is the final part of the descending action and the resolution for both the game and series, the part where the antagonist is finally defeated, the themes and dramatic questions are answered, and the loose ends are tied. Or rather, it should be. After the defeat of the Illusive Man (the antagonist role is somewhat muddled and blurry towards the end of the story, more on that briefly), the protagonist has reached his goal, the defeat of the Reapers is at hand; conventionally, this is where the protagonist would succeed, the Crucible fire, and the Reapers destroyed. Instead, the story grows convoluted (once again, this is supposed to be the resolution) at the height of the scene by jarring us out of it with the bizarre, dreamlike sequence of Sheperd's ascent on the magic platform and the introduction of an ancient and seemingly god-like form who expounds the final choice between three options, all presented symbolically in appearance and action: one which mirrors a co-antagonist's desire which has been reinforced throughout as wrong and contradictory of the protagonist's; one which is downright bizarre and is almost completely outside the scope of the game's main themes save for being somewhat in line with the primary antagonistic forces' goal; and one which accurately mirrors the protagonist's goal from since the beginning. The results of these choices vary and are wide-reaching, creating a massive upheaval of the story world, while being unclear. All of the characters and the entire setting are left to an uncertain and sometimes confusing fate.
Just looking at what I've typed, it's apparent this is not a resolution. New information is introduced throughout the entire sequence rather than tying loose ends. New information shouldn't be introduced in a resolution unless it directly resolves something or is quickly resolved itself; definitively, it's the opposite of what a resolution is. In layman's terms, this is what makes us feel like there are more questions than answers.
The fate of the characters and the final destination they reach in the story are crucial to the resolution, especially on the scale of a trilogy. During the ascending action, right before the climax of the no man's land run, we are given a send off from all of the characters; this is both out of order for a conventional plotline (more fitting the descending action rather than ascending) and dimished by the implications of the ending. Ultimately, it is through the characters that we most directly identify with the story and find the meaning, the lack of resolution in this regard is especially unsatisfying.
The resolution is where the audience is supposed to find the tale's "ever after", be it happy or sad. Mass Effect 3 completely lacks any sense of "ever after".
2. Video games, like film, are a visual medium; the ending tells us what happens rather than shows us what happens. This is easy to overlook but very important. Visual mediums for story are all about what we see. Another cardinal sin of storytelling commited during the ending is the description of, and differences between, the options in the final choice are almost all conveyed through exposition. The cinematics themselves, what we actually see, are extremely similar and all the implications of the choice we make are conveyed through what the exposition had told us. This is very poor storytelling and worse still to be considered the resolution.
3. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, plot holes. Relating to the previous points, the ending is excessively ambiguous and unclear. With only unclear exposition before the choice and without sufficient data presented afterwards, many situations are unaccounted for and either lack clarity at best or appear as plot holes at worst. The crash landing of the Normandy is a clear example of this ambiguity, both in it's plausibility and implications for the fate of the crew.
4. Nothing is gained by breaking convention and attempting to make the ending enigmatic or profound. Assuming this was the writers' goal, this is another failing. Some believe, myself included, that the writers' tried to use the jarring impact of an unconventional, imperfect ending to hammer home a message or theme (presumably: pre-destination, the uncontrollable nature of fate, and the individual's limited ability to impact the world). This, however, comes at the cost of the story and the audience's pleasure, a cost that is far too high for the nature of storytelling.
5. The resurgence and emphasis on The Illusive Man during the resolution as well as the lack of interaction with the Reapers and, more specifically, Harbinger, detracts from the Reapers as the antagonist. A lot of people expected a "boss fight" of sorts or a closing discussion with Harbinger at the end. This is a perfectly understandable and legitimate expectation. During the climax, we are almost defeated by Harbinger, the avatar for the Reapers as antagonist, however, during the resolution, it is the indoctrinated Illusive Man that takes takes center stage. Though he unwittingly is an assisting force for the Reapers, he is not directly representative of them, merely their influence. TIM's role is more fitting that of an obstacle to be overcome during the rising action.
The prominance of The Illusive Man as the final foe to be overcome detracts from the overall threat and importance of the true antagonist, the Reapers.
These points were written as a stream of conscious, I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed or didn't feel like going in depth about, but I think those are some of the most important ones.
C. As I was writing this I read the Final Hours thread containing comments from Mac Walters and Casey Hudson as well as Walters' scribbled notes for the ending. Honestly I was taken aback.
Judging the content Hudson cut based on his feel for "the moment", I'd say his feel for emotional beats and his judgement of what was expendable for story economy was atrocious. The first Mass Effect was inundated at times with exposition and had very poor economy, this ending, on the other hand, is something of an opposite with not nearly enough information.
Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that. " Lots of speculation from everyone" is somewhat repulsive, as if providing an unclear, poorly planned ending that leaves your audience unsatisfied and grasping at straws for answers is somehow good storytelling. It gives me the inclination that the ending really was just for publicity.
I hope it continues to backfire.
1. The ending feels jarring and out of place and there is little closure, this is a sympton of the ending failing to live up to what we come expect from the story. As I've previously said, "Mass Effect is a conventional story with conventional expectations". A conventional story, almost all stories, follow a pretty standard plotline: Introduction - Ascending Action - Climax - Descending Action - Resolution. In film we break it up into 3 acts, roughly: the first act is the introduction, the second act is the rising action and longest act of the story, and the third act is the climax and resolution.
Mass Effect 3 and the previous games follow this plotline both as individual stories and in the grand scheme of things as a trilogy (a trilogy is basically the three act structure writ large), that is until the final moments of 3. For reference, The battle for Earth is the climax of the series and the run across no man's land to the Citadel beam is the climax of the specific game; with this in mind, the Citadel sequence is the final part of the descending action and the resolution for both the game and series, the part where the antagonist is finally defeated, the themes and dramatic questions are answered, and the loose ends are tied. Or rather, it should be. After the defeat of the Illusive Man (the antagonist role is somewhat muddled and blurry towards the end of the story, more on that briefly), the protagonist has reached his goal, the defeat of the Reapers is at hand; conventionally, this is where the protagonist would succeed, the Crucible fire, and the Reapers destroyed. Instead, the story grows convoluted (once again, this is supposed to be the resolution) at the height of the scene by jarring us out of it with the bizarre, dreamlike sequence of Sheperd's ascent on the magic platform and the introduction of an ancient and seemingly god-like form who expounds the final choice between three options, all presented symbolically in appearance and action: one which mirrors a co-antagonist's desire which has been reinforced throughout as wrong and contradictory of the protagonist's; one which is downright bizarre and is almost completely outside the scope of the game's main themes save for being somewhat in line with the primary antagonistic forces' goal; and one which accurately mirrors the protagonist's goal from since the beginning. The results of these choices vary and are wide-reaching, creating a massive upheaval of the story world, while being unclear. All of the characters and the entire setting are left to an uncertain and sometimes confusing fate.
Just looking at what I've typed, it's apparent this is not a resolution. New information is introduced throughout the entire sequence rather than tying loose ends. New information shouldn't be introduced in a resolution unless it directly resolves something or is quickly resolved itself; definitively, it's the opposite of what a resolution is. In layman's terms, this is what makes us feel like there are more questions than answers.
The fate of the characters and the final destination they reach in the story are crucial to the resolution, especially on the scale of a trilogy. During the ascending action, right before the climax of the no man's land run, we are given a send off from all of the characters; this is both out of order for a conventional plotline (more fitting the descending action rather than ascending) and dimished by the implications of the ending. Ultimately, it is through the characters that we most directly identify with the story and find the meaning, the lack of resolution in this regard is especially unsatisfying.
The resolution is where the audience is supposed to find the tale's "ever after", be it happy or sad. Mass Effect 3 completely lacks any sense of "ever after".
2. Video games, like film, are a visual medium; the ending tells us what happens rather than shows us what happens. This is easy to overlook but very important. Visual mediums for story are all about what we see. Another cardinal sin of storytelling commited during the ending is the description of, and differences between, the options in the final choice are almost all conveyed through exposition. The cinematics themselves, what we actually see, are extremely similar and all the implications of the choice we make are conveyed through what the exposition had told us. This is very poor storytelling and worse still to be considered the resolution.
3. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, plot holes. Relating to the previous points, the ending is excessively ambiguous and unclear. With only unclear exposition before the choice and without sufficient data presented afterwards, many situations are unaccounted for and either lack clarity at best or appear as plot holes at worst. The crash landing of the Normandy is a clear example of this ambiguity, both in it's plausibility and implications for the fate of the crew.
4. Nothing is gained by breaking convention and attempting to make the ending enigmatic or profound. Assuming this was the writers' goal, this is another failing. Some believe, myself included, that the writers' tried to use the jarring impact of an unconventional, imperfect ending to hammer home a message or theme (presumably: pre-destination, the uncontrollable nature of fate, and the individual's limited ability to impact the world). This, however, comes at the cost of the story and the audience's pleasure, a cost that is far too high for the nature of storytelling.
5. The resurgence and emphasis on The Illusive Man during the resolution as well as the lack of interaction with the Reapers and, more specifically, Harbinger, detracts from the Reapers as the antagonist. A lot of people expected a "boss fight" of sorts or a closing discussion with Harbinger at the end. This is a perfectly understandable and legitimate expectation. During the climax, we are almost defeated by Harbinger, the avatar for the Reapers as antagonist, however, during the resolution, it is the indoctrinated Illusive Man that takes takes center stage. Though he unwittingly is an assisting force for the Reapers, he is not directly representative of them, merely their influence. TIM's role is more fitting that of an obstacle to be overcome during the rising action.
The prominance of The Illusive Man as the final foe to be overcome detracts from the overall threat and importance of the true antagonist, the Reapers.
These points were written as a stream of conscious, I'm sure there are plenty of things I've missed or didn't feel like going in depth about, but I think those are some of the most important ones.
C. As I was writing this I read the Final Hours thread containing comments from Mac Walters and Casey Hudson as well as Walters' scribbled notes for the ending. Honestly I was taken aback.
Judging the content Hudson cut based on his feel for "the moment", I'd say his feel for emotional beats and his judgement of what was expendable for story economy was atrocious. The first Mass Effect was inundated at times with exposition and had very poor economy, this ending, on the other hand, is something of an opposite with not nearly enough information.
Walters' notes scrawled across loose leaf disappointed me. The ideas are clearly not fleshed out at all, strictly drawing board material, the execution we see in game is indicative of that. " Lots of speculation from everyone" is somewhat repulsive, as if providing an unclear, poorly planned ending that leaves your audience unsatisfied and grasping at straws for answers is somehow good storytelling. It gives me the inclination that the ending really was just for publicity.
I hope it continues to backfire.
that was my point.
I've said it before in regards to the Mass Relays, but I'm sure there's a huge difference between exploding because an asteroid was smashed into it, and from sending out space magic waves or whatever. The former is smashing it while there's still a lot of energy in it, likely releasing it all at once in a volatile manner, the latter is actively using up all that energy at once to perform a specific function then breaking down afterwards.
This would probably be a lot simpler if they simply didn't make that damn Arrival DLC. Relay survives a super nova blast beforehand, and there'd be no argument on THAT point of the ending since clearly this is something a relay's never done before.
This would probably be a lot simpler if they simply didn't make that damn Arrival DLC. Relay survives a super nova blast beforehand, and there'd be no argument on THAT point of the ending since clearly this is something a relay's never done before.
After re-watching it, they do show you which color/side is which in the initial dialog, but I was confused myself and did the exact same thing as you. Was planning on destroying them, but a combination of thinking control was a renegade decision, and moving towards everything and anything in a light blue color on a paragon playthrough made me pick that one.
Obviously this means that I, as the player, have been indoctrinated. IT GOES DEEPER
..and yes, in the end, outside of the Shep half-breath, it really doesn't matter in the end unless we actually get post-starchild DLC. If you care (as I did), you should have the option to 'restart mission' from the Citadel part. I replayed that segment and did things 'right'.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
IIRC,It even says in ME3codex that the dastroying the relays would cause massive damage to all planets in the system...
Escape Goat
Member
Nice post. Have you had any screenplays picked up that we would recognize?
gotta manage the community
Last Hearth
Member
I didn't write that, I was just reposting it.
Takamura-San
Member
Real easy to tell what posters you can skip on this forum when TROUBLE WITH HOMONYMS is one Hooked on Phonics tape they never bothered listening to.
The ending isn't terrible. Hard sci-fi ending given the implications and openness of everything. Speculation is fun!
more people finishing the game this weekend. hohoho
Good read, thanks for that.
FrontalMonk
Banned
agreed. very insightful. everything you said makes me go "well I could've thought of that" but I didn't, and I think it's been mainly because I haven't been taking the ending at face value. Taking it at face value, along with the final hours documentary stuff, really puts it in perspective as just a really shit ending that I don't think we deserved.
EDIT: Didn't write it? eh, points still stand. all of it makes sense.
when did you start thinking a trilogy ended with the third game? /aizen /bioware.
But no, the game still ends under the indoctrination theory, it just ends with shepards death in 2 of 3 options. there's no rule saying shepard had to defeat the reapers for me3 to end, thats just your sense of entitlement speaking.
Well they only have three options. They can destroy the community, merge the community with the mods, or control the community. It really doesn't matter since the end result will be the same.
Going to omega before the end of the game sounds stupid. Shepard already has the merc force, yet he's going to waste more time by freeing omega? Going to omega after wouldn't make much sense either (assuming there's a new end) since tim is dead and I imagine cerberus, by that point, annihilated.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Not like this.gif
Such a big galaxy and going back to Omega is boring too.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
You have to be in proximity of a reaper to be indoctrinated.
I'm not against subtle meanings behind things, but there's a difference between what they intentionally put in the game, and what people project their own ideas onto things and call it fact.
There was seriously no strong hint towards Shepard being indoctrinated, especially considering it had to have been the most subtle indoctrination ever seen in the whole series, and usually something that is foreshadowed, culminates into SOMETHING you can see at the end.
If there's any subtext to the ending of this game, it's that ultimately your choices don't make that big of a difference. Even Shepard, the most influential person in the modern galaxy, couldn't make that big of a difference.
FrontalMonk
Banned
Omega becomes a war asset. +100 EMS. >_>
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
I chose option 4
---
I demand that we have the ability to have Blue and Green text.... Please
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
You know, i've been replaying this game yesterday with a new Shepard(i know... "HOW DARE HE DO THAT, CHOICES WONT MATTER RAWR"), and im kinda disappointed that outside of the Mars mission, there isnt a lot of ME3 missions with a soundtrack similar to what was in ME1(well outside of the ones actually reusing ME1 tracks). Unless my memory is shit and there is more that were just forgettable.
- Status