Mass Effect 3 SPOILER THREAD: LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE

Status
Not open for further replies.
In magical la la land where BioWare actually change the ending they'll make it some super happy prissy bullshit because they'll think this is what everyone's problem is.

That poll on the BSN doesn't help matter.

Could I get a quick tl;dr on what people actually hated about the ending then?

edit: probably lack of variety.
 
Could I get a quick tl;dr on what people actually hated about the ending then?

edit: probably lack of variety.
tl dr?

  • Space magic solves everything
  • Synthetics aim to protect organics by killing organics before those organics create new synthetics to kill them
  • Normady leaves everyone behind for no reason
  • How does space magic work?
  • Did poorly what Deus Ex/Human Revolution had done


Edit/PS: Can I add your quote to the http://massdeflect.tumblr.com/?
 
Could I get a quick tl;dr on what people actually hated about the ending then?

edit: probably lack of variety.
here
Every Single Thing the Child Says Is Absolutely Crazy, Makes Absolutely No Sense, and Directly Contradicts Previously Established Major Plot Points and Facts

1. "The Citadel is part of me."

If the Citadel is part of the Child - the being who controls the Reapers - why did the Protheans' change to the Keepers prevent the Reapers from entering the galaxy through the Citadel? The Child IS the Citadel, he could simply activate the necessary function himself. The existence of the Child directly contradicts a major plot point previously established in the series.

What was the purpose of Sovereign needing to manually travel into the galaxy to deliver the signal to open the Citadel Mass Relay to the Keepers? The Citadel is part of the Child, so he should be able to open it himself.

2. "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."

A) Why not simply destroy the synthetics instead? The Reapers leave synthetics untouched, which would seem to run counter to their stated goal. Synthetics have indefinite lifespans and could persist into the next cycle to threaten future organic species! Destroying organics while leaving synthetics alone is not conducive to the stated purpose of the Reapers.

B) On Virmire Sovereign specifically states that civilizations develop "along the path we desire". In other words, the Reapers created the Mass Relay and Citadel so as to dictate the manner in which organic races develop technologically - but not in a way which would prevent or prohibit them from creating synthetics... the problem which necessitates the entire scenario.

Essentially: "You develop in a way that is dictated by us except for the thing you do which necessitates us controlling your development." If the Child's explanation is true it creates a circular fallacy of such absurdity that it sounds like an intentional joke.

C) His argument is logically fallacious. A synthetic intelligence possesses the same self-determination as an organic and is therefore not predisposed to any particular behavior simply by virtue of his physiological makeup. It is equally as likely, if not more so, that organics kill other organics. "Chaos" resulting from intra-organic conflict is far more prevalent and persistent than any conflict between synthetics and organics.

The only instance of synthetic-organic conflict in this "cycle" was a result of heinous acts on the part of organics - the Quarians' enslavement and subsequent attempted genocide of the Geth. Despite the irrational hostility towards the Geth these organics displayed, the Geth deliberately chose to allow the Quarians to flee Rannoch because they no longer posed a threat.
The game contains an entire mission meant to convey the docile nature of the Geth to the player.

The only instances in which a Geth ever harmed an organic for reasons other than self-defense were under influence from the Reapers. In other words, the only instance of the problem the Reapers exist to solve was a result of the Reapers intentionally causing the problem that they exist to solve. This makes absolutely no sense.

The only other known instance of a sentient synthetic is EDI, who declared absolutely unwavering allegiance to the organic crew of the Normandy.

As the Child is explaining that synthetic-organic conflict is a fundamental fact of the universe, just outside the Quarians and Geth are working together in the same fleet to fight against the Reapers.

D) The Child states that without his intervention, synthetics would destroy all organic life. For him to be so absolutely assured of this theory, it must have happened at some point in the history of the galaxy. However, if "all" organic life was extinguished at any point in time, organic life would not presently exist. The Child's assertion is disingenuous.

E) Sovereign and other Reapers have asserted on numerous occasions that Shepard could not possibly comprehend the Reapers' existence and purpose. Yet the Child easily explains the rather simple concept to Shepard in a matter of lines. Were the Reapers programmed to just spew nonsense if anyone ever spoke to them? If so, why? It seems more likely that the explanation offered by the Child is not true.

F) Among Harbinger's lines in Mass Effect 2 are statements regarding the viability of each species for transformation into a new Reaper. He specifically mentions the Geth, saying they have "limited utility". If the Reapers' purpose is as the Child claims, they would never harvest a synthetic species to create a new Reaper. The Child specifically states that they preserve the destroyed organic life forms in Reaper form. Why would Harbinger assess the viability of a synthetic race? This makes no sense.

G) The Child's statement that the Citadel is a part of him seems to suggest that he is mechanical in nature - synthetic. As a synthetic, his stated purpose is to ultimately aid organic life by solving the "chaos". His very existence makes his argument about the inevitability of synthetics harming organics ridiculous.

H) Shepard accepts all the completely inane things he says without questioning them at all. This is extremely bizarre behavior for Shepard, or any sane being. It seems more like when you're in a dream and crazy things happen but you just automatically accept them as being perfectly normal.
3. The lines spoken by the Child are simultaneously read by the voices of Female and Male Shepard, panned to the left and right speakers respectively.

It suggests, obviously, that the things Shepard is being told are in his or her own head - that it isn't real. This is something that the development team would have had to do very deliberately, they would not triple the amount of dialogue recording work for no reason.

4. "I control the Reapers. They are my solution."

Everything Sovereign said about the Reapers contradicts the notions that they are tools controlled by a Child for the purpose of preserving Order.

A) Sovereign stated that each individual Reaper is an "independent nation" unto itself. That nobody created them - they have always existed and always will.

B) Sovereign stated that Reapers are the pinnacle of evolution and existence, yet the Child states that the magical synthesis resulting from Shepard throwing himself into a beam to merge all life forms into new D.N.A. is the apex of evolution.

C) Sovereign states that the Reapers are the "end of everything". Everything is a word with a very distinct meaning - it means everything, not just organics.

D) Sovereign states that the Reapers have no beginning and no end. If they were the Child's solution to Chaos they must have had a beginning - namely that point at which the Child devised the solution.

5. "The Crucible has changed me, created new possibilities."

The organic races that designed the Crucible bit by bit over millions of years ended up accidentally creating a piece of technology that interacts with and changes a system/being (the Child) they didn't know existed. Shepard is the first organic ever to meet the Child.

Why do color-coded devices exist on the aeons-old Citadel which can interact with the Crucible?
What led them to believe that the Citadel was a "Catalyst" in the first place? What did they believe the Citadel would do to augment the Crucible? Why did they think this? Why did the Star Child/Reapers ever allow them to discover these things if it could potentially threaten the cycle?

6. "We helped them ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."

A) Refer to Harbinger's assessment of the Geth for possible transformation into Reaper. This possibility would not even be considered if the Reapers' purpose is as the Child describes - to store harvested organic life in "new form".

B) The Child's methodology seems ineffective. If his intention is to preserve organic life by processing each cycle's organic species, thereby creating a new Reaper or multiple new Reapers, the very nature of the process is self-defeating as untold numbers of Reapers are lost in the galactic war at the end of the next cycle.

Shepard alone killed three Reapers, one of which actually spoke to him. Depending on how many new Reapers are created from each organic species, the mortality rate of Reapers means this system is not a very effective way of storing organic life in "new form".

C) If the Reapers' purpose is to prune organic life to protect it from chaos resulting from synthetics as well as preserve it by creating new Reapers from all existing species, why would they bring the Citadel to Earth specifically? Why would they attack Earth first as opposed to one of the more technologically sophisticated civilizations, more likely to create or have created synthetics?

The galaxy has a strict ban on the creation of artificial intelligence - in fact, the only species known to have created synthetics is the Quarians. If the Reapers went anywhere first one would think it'd be the Flotilla. Unless, as previously established by the actions of the Collectors and direct statements from Harbinger, the Reapers are in fact primarily interested in harvesting the most viable species of the cycle for the creation of a new Reaper.

Considering Harbinger's rundown of the species present in the galaxy and his positive assessment of human genetic malleability, it would make sense that the Reapers bring the Citadel - allegedly a Reaper processing device similar to the Collector Base - to Earth. It does not really make any sense if the Child's explanation is true.

D) If the Reapers have the rather more elegant harvesting methodology of bringing the Citadel to various planets for the creation of new Reapers, why would they bother employing a race of indoctrinated Protheans to covertly abduct individual colonies of humans for the creation of a human-form Reaper?

The entire purpose of the Reapers according to the child is to completely eradicate an organic species, "storing" it in new form and making room for future life forms. They couldn't have thought the Collectors would be able to successfully harvest every single human being in the galaxy? If the Child's explanation of the Reapers' purpose is true, the actions of the Collectors and the events of Mass Effect 2 make little sense.

E) If The Illusive Man informed the Reapers of the organics’ intentions to destroy them by attaching the Crucible to the Citadel, why would the Reapers bring the Citadel to Earth and establish a conduit through which it could be infiltrated? The Citadel is impenetrable when its arms are closed. If they closed it and left it where it was they could never have been defeated.

7. "I know you've thought about destroying us."

The Child uses strange language with regard to himself and the Reapers. He claims the Reapers are his solution, a force he controls... then uses the pronoun "us" as if to describe himself as one of the Reapers. How does he know what Shepard has thought about? Shepard hasn't thought about destroying the Child because she has never known the Child existed.

It might just be awkward writing but this sentence is conspicuously worded and seems to suggest the Child himself is a (representation of) a Reaper - the Codex entry on indoctrination specifically mentions the victim seeing ghostly figures. The child’s appearance qualifies as ghostly.

8. "But it also proves my solution won't work anymore."

The Star Child's entire purpose is to preserve order in the galaxy by using the Reapers to "prune" organic civilizations. But for no reason, Shepard being in the Citadel means his solution won't work anymore. He could have Shepard killed, or tell Shepard to sod off and everything would proceed as it has for all the previous cycles.

However, again for no reason at all, he presents Shepard with the options to destroy or control the Reapers, both of which would bring this alleged "chaos" to the galaxy, which he spent untold aeons labouring to prevent. And he's just totally cool with this.

He could have never appeared to Shepard, never brought her up to the Catalyst room, or simply never said a single word... and Shepard would not have understood the purpose of the devices in that room, thus preserving the Solution.

To a rational human being, nothing about this scenario makes any sense.



Everything About the Choices Makes Even Less Sense Than the Preceding Scenes

1. What is the purpose of letting Shepard control the Reapers???

For no reason whatsoever, the Star Child presents you with the choice to let Shepard control the Reapers. Shepard would obviously then choose to keep them from harming organics. If this was an acceptable outcome to the Star Child, he could have just made the Reapers retreat back into dark space, producing the exact same result as letting Shepard control them. Shepard would not have had to die.

This makes absolutely no sense. It needlessly places Shepard in an important sacrificial role, almost as if Shepard's unconscious mind is creating an illogical scenario, contrived to focus on her despite it being utter nonsense - much as we do when dreaming.

2. The notion and intended effect of the Synthesis make absolutely no sense.

How does the synthesis stop the resulting hybrid lifeforms from later creating additional pure synthetics out of metal, which could then go on to threaten the existence of the hybrids? Would any robotic body constructed from natural metallic elements magically convert into the new hybrid D.N.A. upon insertion of sufficient artificial intelligence? This is space magic and makes no sense.

3. When Shepard chooses the Control or Synthesize endings, her eyes become like The Illusive Man’s.

The Illusive Man’s eyes are very distinct in that they have two glowing orbs on both sides of the iris. Evidently he was slowly indoctrinated over the years since his contact with Reaper technology in the First Contact War. Why would Shepard’s eyes suddenly change to the appearance of indoctrinated eyes when she chooses the options which, according to the indoctrination theory, would result in her failure to overcome indoctrination?

She also seems to become husk-like in appearance when her skin burns away. Mass Effect 2 suggests that Shepard is still mostly organic - it seems unlikely that there’s metal under her skin as depicted in the Control and Synthesize endings, rather than muscle and bones. She does bleed, after all.

4. Who built the three distinct Control, Destroy, and Synthesize devices used in Shepard's choice?

It's unclear as to whether the conversation with the Star Child takes place on the Citadel or the Crucible. He says it's the Citadel, but there has been some debate. In either case, the existence of these devices is so absurd as to be laughable.

If these devices exist on the Citadel, that means billions or trillions of years ago when the Citadel was originally constructed, the Star Child/Reapers foresaw that the cycle would come to an end at the hands of a partially synthetic human and built in three distinct mechanisms which would allow themselves to be destroyed, controlled, or merged with organics by harnessing the unique physiology ("essence") of a specific ressurected human being - except this could not possibly have been the case as the child specifically stated that Shepard's presence and the attachment of the Crucible are what just now made these options possible.

This makes no sense and nothing about it is possible.

Did he use space magic to construct these devices in the moments it took Shepard to reach that room? If it wasn't clear before that moment the established cycle was no longer viable, why would they construct devices that could ensure their own destruction or enslavement prior? Why would they allow such devices to exist prior to the revelation offered by the attachment of the Crucible and Shepard's presence?


5. If Synthesizing Shepard in order to create a new form of hybrid D.N.A. is the perfect solution to Chaos and the Synthesis device existed on the Citadel all this time, why wasn't it used billions of years ago to solve the Chaos problem?

If the synthesis device existed on the Citadel, the Child or his creator must have known of synthesis as a possible solution and built this device. Surely with the immensely advanced technology at his disposal he could have constructed his own "Crucible" to enact this change.

Is Shepard the “chosen one”, the only being ever to exist in the universe capable of utilizing the device and producing this fundamental change to all life everywhere? A scientifically irreproducable instance? This is fantasy nonsense. Everything about it makes absolutely no sense.

C) If, however, the child is lying and the devices are on the Crucible or even a result of its existence, that means the devices were part of the schematics designed by numerous races over millions of years.

How would these races know how to create devices capable of controlling or destroying all Reapers? The current races built the Crucible without any notion of what its function was or how it worked. At some point one of the organic races would have to have devised the technology required to design the machines which execute the three functions. How would the organic races of the Milky Way ever figure out how to emit a beam that somehow destroys all Reapers everywhere? Why would the Star Child allow them to gain this knowledge?

How would they know how to make a device which requires a single person to magically sacrifice themselves to transfer their consciousness into all Reapers at once and control them indefinitely from any distance? Why would the Star Child allow them to gain this knowledge? If they knew how to create either why would they include both in the Crucible? What was the intention behind including the green device - something evidently meant exclusively for Shepard?


D) Does it sound anything but batshit crazy that anyone devised all three technologies and chose to include all of them in a single structure or room?
Wouldn't they have decided what to do about the Reapers/the Chaos first and then set out to design a specific device that accomplished that specific, intended function? Regardless of whether the devices are on the Citadel or the Crucible or whom they were constructed by, this, folks, is reality and plausibility breaking off as the game designer's hand visibly reaches into the narrative and presents you with three artifically manufactured choices which exist outside of any reasonable in-fiction context. It makes absolutely no sense.

E) The concept of using the "essence" of a single partially synthetic human being to merge all life in the galaxy including plants and trees into hybrid organic-synthetic lifeforms, thereby creating a new "D.N.A." is completely ridiculous.

What does this even mean? How does this work and who came up with it?

The Child said the Crucible created this possibility, meaning the organic species who designed it sccidently created a method by which Shepard’s essence is used so that the D.N.A. of every being in the universe is reconfigured from a wave of space magic and they don't feel anything or noticeably change in any way, they just instantly become the apex of evolution thereby automatically solving the chaos resulting from the existence of robots, a problem they were never aware of.

Did anyone really watch this ending and believe it was actually happening? Like, for real? Who listened to this and nodded their heads, sagely considering the choice ahead? This is such crazy off the wall nonsense that it sounds like something from a delirious dream. Are you still wondering why so many people believe the ending actually IS one?

Nothing About the Post-Choice Scenes Make Any Sense

1. After all three choices, the Mass Relays are destroyed when transmitting your choice flavor of space magic.

It was established in Arrival that the destruction of a Mass Relay results in a powerful supernova-like explosion that destroys the star system the Relay resides in. If every Mass Relay were to explode, you can imagine the effect on the galaxy. Would the devastation to organics be any less than what the Reapers would have wrought? Or more? Why would the Child present this as a reasonable choice, and why would Shepard not question it in any way whatsoever?

2. Why is Joker fleeing the Crucible waves in the Normandy, particularly the green one?

Why do the waves seem to be damaging the ship when their intended purpose has nothing to do with physically damaging a spaceship - the Red wave is intended to destroy synthetics, not inanimate metal objects such as spaceships. The Green wave must have hit them at some point because the crew emerges from the ship newly endowed with ultimate hybrid D.N.A. So it evidently wasn't harmful, yet caused the ship to be damaged and crash for no reason.

3. If Joker was traveling fast enough to outrun the wave transmitted through the Mass Relay, he must also have been traveling through a Mass Relay.

Meaning the point at which the Normandy emerged would be in a star system occupied by a Mass Relay. Since the wave was just behind the Normandy, the Mass Relay would have exploded almost immediately after the Normady arrived in the system. It could not have crash-landed on a planet because the resulting explosion would have wiped out both the Normandy and the entire star system. The scene depicting the crew emerging onto a planet is impossible.

4. How is the crew that you had with you on the ground suddenly in the Normandy and fleeing the Crucible wave as it emerges?

Why wouldn't they be on the ground fighting the Reapers? Where did they disappear to during the assault on the Citadel beam? Why did they assume the wave from the Crucible would be dangerous to them, or that Sol System's Relay would explode and start running away in the Normandy, yet none of the other combatants on the ground assumed the same or made any attempt to flee before it hit?

It seems strange that Joker and the Normandy crew, and only they, knew to escape the solar system. Nothing about this event happening makes sense - it's almost as if Shepard's mind is bringing to fruition her utmost desire to see the safety of her friends and crew.

5. Why would Bioware choose to show the scene of Shepard awakening in the London rubble?

Why include this clip that indicates something more is to come? If the sequence was really fighting off an indoctrination attempt, the choice to destroy the Reapers represents Shepard defeating it, after which she would naturally wake up where she was rendered unconscious - in the debris of London.

If she was actually on the exploding Citadel at any point, how would she have been transported from it back into the ruins of the city and then suddenly be unconscious again and laying amongst stone? Doesn't it make more sense that she never left the surface? More sense than the deluge of garbage you just experienced, at least?

Everything about the final moments of the game is absolutely messed up. Either something is not as it seems and Bioware did this intentionally, or any casual player paying moderate attention to the events depicted on-screen is apparently paying a lot more attention than the professionals whose job it was to craft this story. If that's the case, we, as a society and consumer base need to demand a higher degree of competence from the people we pay to make art and entertainment for us.
 
I don't want to be the one to say it, but I've had more fun speculatin' on GAF and elsewhere than I would have had simply enjoying a competent ending to this series.

Truly Walters has spoiled me with his idiocy.
 
Could I get a quick tl;dr on what people actually hated about the ending then?

It completely disregards the philosophy of the series (culmination of choices and appropriate consequences) in favour of a vague ending that litters the lore with numerous newly introduced questions, deliberately hinges the series future on an unanswerable, speculative state, and disregards the accumulated choices and decisions players have made through the series, while also devolving the end choice itself down to three incredibly similar, binary choices (A, B or C), of which conflict with how BioWare promised the ending to play out.

Walters and Hudson's notes about the ending enforce this. They didn't want to give closure to the series, nor have intentions of continuing the series past Mass Effect 3. They very deliberately wanted to end the trilogy in a way that would leave the entire game universe open to speculation, to the point of cutting planned content.

This is coupled with disagreements with how the ending itself handles it's revelations and twists, which have been almost unanimously deemed lazy writing that disrespects the lore and narrative.
 
There really has to be an update to the OP about this. The bolded isn't really why people don't like the ending.
Really. It really is getting out of hand. Guys just jump in this super large thread like wild apes and start picking fights on all the wrong reasons. "oh wowzers you guys juss want an happae ending!!1 :p "
 
I really have friends that truly believe Bioware has set this thing whole up. My one friend said its "revenge" for the plot leaks. I find that too risky, but he just insulted me. There's no way they thought of this all beforehand. Walters just tried to be avant-garde and failed.

Mac Walters was just shooting for the Matrix 1 ending. And failed utterly.
 
Yeah, but life goes on - blabla. Can't help but wonder what space child thinks of his solution in light of that. ...How in the name of fuck is "nuke all synths" a new solution, when that damned AI apparently knows for a fact that civilizations will eventually a) produce synthetics and b) eradicate organics. So one of his possible solutions is "I give up" and the other is "Let Shep take control and maybe he'll keep it up" or "Synergy" which is nothing but a cop-out clause.

Mac Walters was just shooting for the Matrix 1 ending. And failed utterly.
Worked for rocK`. Mission accomplished.
 
Could I get a quick tl;dr on what people actually hated about the ending then?

edit: probably lack of variety.

For me it was a couple things that I'm not going to go into super detail over.

-lack of closure in general. What happened? Are all the relay systems blown up? Did they just deactivate?
-A clear departure from all established "mythology" I know that might sound silly on my end but come on.
-How did liara and garrus end up on the Normandy? (speaking of which Garrus will starve to death on that planet. Not really a fuck up but he should look more concerned at least)
-This one is on me but none of the choices I made really mattered at all.
 
ah yes, 'happy endings'

aj7O7.gif

I get those at my local massage parlour.

Every time I see someone defending this ending I think they're just so precious, like a mewling kitten or a baby duck or something, not really cognizant of the world around them, just sort of there.
 
It completely disregards the philosophy of the series (culmination of choices and appropriate consequences) in favour of a vague ending that litters the lore with numerous newly introduced questions, deliberately hinges the series future on an unanswerable, speculative state, and disregards the accumulated choices and decisions players have made through the series, while also devolving the end choice itself down to three incredibly similar, binary choices (A, B or C), of which conflict with how BioWare promised the ending to play out.

Walters and Hudson's notes about the ending enforce this. They didn't want to give closure to the series, nor have intentions of continuing the series past Mass Effect 3. They very deliberately wanted to end the trilogy in a way that would leave the entire game universe open to speculation, to the point of cutting planned content.

This is coupled with disagreements with how the ending itself handles it's revelations and twists, which have been almost unanimously deemed lazy writing that disrespects the lore and narrative.

OK - so it's not that it's a bad ending, it just doesn't stay truthful to what bioware promised, right? it devolved, depersonalized and disagreed with facts of ME3.

If that's why people are pissy, I guess that's fine. I didn't think that they could tie a neat bow on the series, there was just way too much in that universe that I could expect 1 cycle to fully explain...
 
Now you're just displaying the typical manifestation of confirmation bias: find information that seems like proves your point and ignore/dismiss all information that says you're wrong.

We have information on how the explosions of the relays are different in ME3 than in Arrival: IT'S SHOWN TO US. You can see it very clearly, the relays use all their energy to fire and THEN they explode. In the case of the alpha relay it still contained plenty of energy when the asteroid hits it, hence the explosion tooks out a solar system.

Again, look at the explosion in Arrival, the Citadel explosion is nothing like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Ti0nEz--8

Then it dismisses everything else previously mentioned and known about relay destruction. It's the writers changing everything at the last minute to shoehorn in their ending.
 
OK - so it's not that it's a bad ending, it just doesn't stay truthful to what bioware promised, right? it devolved, depersonalized and disagreed with facts of ME3.

If it didn't live up to Bioware's promises, devolved, depersonalized, and disagreed with the facts established in the ME series, then it's a bad ending
 
OK - so it's not that it's a bad ending, it just doesn't stay truthful to what bioware promised, right? it devolved, depersonalized and disagreed with facts of ME3.

If that's why people are pissy, I guess that's fine. I didn't think that they could tie a neat bow on the series, there was just way too much in that universe that I could expect 1 cycle to fully explain...

No it's also the ending. Alot of plotholes. Why introduce such a major plot point towards the last few minutes of the game? Then there's more minor stuff, like where the fuck did The Illusive Man come from when Shep and Anderson were in the Citadel? Liara was on the island where the Normandy was stranded, but was also in my squad during the final battle. How?
 
OK - so it's not that it's a bad ending, it just doesn't stay truthful to what bioware promised, right? it devolved, depersonalized and disagreed with facts of ME3.

If that's why people are pissy, I guess that's fine. I didn't think that they could tie a neat bow on the series, there was just way too much in that universe that I could expect 1 cycle to fully explain...

The universe... they couldn't even explain what happened to your squadmates.
 
OK - so it's not that it's a bad ending, it just doesn't stay truthful to what bioware promised, right? it devolved, depersonalized and disagreed with facts of ME3.

If that's why people are pissy, I guess that's fine. I didn't think that they could tie a neat bow on the series, there was just way too much in that universe that I could expect 1 cycle to fully explain...
Some screenwriter on BSN made a lengthy post about it from a storytelling perspective, too:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10022779/1
 
No it's also the ending. Alot of plotholes. Why introduce such a major plot point towards the last few minutes of the game? Then there's more minor stuff, like where the fuck did The Illusive Man come from? Liara was on the island where the Normandy was stranded, but was also in my squad during the final battle. How?
You don't need rocK` to tie your questions into a nice bow, now do you?
 
OK - so it's not that it's a bad ending, it just doesn't stay truthful to what bioware promised, right? it devolved, depersonalized and disagreed with facts of ME3.

If that's why people are pissy, I guess that's fine. I didn't think that they could tie a neat bow on the series, there was just way too much in that universe that I could expect 1 cycle to fully explain...
No it is a horrible ending. Your original suggestion that everyone was mad because it wasn't a happy ending is what was wrong. The consensus is still the ending is bad.
 
From what everyone was saying I thought that not curing the genophage would lead to Mordins death. I was able to convince him to live and lie, but he's already been sending emails to peope, I think Wreav is going to find out.

Also, I don't want a happy ending, I want a good one. That is not the same as everything is resovlved, I wanted something that was satisfactory to the time I placed in the series, and bioware failed.
 
In magical la la land where BioWare actually change the ending they'll make it some super happy prissy bullshit because they'll think this is what everyone's problem is.

That poll on the BSN doesn't help matter.

Actually I think that's what Casey Hudson/Mac Walters will do. The simple matter is they can not admit they screwed up the ending utterly because if they do EA will fire them. So they will create some bullshit Hollywood happy ending and tell EA that's what the fans want.

I predict nobody dies in the "Happy ending." I am trying to think of other bullshit fan service they will come up with. Oh yeah EDI will marry Joker. And Shepard will be elected the first president of the United Galaxy Federation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom