The litmus test

So, subjectively you think this but then claim it's objective. What's the argument that it's a good ending?

And ending is good or bad to me based on the logic people apply to validate their stance. So no the ending isn't objectively bad. Because the reasons people give for why they dislike the ending are not objective. There is a lot of selective reasoning or selective outrage when it comes to the endings.

It is the same thing as Marvel and DC movies. A lot of selective out rage with people being over backwards to validate stuff Marvel does. But DC does the same thing and suddenly it is a piece of shit with terrible writing.

If this poll doesn't change from 100% no I'm leaving this board for good.

Calling it objectively not bad is a case of mass delusion.

Yes, I don't like the ending personally, big surprise.

I'm not saying it is, but one can be subjectively in agreement about something that is also objectively proven.

Objectively? There are very seldom few truths to the universe outside of a historical domain (as in, stating something that has happened,) and even then, you get morons that deny that it happened (think the Moon Landings.)

I'm not a fan of the Catalyst AT ALL. Really not. Yet, can I say I think it's objectively bad? Well, no. (Never mind that I mod the ending so it's more to my taste.) I don't like all things that happened in the Destroy ending but I can still be ultimately satisfied with it. I don't find Synthesis to be the worst thing ever but my headcanon tells me it's a Reaper plot that I ought not trust. So I don't. Control just seems horrifying to me, like replacing a set of inept but ultimately human overlords with essentially all-powerful overlords...who I don't trust. My headcanon says they're still indoctrinating just by their presence so no way.

To be objectively bad, to me, I'd have to hate all parts of it. I don't, though I dislike a lot of parts to it. Hence, I'm stuck with feeling lukewarm about it all but not being emotionally attached to it. Maybe I had to be there when the games originally came out.

There was massive out cry about Batman Vs Superman as well. But I've seen the arguments against it when compared to Marvel movies.  People complain about the Martha scene yet have no problem with Tony doing a 180 for no reason over his mother simply for plot reasons.  Complaints about why Wonder Woman was even in the movie and yet Black Panther served no purpose in Civil War. You could have replaced him with any country on the planet and still had the same thing happen.  Why didn't Wonder Woman throw the spear to kill Doomsday? Why was Zemo able to smuggle a van full of high explosives into a multinational UN meeting that would have check points on their check points with the dog only finding it just before the explosion? As well as having it close enough for the shrapnel to potentially kill participants.  Superman isn't suppose to be all dark and brooding. Yet Thor is allowed to make quips while the literal apocalypse is happening and thousands of people die.


Loud minorities always make themselves seem bigger then they are.  Politics is always a good example to that. If you listen to the loud minorities then the USA is made of nothing more then 2 extremely polar opposites who will rather see everything destroyed then think they are wrong.  Those idiots are minorities the vast majority are more middle ground.  They don't follow their political ideology like it is religious dogma handed to them by their god.

Also it should go without saying you never tell your customers they just don't get it. That is the single stupidest thing to do because then you give them a legitimate reason to hate you.  If you ever worked in customer service or retail you would know this by heart.  Were I work I have to explain stuff to people a dozen times. I'm not allowed to look at them and tell them they must be stupid for not getting it or hint that it is pretty simple and they should be able to get it without me needing to explain it to you.  And when they get mad at me or my co workers even though we did nothing wrong we still have to apologize. They come in with an obviously well used item and want to exchange it for a new one claiming they got it only the other day. We can't roll our eyes and tell them we aren't stupid this isn't new stop lying. We have to say sorry but we can't exchange that item.  You complain about me pulling a straw man but you are just as guilty of it.

The entire game is open to interpretation not just the ending. The reasoning and effect it has is open to interpretation. Choosing to save or sacrifice the council is open to interpretation on why. The game doesn't even bother to explain how choosing to sacrifice them would even work they just hand wave it away and allow it to be a valid choice.  TIM's intent with the Collector base can have a dozen different interpretations for each choice.  100 player can make the same choices in the game and have 100 different reasons for those choices.  Vagueness allows all those interpretations to be valid at the same time. Because the game has always made stuff vague to allow every player to come to their own conclusion.  Going back to ME 1 the entire game sets it up to show the Citadel Fleet is being pushed back. The lack of Alliance Support would mean their defensive line would collapse under the onslaught.  Which means choosing to sacrifice the Council should have resulted in the Reaper's victory as the Citadel Fleet collapses the Geth would be free to attack the Alliance focusing on Sovergin.

But there are no wrong choices and no wrong interpretations in this game. So the only way to accommodate that is to make endings vague to allow people to fill in the blanks.  Now if it was a more linear story with only minor choices like Infamous then you might have more of a point about complaining about vagueness.  Dozens of choices across 3 games, none of them are invalid with hundreds of different interpretations of events that are also valid.


When you are writing a book you tell a story from start to finish. The reader choices are not mixed into it. When you read Harry Potter you are reading the start to finish story that JK Rowling wrote. She didn't give readers the choices of what Harry does in the Sorcerer's Stone and then have to incorporate that into Chamber of Secrets. Then the choices of the 1st and 2nd book into Prisoner of Azkaban.  She also tells a story that Harry did A, B and C in this order and A, B and C means X,Y and Z.  You seem to be comparing to very different set ups to each other and declaring they are the same.  When JK says that Dumbledore is gay then he is gay. It is now canon. BioWare has refused to make even the most vague statement to establishing any canon in the game. To the point when they made ME:A they chose a way to avoid everything of the original trilogy to avoid any even vague establishment of canon for the trilogy.

You seem to be comparing two very different things as if they are the same.

I voted no. I have said this before: The end of Mass Effect 3 is not a bad ending, but it was a disappointing end to the trilogy.

Taken on its own, the end is actually pretty good; stick it in some other games and it works quite well. The issue of course, is it came at the end of three games and was supposed to conclude Shepard's story, but it did not do it in a satisfying way.

I will also say this: the extended cut made some endings better, and made some endings worse.

Oh what a surprise.  Same reaction when you talk about the game or when you start to talk about Marvel movies compared to DC.

This is why the ending isn't objectively bad. Because people like you who complain about the ending can't even get into a discussion without dismissing anyone the instant they challenge or idea of it. If they don't instantly acquiesce to your opinion you simply stop talking. Anyone like that isn't a valid opinion in my book.

And you disregard my tangible comparison because it counters your tangible comparison.  Using multiple examples I might add.  Thousands can petition BioWare over something but you need to look at their reasoning not jut that they did it.  Hell you could probably still find thousands of people who thinks former US President Obama is a Muslim who was working under cover to destroy America and convert everyone to Islam by sword.  You don't judge the validity of theses statements by how many have it you judge it by their reasoning behind it.

For example your complaint about TIM's portrayal in ME 2 vs ME 3. But he is extremely consistent as TIM is shown to be more upset over potentially losing the Collector base then the horrors that happened there. He shrugs off dozens of workers who were driven insane by the dead reaper to further his plan.  He apparently tolerates failure/gives so little fucks that on 2 known occasions it has resulted in people under his employment participating in brutal experiments just to provide some proof that they are getting someplace.  Jack and David Archer both are known examples of the lack of morals and fear of failure TIM creates in the people he hires.  ME 3 continues that trend showing TIM going down the natural path of ME 2. He gets a hold of Reaper tech and as soon as he can uses it against people to create his own military force to suit his needs and to hell with anyone else.  He continues to screw over everyone and anyone that gets in his path to what he thinks is the best way to proceed.  EDI directly tells Shepard that TIM only has a handful of projects active at any given time because he demands direct oversight of them. He seeks control and he seeks to elevate humanity above all others. His actions in ME 3 continue that trend and continue to support that same character.

You feel the game failed to to explain how TIM goes from ME 2 to Reaper puppet in ME 3. Yet the details are in the game to explain it. You call it hackneyed ham fisted writing. Yet almost everyone but you replying to that thread thought TIM was portrayed consistently and his transition from ME 2 to indoctrinated agent in ME 3 was consistent with his character development.  The massive part from the Proto Reaper on his base fills in any questions how he became indoctrinated. But you missed it. Then you proceeded to complain about the writing of the character while missing all the signs.  And again while you didn't originally bring it up you agreed with the person who did about Cerberus on Sur'Kesh not making any sense. But again only a little reasoning was needed to explain why it makes sense. And the game provides all the reasoning needed to link the connection to how it works out for TIM to be there beyond simply being the Reaper's lap dog.  TIM doesn't want Alliance allies to help with Crucible. He isn't ready to try and control the Reapers and needs time. Slowing down the building of the Crucible by limiting resources to only Alliance is is best move.  You continually complain about the writing of ME 3 being crappy and ham fisted.  Yet you seem to miss stuff that is as obvious as 1+1=2 to me.

So when the game provides the answers and you miss them. Then complain about the game. That isn't really a valid complaint in my book. That is also the reason I brought up Marvel vs DC movies. DC moves get a lot of hate but they are not objectively bad just because a lot of people complain. Because for every movie sin DC has Marvel is just as guilty. And so far 10 for 10 when you point that out movie viewers will bend over backwards to validate what Marvel did but jump on every thing DC does with both feet complaining. That is why the game's ending is and never will be considered objectively terrible. Because the reasoning behind so many people's hate of the game ending holds about as much water as the claim that Obama was a Muslim from Kenya.