BioWare Announces Free DLC To Add More To the Mass Effect 3 Endings

An anonymous reader writes "The battle between angry fans and BioWare has been raging since the game's release over several issues, with the biggest being the disappointing ending. BioWare have stuck to their guns and stated that they won't make a new ending, but will release free DLC to add clarity to the existing ones."

Comments

Completely change the ending.

[Githaron]

If you feed someone crap with frosting on it, you are still feeding them crap.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[lattyware]

That's where you are wrong. It was never about 'liking' the ending - to have a 'Shepherd rides off into the sunset happily ever after' ending would be terrible, as it doesn't fit the games. It's about an ending that gives you closure, shows you what happened after and how the choices you made affected the world. That's what they are adding, and they are doing it right in that way.

An ending you don't like is a fact of any work - be it a book, film or game. An ending that doesn't fulfill is another thing, and that's what people have a problem with. It's the rough equivalent of Sam and Frodo getting to Mt. Doom and it just ending as the ring falls in. Sure, you know it ended, you know the main thing, but all of the little stuff surrounding it, the characters you got invested in, the places and events you cared about, you want to know how it all mattered in the end.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was never about 'liking' the ending

Some people seem to think they're speaking for everyone. For some people, it was the endings that were the problem. Some people didn't want galactic civilization ruined. Others might have wanted a happy ending. Still others might have liked the current endings.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[lattyware]

I'm just talking about why there was such an uproar. Plenty of films, books and even games have endings lots of people don't like, but the endings that don't answer questions and give closure are the ones where everyone has a problem with them. People can live with an ending they don't like - but an ending that doesn't leave them feeling like it's done? People do this kind of thing. It's the difference between some people not liking it, and virtually everyone who played the game being dissapointed by it.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[grumbel]

I'm just talking about why there was such an uproar.

Well, I can't say why the uproar reached this magnitude, but the fact is that the ending is broken more then a few ways. It's not just that it doesn't give closure or answers all the questions, it's that it is lazy (i.e. color swap) and doesn't even make any sense on a very basic levels, it has characters showing up in places without explanation for how they got there and no time for them to have gone there. So it's not just bad, it's broken, which especially considering that the rest of the game and the rest of the series is perfectly fine is just a little weird.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[Electricity Likes Me]

Some people seem to think they're speaking for everyone. For some people, it was the endings that were the problem. Some people didn't want galactic civilization ruined. Others might have wanted a happy ending. Still others might have liked the current endings.

And amongst those people, there's a lot of nuance in the position - don't generalize just to feel superior. "Dark and angsty" is not profound, and in a lot of cases is just lazy writing.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[Elldallan]

*SPOILER ALERT*

Yes all of what you are saying as well as the fact that the ending breaks with a lot of previously established canon content. For example, the protheans re-engineered the keepers which delayed the reaper invasion, how could that matter when the citadel itself is the sentient overlord of the reapers?

Arrival also establishes that the destruction of a relay is really bad news for every living being in the same star system.

And exactly how would destroying all synthetics prevent the galaxy from just creating more(at least humanity knows how to make a true AI(EDI) and has established that it sees advanced AI/VI research to be an important part of staying current in the military space race). If you reunited the geth and the quarians there is nothing that prevents the quarians from creating them again, they know what they did wrong the first time.

The list of plotholes or contradictions could be made much longer but I'll settle with pointing out just a few.

Another thing that is surprising from a financial standpoint is that BioWare pretty much intentionally kills the entire Mass Effect franchise. Because unless the ending is invalidated the fact that regardless of ending the mass relays are destroyed meaning that galactic society is now pretty much fractured and dead since long-range interstellar travel/communication is now impossible.

Re:Completely change the ending.

[Githaron]

Dude, posting spoilers so soon, not cool :( You kinda ruined it for me now.

That's OK. Bioware and EA would have ruined it for you later.

EA strangles another once great studio

[stewartjm]

It's not just a disappointing ending. It's an ending that was obviously duct taped onto the end to shove it out the door 6-12 months before it should have been released.

And the only response from BioWare is typical PR spin, with wonderful PR phrases such as "we value our fans" and "artistic integrity".

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Nrrqshrr]

Not to mention that whole stock photo fiasco...
You take one of the most popular, loved, masked characters. She was in all three episodes, and there have been numerous speculations on what she could possibly look like. Entire threads with hundreds of posts were just discussing what lies under that mask of hers.... and in the end? It's just a poorly photoshopped stock photo they found on google and bought for 10 bucks.
Bioware is beyond redemption.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[wierd_w]

This surprises anyone?

For some reason, software companies feel that spaghetti wrapped in duct tape, (and in the case of game software), and that rough plots that are abrasive to the senses are "good enough", as long as they can "ship early!"

Nobody takes pride in their work or product anymore when it comes to software, except for independent hobby programmers.

It seems any time that *money!!* gets involved, quality slips, integrity dries up, and the bullshit gets deep. Really, it is just as much the public's insatiable desire for "WANT NAOW!" As it is the greed that feeds on it at fault.

We can't stop EA from being stupid assholes that ruin franchises and abuse studios. What we can do is control our side of the demand chain, and make their antics unprofitable.

The way to send EA the message is to buy their games used for 20$, and post pictures of the receipt on their forums as proof as part of the signature. If not their forum, any other forums you post at will do. Be sure the signature explains why you did this.

This is WORSE than not buying the game. Your making use of their support services actually COSTS them money, that will NEVER receive payment from you for. Hit them in the wallet, where it hurts the most.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Khyber]

Not Google, DeviantArt.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Omestes]

just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games.

Why ever not? They make a consumer product, the consumers don't like it. They either fix it, or the consumers go else where with their money next time.

Works just fine. We're not talking about fine art here. EA can keep their "artistic integrity", but no one has to buy it; that also is a perfectly fine conclusion to this story. Outside of the fact that people won't give them money again, no one is forcing them to change their ending, or make their game in a certain way. They are free to make the worlds crappiest game, and I'm free to never give them money again.

I'm not one to talk though, since EA has been on my shit-list for a long time (over a decade now). I always think twice before giving them money, and generally wait for the first month of player reviews, if the game looks really solid (more solid that anything else made by a different company). And I will never, ever, buy their DLC. Further, I'm one of the only person who never really found Mass Effect terribly fun. The first one was okay (outside of being forced to hide behind walls 90% of the time). The second one took away everything I liked about the first, so I never really gave two shits about the third one.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Khyber]

I paid great attention to the story. I carried several characters from ME to ME3, through several playthroughs.

That was a fucking cop-out with very little expounding upon the future consequences/benefits of said action. It was too short, lacking detail, and quite obviously HASTILY DONE.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[stewartjm]

If said game developer was a 1-3 person team I might just might buy the "Artistic Integrity" angle. But when said team is hundreds to thousands of people with the budget ticking at a million plus dollars a month, the actual impetus for "Artistic" decisions becomes crystal clear, and it's money money money.

Sometimes they do get lucky and churn out a hit despite their money driven process, most of the time they produce something that hits enough high points to pay back development costs with some profit, and other times they produce pure dreck like ME3s ending.

If only the gaming press wasn't so corrupt and incompetent, they might have been able to give ME3 the reviews it deserved, and kept it from raking in so much dough on the reputation of it's much more fulfilling predecessors.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[GmExtremacy]

just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games.

No one is saying that Bioware is forced to make anything. What they're saying is that they're displeased with what Bioware did make, and that they would like Bioware to fix it. It's Bioware's call after that.

You know, voting with your wallet? I'm really tired of people who think criticism is bad/giving your opinion is bad. Neither equates to thinking you have the ability to force someone to do what you want.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[LateArthurDent]

just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games. anyone who thinks the difference in endings is the cut scene color wasn't paying attention to the story at all.

I don't have a problem with the endings not being different enough (although I do have a problem with the difference to the endings essentially boiling down to a last second decision. You should be locked down to an ending based on choices you've made throughout the series).

What I do have a problem with is the lack of a satisfactory ending. Hollywood has historically placed happy endings everywhere they don't belong. People understandably complained about this because when you stick a happy ending on, for example, The Count of Monte Cristo, you just removed the entire moral lesson intended in the novel. Unfortunately, the result of this backlash is that people now think that emotionally complex endings where not everything works out in the end is "artistic" and we should just plop that everywhere. That's the exact same thing Hollywood has been doing with the happy endings, except that you're wrapping everything up with a bow of a different, sadder color.

The ending of a story needs to fit a story. For Edmond Dantes, he needs to accomplish his revenge masterfully, destroy all of his enemies exactly as he planned, only to find his life empty when all is said and done. For Shepard (s)he needs to do what (s)he's always done: beat all the fucking odds and accomplish the mission. If you're playing a Shepard that has sacrificed much along the way via the renegade route, that means a lot of bodies pave the way to final awesomeness. If you've been playing the game by taking the time to save kittens from trees, that means absolutely everything works out, synthetics are saved, organics are saved, the cycle is ended, and the mass relays are intact to usher in a new era of collaboration in the galaxy. Why? Because that's what your audience has invested all this time to achieve. Mass Effect isn't some literary masterpiece, it's an escapist reality where you get to be a badass. It's an action story in a sci-fi world. You don't play the game because you want to know how it ends, you play for the journey, and it better end exactly where you were planning to take that journey.

That's how the other two games operated, and maybe you want to pretend that wrapping a story that had absolutely no depth to it in an ambiguous ending increases the artistic value of the thing, but the rest of us see it as a cop-out and a bait and switch ploy. Those of us who just wanted to shut our brains off for a few hours were forced to turn them back on, and once you turn your brain on to try to figure out what the hell just happened you start asking questions such as *WHY WAS THE NORMANDY INSIDE A MASS EFFECT FIELD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BATTLE FOR EARTH?* Not only is the ending NOT the artistic masterpiece EA is claiming it is, but it's poorly thought out and cliched.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

To be totally fair, EA doesn't do this stuff out of malice. EA's acquisitions fail because their executives are miserably incompetent.

Basically this is what happens: some manager plays a game made by a beloved studio or minor competitor, and they get all starry-eyed about the amazing things the studio could do with some extra money. EA buys them, and it works fine for a little while. Then, some executive realizes that their subsidiary's games are really profitable, so they order the subsidiary to expand and work on more games. Other executives order rolling staffing changes based on whatever project sounds popular at the time. Quality slips as team members are overworked and no longer emotionally invested. Meanwhile the key staff, usually the founders, are used to dealing with small teams and small budgets. They allow themselves to be divided across too many projects to be effective managers. No longer constrained by small budgets, their ambitions explode and runaway projects become a major problem. EA's managers try to put the studio back on track by setting firm deadlines, but due to an institutional lack of effective project management or engineering experience, their deadlines are physically impossible. EA publishes a steaming turd in time for Christmas, decides the unit has lost its magic, and shuts it down. EA's accountants use the ordinary/capital losses to offset their gains from sports, and all of the executives take home a fat bonus.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the ending that you made up in your head can be massively different than what they showed us doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

What they gave us made no sense and provided no closure on top of that. Your entire squad just leaves you alone to take on the reaper forces by yourself? Harbinger just leaves you to do whatever you want and flies off to get a cup of coffee? Everyone lives at the end anyway, but you're stuck on Earth and your squad is stuck on some random jungle planet including the two that were with you at the end? EDI survives the destroy option? The fuck?

If you honestly think that ME3 had a legit ending then you must have seen something completely different than what was on my disk.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[arkhan_jg]

*WHY WAS THE NORMANDY INSIDE A MASS EFFECT FIELD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BATTLE FOR EARTH?*

And in my case, WTF is Garrus doing on board the Normandy doing a mass relay jump when a couple of minutes ago he was running for his life alongside me trying to avoid getting blown away by a Reaper on the final attack? And where the hell did the Illusive Man come from?

And after some 120+ hours game time, it comes down to some deus ex machina responsible for the whole business? I could have shot some power conduit back in Mass Effect 1 and saved us all the trouble?

I can live with an unhappy ending - my shepard giving up her life, anderson's life, even that of everyone on the Normandy to save the galaxy and stop the reapers fits with the story - giving up everything for the mission. But at least have some consequences to my prior actions. It didn't matter one goddamn how well or poorly I did in the build up to retaking earth in single player, it makes basically no difference. If I'd spammed multiplayer to get my 'readiness' rating up higher than its possible to in single player, I'd get a few seconds clip of N7 armour moving, and that's it. No impact upon how many reapers there are, how hard the final missions are, whether my companions live or die at the end. Nuttin.

Worse than that, the final scenes have no relevence or are barely related to any of the game I've just played, or the two predecessors. When my final suicide mission companions somehow end up on the Normandy heading out the Mass Relay when last I saw the ship was deep in the fighting, trying to buy me time... What the hell?? And when you've just stranded millions of aliens in earth orbit due to the destruction of the Relays, you only zoom in on stories told about the Sheppur some time in the future on the planet the Normandy crashed on?

I didn't need a HAPPY ending (though having the happiness relate to how hard I freaking worked or not would be nice) - as said, making a final ultimate sacrifice having said my goodbyes fits - but after the amount of time we've all put in to get here, I thought they'd at least put a bit more effort into having them make SENSE instead of the same weird ending upon your final choice amounting to a button which chooses which colour explosions you get.

It feels like the outsourced the ending to the same guy who came up with the one for Deus Ex: HR. At least with that it was only one game, instead of a series conclusion we've been waiting since 2007 for.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[thegarbz]

Not to mention the many other literacy taboos of adding another character as the ultimate faceless boss in the last minute of the game. The original Mass Effect did this brilliantly, you spent a lot of time learning about reapers and what they are capable of before being introduced to the fact that there's one currently in the game. But in Mass Effect 3 they just plop some kid out of a dream sequence?

Then there's the whole destruction of the Mass Relay bit. I just spent some 50 hours saving entire species like the Quarians who we've been told can't live of human food who are now stuck in Sol and will likely die out shortly. Or how about the Normandy not only being in a mass effect field, but when the field explodes they somehow quite magically happen to land on a habitable planet and survive, though I'm not sure what the survival rate for a handful of aliens on an unknown alien world may be. The ending is inconsistent garbage that doesn't make sense.

I disagree with you about one thing. Mass Effect is one of the best written and most detailed stores I've ever come across in a computer game. I would say its a literary master piece. Its just a shame that it looks like the last 5 minutes were written by someone who's never even played the first 2 games.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[scot4875]

The way to send EA the message is to buy their games used for 20$

No, the way to send EA a message is to not buy their games at all. There is plenty of shit to do, and plenty of other games to play. You don't need any of EA's games.

Unfortunately, gamers have about 0 resolve when it comes to 'sending a message' to some entity that sucks.

--Jeremy

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[GmExtremacy]

if you don't like the game make your own or buy something else.

It seems this is a false dilemma. There is a third option, and one that many people seem to be choosing: voice your criticism, and then vote with your dollar. That has a chance of actually changing something.

but bioware isn't obligated to do shit about your complaints.

This is a straw man. No one ever said they were (well, most people didn't). They will either listen or they won't. It's that simple.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[McGuirk]

You kidding? The people upset wanted an in-game model actually shown. They teased the face reveal in at least 3 places, then ended with the crappy 2D image. It was a big let-down.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[manwargi]

I'd heard another major complaint about that photo was that it's a plot hole-- the last time the quarians were able to safely live on a planet without their suits was a thousand years ago.

I figured that there were too many people expecting a sexy secret, but I however was hoping they wouldn't just make the quarians into purple humans. It was bad enough the asari looked almost exactly like humans. I would have liked quarians to be very alien looking in some way, and perhaps in particular Tali's appearance never being shown in-game. A nice condition about her character was that since her immune system was so vunerable and her appearance never revealed, a Shepard that romances her does so because of who she is on the inside, even if quarians turned out to be hideous and covered in bed sores. That continuity error of a photo was not only a copout, it cheapened that theme.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[Eponymous Hero]

i don't think you've been paying attention.

There is a third option, and one that many people seem to be choosing: voice your criticism, and then vote with your dollar.

i've been saying this in numerous other posts. in those posts i've said voice your criticism but lose the sense of entitlement. buy something else = vote with your dollar.

No one ever said they were (well, most people didn't).

there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.

They will either listen or they won't. It's that simple.

that's what i've been saying in response to the loud majority who want the ending changed.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[smellotron]

you're entitled to that opinion, and nothing more. that's the issue here. bioware has no obligation to change what you don't like.

True, but that's not the full story. No, you will probably not get very far by demanding a refund from Bioware or by threatening to force them (via lawsuit) to change the ending. But most people complaining are people who have purchased Bioware games in the past, and are likely to purchase them in the future. The company is absolutely free to alienate its user base; it's their funeral. The free DLC is an attempt to make amends precisely because many people voiced their opinions in forums like this.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[SuiteSisterMary]

They could have, at the very least, made the photo's hands match the character model.

They took the picture, and 'shopped out the ring and pinky fingers. Only when you look at a quarian's hands, they have a thumb, a finger, a large gap, and another finger. Like chopping out the middle and ring finger.

It was just half-assed and stupid. Make the face look like the voice actress. Or something. Something other than a stock photo with lens flare and poor 'shopping.

Re:EA strangles another once great studio

[echnaton192]

Bullshit. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10056886 explains, what was promised / advertised. They clearly did not deliver what was promised.

And don't give me that artistic freedom-bullshit. Artistic freedom is a constitutional right in Germany, barring the censoring of titles like Natural Born Killers, so I value this right. BUT - and this is important, this right does not stand alone. There are other rights. If you order a country side painting and get a city with no green in it, then you don't have to pay, because the contract was not fullfilled.

In other words: Had Bioware not promised very different endings, the whining of the other gamers would be whining and that's it. But this does not apply here, because they made specific claims they did not hold up to. And this is when the artist is not so free anymore. What is so annoying is the fact that people actually paid with their money and their time to get the best ending. Some used their shephards for 5 years. What Bioware and EA did here is outragious. And to have the chuzpa to claim artistic freedom over an ending that consists solely of false advertising is unbelievable.

I don't play 3rd person shooter, so I am not affected. But this is about holding the line as gamers. Clearly I don't count you as a gamer, because your posts miss the point by miles and you have no feeling for decency.

To me, this is about false advertising. And it is about a bad gaming experience in order to hold the timeframe despite the fact that people in charge promised something else. Should Bioware deliver an ending I count as holding up to the promises, I shall buy other games from Bioware. If not, I won't buy Bioshock 3 and everything else EA has to offer. They have to understand that "artistic freedom" ends when the artist acts like an entrepeneur and makes false claims. To me, they could have get away with it IF they did not make those false claims.

Had they said nothing about the ending or something like "whatever you do effects the plot, but in the end the faith of Shepherd is already written, so your achievements make no big difference in the end", I wouldn't be as pissed as I am. But they explicitly claimed the end to be different for every gamer and that all your choices make a difference in the final battle. The cake is a lie.

Don't do false claims and you are as an "artist" free to do with your product nearly everything you like. But artistic freedom does NOT give you the right to betrayal, because your rights and the rights of your customers are in a conflict here. And as much as I believe that games are art I do NOT believe that betrayal should be allowed just because it's a new kind of art. There are court decisions containing paintings or music that were ordered but the product was not to the customers demands. If nothing is agreed to, you could give him everything, including a white cube in a white room (meaning an empty picture) or something of equal artistic value. But you will not promise me a forest and deliver a cty with no trees in it. Simple as that.

Being the story vs being told a story...

[raydobbs]

...the distinction is clearly not important to EA or what's left of Bioware. I can honestly say that given this news, I have -zero- desire to play the series again as-is. This was a journey best not taken at all, and it has made me reflect on all the time I've wasted playing games in general. If I am being told a narrative, then it should do so - if I am part of the narrative, don't yank the control of it from me at the end because you don't like the possibility I will chose something you don't want to do. Also, you don't go all 'werewolf' and torch everything in the end - it makes people's investment a fruitless one. Until game makers figure that out, I am done with 'interactive fiction' titles - ESPECIALLY from these two.

Seems obvious to me

[sl4shd0rk]

Most people never finish these games and they know it, so why spend a lot of time on a great ending? For return customers? HAH! when you're the only game in town, you don't need to worry.

The second part is they really only care about the first couple months of the user experience. They put just enough effort into the game so they can still make high volume sales before anyone has a chance to get the shitty parts where they "duct taped" stuff on. By the time anyone figures it out, they've already made a ton of cash on it.

I just quit buying the new titles until they are a year or so old.

It's not the storytelling of the ending per se,

[wazzzup]

...it's the way the ending was implemented.

Battle Readiness high or low? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.
Geth or Quarians alive? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.
Rachni queen alive or dead? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.
Renegade or Paragon? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.

Regardless of plot holes and deux ex machina, what pissed me off was that the last 10 minutes of the game was antithetical to the way the entire series - hundreds of hours of playtime - functioned up to that point. The whole frickin' point of Mass Effect was that your choices mattered but ultimately they just didn't. And the fact that choosing control, destroy or synthesize only ended up changing the color of the explosions (okay plants had circuit boards in their leaves if you chose synthesize) was a fart in a bathtub.

I had a Paragon save and a Renegade save from Mass Effect 2 and played the Paragon first. There is no incentive whatsoever to play the Renegade save. I'm not even interested in any DLC because it's all pointless.

Re:It's not the storytelling of the ending per se,

[phorm]

At the end of ME2, you have the choice of either blowing up the collector base, or releasing a "pulse" which kills everyone inside it but keeps the base itself operational for "investigation" of the tech etc.

The video was pretty much the same, but your discussions with the Elusive Man are quite different.

The ending was bad, but...

[damnbunni]

The ending to Mass Effect 3 was nowhere NEAR as annoying as all the whining about it.

The ending was fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Should say "whether or not the ending is disappointing" rather than "the disappointing ending," because I wasn't disappointed by it. I felt it was a perfectly fine ending to the trilogy, and a very large number of people feel the same way as me. The difference is that those of us who enjoyed the ending aren't necessarily going to be vocal about it, whereas the goal of those who dislike it is to make as loud of a shout as possible so they can try and get their way. As much as people think they want a different ending (by and large they want a hollywood ending as opposed to the artistic ending, which is what their real problem with it is), sacrificing the integrity of the art for the sake of consumer demand is a far worse crime in my opinion.

"Artistic Integrity" is bullshit.

[nathan s]

Everyone who is going on trying to defend the ending and BioWare's laziness is missing the point. If I go to an art gallery, I want artistic integrity. If I buy a game, I want entertainment. It's not that the two can't overlap, it's that the place to express your inner postmodernist isn't at the end of a mainstream entertainment product where you promise the players (and they are players, not participants in your interactive art project) that their choices matter only to say "haha, I lied" at the end and swat them away like annoying little philistines while you gleefully burn their world down. I don't see how anyone who played the first two games (especially having played other games from the same studio in the past) could have predicted that this would be the sort of ending they'd get in the game. It's not that the end was sad or dark that bothers me. It was lazy, incomplete, and a ripoff of the Matrix's Architect mixed with the endings of a typical Deus Ex game.

This is on top of the fact that there is a fair amount of evidence (if only by repeated anecdote/rumor) that the ending was rushed and that it was literally a case of Casey Hudson and the lead writer writing the ending without requesting any feedback from the rest of the writing team with whom they'd collaborated up to that point. It certainly appears to have been written by someone who did not play and love the series as a game and saw it as a chance to be controversial for its own sake.

A real letdown. This was one of my favorite series by a studio I previously would buy titles from without a second thought, but the utter, utter laziness at the end of this game combined with the painful rush job that was Dragon Age 2 means I'll probably never buy another BioWare title new. I'd rather pirate them and decide first if it's actually a fun game or if it's yet another case of some "artist" jerking off.

</rant>

That and it also totally changes the story

[Sycraft-fu]

*SPOILER ALERT*

So the over arching story in the ME universe is, of course, "Stop the Reapers, save the galaxy." That's what the major theme is. Even when you think it has deviated, it in fact hasn't. The Reapers are the baddies, we don't know why and maybe we can't even understand (Sovereign says it is beyond our comprehension). also a big motivation behind this is the connection to the characters in the game. It features a lot of sitting and talking, and the reason is you get to know and care about your characters.

Then, in the last 10 minutes of the game, in 14 lines of dialogue, all that is changed. Now we are supposed to accept, from a character we've never met, that the Reapers aren't evil, and that we can't stop them or save the galaxy really, we just have to make a completely out of context choice. We are now supposed to make a decision about the value of organic and synthetic life, something that has never been part of the series.

Now such a change could happen validly in a story. You can have something going one way and then change... but not in the last 14 lines. This shit would have needed to happen shortly after ME3 started, you discover that all along your goal was the wrong one or a false one or whatever. You have time to come to terms with that, learn about it, and then work towards the new goal. That is valid in story telling. Not just completely changing shit right before the end.

Also there's the fact that you feel that absolutely everything you've done amounts to precisely nothing.

Re:That and it also totally changes the story

[stewartjm]

Destroying the Mass relays to stop the Reapers would be a perfectly acceptable renegade ending, if it was Shepard who was destroying the mass relays to stop the Reapers, preferably by running a combat mission where you hacked into the relay control network with EDI's help, possibly on the citadel.

One of dozens of gaping flaws with the end is that Shepard is no longer the protagonist, that role is assume by the star child deus ex machine, who was introduced 5 minutes previous with 14 whole lines of dialogue. If you choose destroy, it is the star child who destroys the reapers and the network, not Shepard.

Another gaping flaw is the fact that the citadel is at earth at all, which would be ok if it had been foreshadowed that it could move, by moving it earlier. Though even if it had been properly foreshadowed, what happened to all of the people Shepard knew who lived on the citadel? And why was it moved off screen? Talk about blowing a chance for an epic cut scene.

Bad, lazy, horrible, writing, and by far the best explanation for it, is that EA refused to extend the release deadline again, so they had to tack something simple on and throw it out the door.

No shit

[Sycraft-fu]

I have seen many good deconstructions of why the ending is a bad one from a literary point of view, cinematic, story telling, logical, and so on. There are tons of faults and I've seen them talked about at great length and with solid backing.

Everyone who says they liked it can't seem to elaborate. It was just "a good ending and you people are morons for hating it." Personally I think the reason id they fall in to one (or maybe more) of three categories:

1) Bioware fanboys. They think everything Bioware does is great and thus this must be great. A Stockholm Syndrome of sorts. They defend it because the need to feel that Bioware has done right be the series and didn't fuck it up, not because that is deep down how they feel. Their defense is reflexive.

2) Emo kids and wannabe ITGs. I've seen this with regards to movies and shit where people claim to hate "happy endings" and so on and act like the more things suck the better it is. They believe "dark" means "good". Of course they are usually fooling only themselves and you find if you examine the things they like, there are plenty of happy endings in it. They just play tough, or are pulling the emo crap.

3) People who don't really give a shit about RPGs. For them Mass Effect was just a shootie like Doom with more talking. They space through cutscenes, ignore dialogue, and so on. They are all about the action. So they have no real investment in the story at all, and thus the ending is fine. "Oh hey I blew a bunch of shit up! Go me! Good ending!"

I would think if the ending was truly so good, at least one person would be able to provide a competent defense as to why. Showing the things that were done well in terms of telling the story, providing closure, and all those kind of things an ending is supposed to do. That they can't well that tells me a lot right there.

Indoctrination Theory

[Dixie_Flatline]

If you search for 'Indoctrination Theory' on youtube, you'll find a 20 minute video that addresses the plot holes and stuff that just makes no sense at all. It not only changes the ending, it changes how I looked at the game.

But if it's true—and it might very well be—then BioWare failed at ending presentation, because it was too subtle for most of us to figure it out without referencing a video on youtube.

I'm on my second playthrough, and I've decided that the Geth are the thing that makes the least sense in the game. Why do Geth ships have hallways and railings? Consoles to type at? Guards? Why bother with any of that stuff? And the 'renegade' options near the end of that mission-line are stupid. They present a false dichotomy. You can be a renegade, but not only do you throw away a potential war resource, but they're no danger at all to the Quarians if you pick the paragon options. It's infuriating.

(Disclosure: I worked for BioWare for many years. I do not work for BioWare or EA anymore.)