Half-full vs Half-empty: Tell us why the ending failed/succeeded in one sentence

I don't remember how I felt about the ending. I wasn't mad. I guess I didn't have such high expectations so I accepted it. I mean....it's not like the rest of the series was the Godfather. It has a mixture of stupid Michael Bay elements and solid Star Trek moments, and um, Indiana Jones moments. Heroic moments.

I guess I just didn't feel a consistency of elements to really build up an expectation that could be disappointed.

I was already satisfied before Starchild. The intense and desperate fight around the two missiles - that was my boss fight. That fight was the most emotional, challenging and suspenseful fight I've ever experienced. A traditional boss fight would have been cheesy. Defending two missiles, one which gets wasted as your one small hope to save the galaxy? That's some world war 2 shit right there.

The desperate running up to the beam, while the extraction was illogical and stupid, was awesome. The notion of every resource being depleted and having to just run with your bare feet over an open courtyard......awesome. That's the kind of epic, desperation stuff I like in movies.

So I was already satisfied. The structure of the rest of the trilogy already did not abide by traditional narrative script structures so I thought it rather pointless and condescending to apply traditional script analysis tactics on Mass Effect 3's ending.

I agree about the final missile defense fight being better than a boss battle. I enjoyed the crawl up towards Saren while being in awe of Sovereign's sheer size in ME1 way more than actually fighting Saren (but I do like his suicide scene if you persuade him) and I liked the Suicide Mission whenever you weren't being stared down by Arnold Schwarzenegger Reaper and similarly I really liked actually fighting a collected force of Reaperified species and a destroyer closing in on me until I had to dodge its blasts.

The only thing that was missing from this sequence, which would've made it so perfect, was if Jack's students came rushing in to take out the flank or Wrex yelling "CHARGE!" and a batallion of Krogans massacre Marauders and Ravagers. I really wish they could've done that. And then, i think the idea of the Thanix missles are kind of generic and it would've been cooler instead of cains and thanix missiles to have alien support or Hackett's fleet going amok if you hadn't any significant allies from the rest of the game.

They also shouldn't create a game that exists in the same world as those choices then. ME 4 should have taken place in the past or sticking with Andromeda set up from a race within that galaxy and from that perspective.  But they didn't they choose to take existing characters from the galaxy we currently know and have it take place after the time frame of major choices.

Because of that to create a coherent story picking options to allow them to build a solid base for the story to continue. Because as of right now ME:A has even more plot holes and problems then ME1,2 and 3 have combined. You should be hating ME:A on principle alone due to all the inherent problems and plot holes in the story that exist already.

This we much have unlimited freedom or no freedom at all is a silly mentality to have. Your choices are still yours during your play though of the trilogy. Nothing invalidates your choice. You have to be supremely egotistical to be that offended that they didn't pick your choice simply so they could build a solid universe on which to build their new game on.  My offical canon choices are peace with Geth and Synthesis. How ever if they choose to make the choice for the ME:A game be side with Quarians over Geth and Destroy ending. That would be ok. I don't understand were this ego comes from. I would kind of understand if out of the blue and for no reason they declared X choice is the official one for no reason other then just to state it. But they actually had a pretty valid reason to do so.

I disagree.  The bottom line here is that Bioware WANTS to tell a new story about a different protagonist in a different setting than their first piece of work.  They shouldn't start from a point that includes a bunch of token nods to the old decisions just to pacify a group of largely un-pacifiable people who are really only interested in carrying on a grudge war against the writers of this game.

Back when this "thing" with the endings all began, PERHAPS they owed their fans some recognition of their fan's choices in the original Trilogy... and, in reality, they did try with the EC.  However, after more than 4 years of the "fans" carrying on the way they have, Bioware doesn't owe them jack shit in recognition of their choices.  It's the fans who have made this bed.  Since it really seems that Bioware simply has nothing to gain by trying to please them anymore, the fans have well earned it if Bioware simply just brushes them off completely and moves forward with a whole new group of fans.

I don't. They have shot themselves in the foot so many times it's not even worth getting angry about anymore.

And yet they haven't.  What they have faced is wave after wave of angry players who seem incapable of differentiating what they want to happen and what happened in game. And going the route of stuff didn't happen that I expected to happen therefore it is terrible.  People who cheery pick so hard and so fast that  they could pick and juice an entire cherry field in seconds. Literally complaining about some facet or aspect of ME 3 that exists in ME 1 and/or 2 and yet by their judgement those are perfectly fine. But when it shows up in ME 3 oh god BioWare are just idiots who don't know what they are doing. Players who glorify certain writers while ignoring their own flaws and use their complete lack of involvement as why they would have clearly done it flawlessly. And that anyone who isn't the glorious writer that must be worshiped and can do no wrong is instantly a no nothing dumb shit who couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag.  Who then use the internet to spread their anger and hate that is completely self created to be loud. Making anyone not familiar with the series to be wary of it because of the loud minority complaining about anything and everything they possibly can complain about.

Hell I was hesitant to get the Trilogy because of all the hate I saw online. Then after playing it my only thought was "WTF were these people complaining about?"

BioWare has done many things. Not all are great I will admit. Never played DA games and retrospectively there are a number of things that could be improved on with the ME Trilogy. How ever the only one who has shot anyone in the foot so many times is the "fans" who shot BioWare in the foot over and over again. Then turn around and blame them for shooting themselves.

Bioware doesn't owe anybody anything when it comes to creating a new story under a name they've trade marked.  They could make any product not remotely connected to any players choices and give it the name "Mass Effect."  In fact, they already do - jackets, toys, Minecraft Xbox even has a Mass Effect Mash-Up pack for that game.  Players just have to accept that Mass Effect Andromeda is an entirely different product than the Mass Effect Trilogy.  Bioware have a new story in their heads that they WANT to tell us.  They ARE going to give us a chance to interact with that new story if we want to.  I think we should give them an opportunity to do that without continually tell them "you should do it this way or that way"... BEFORE we even give them a chance to show us what it is they've really done.

As for writing a new ending for the Trilogy... the game is too old for anyone to expect them to rewrite anything of it.  It's just not profitable for them and nothing is stopping modders from writing ending mods; that is, Bioware isn't taking the modders into court and suing them for infringing on their trademark, right?

I don't have a problem with your criticizing the games.  I reserve the same right; and will continue to comment, however, that your criticisms in particular seem very targeted towards Mac Walters and does very much appear to be a grudge after seeing you start thread after thread attacking ME3 basically always from the writing angle.  I don't "blame" you for anything, but I do honestly think that you don't look at ME1 objectively enough to acknowledge its own particular flaws and you do tend to put Chris L'Etoile's writing on a bit of a pedestal.  I don't say that Mac is a genius at writing, but Chris' writing, I think, also has some significant weaknesses.  To me, it contains too much unnecessary technobabble.  That might impress some types of fans, but doesn't really impress me.  There are also several outright errors in the dialogue sections he wrote... ie. places where statements don't make good sense if selected in different orders and places where bits of "technobabble" unnecessarily repeat.  I also think part of the problem with the lore is that Chris tried to make the Codices too detailed and so lore was put into the game without any consideration for how that might really limit and detract from possible future stories in that universe.  I think it would have been better with a little less of the "unneeded" lore going into ME1, so that "better lore" could be written as the story grew in ME2 and ME3.

Ashley may be fleshed out in ME1, but a big section of the fan base did react very negatively to her.  Her character "teases" the player with a possibility of being able to choose to play a truly "racist" Shepard... and then that all falls flat because Ashley winds up just being a girl with "issues" about the way her grandpa was treated by the Alliance (humans), not Turians.  Nor is there an opportunity to play Shepard as being really "anti-racist."  The dialogues with Ashley are clearly "middle-of-the" road when Shepard is trying to criticize her for being racist.  L'Etoile clearly uses Ashley's dialogue to "preach" a particular philosophy about racism in general, so when you criticize Mac his philosophies into the game, you can't completely excuse L'Etoile... he did the same thing.

Half-full (Is that even the point of this thread anymore? ) : As i have the minority opinion that immortality is a blessing, not a curse - and i wanted to take control of the reapers since ME1 - the ending was at least satisfying in that regard.

And yet that is still the single most common complaint about the endings. It isn't how they wanted them to end. Thus they are bad because it wasn't what they expected nor wanted. Hence why ending mods that drastically alter the ending to the point that Shepard is save, Reapers are blown up and everyone lives happily ever after. In an ending so boringly common it is pretty much a cliche at this point.



There is no shared piece of entertainment with a game. The developers owe you nothing. A video game is just like a movie. They create what they want to create and offer it to public. The public then watches or plays it and decides if they like it or not. With how much money it makes/copies sold being the general guide line to how successful it is. The only thing you can claim a developer owes any player is the ability to play a fully function game without bugs, glitches or crashes that cause problems for you to play it.



Why they are already happy with the ending other wise they wouldn't have created that ending. What you seem to be saying with this is that they should change the ending to one you like because you think they should.

The conflict has been brought up multiple times in the series as a recurring issue. How ever it always took back seat to over all plot about the Reapers and their intent to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. Pay attention and it is there.



And yet ME 3 does go from point A to point B to point C with point C being in relation to point A. To start ME 1 before the heavy retroactive retcons of ME 2 was a major point being Synthetics will destroy organics. The entire Quarian/Geth conflict is based on this. The Quarians creating a superior form of life. Starting a war with them and nearly getting wiped out because of it. But even withing ME 2 there are signs of it. Geth only want Shepard to gain information to help themselves. They don't give a flying fart about organic life. Hence why when Legion loses Shepard's trail it just goes off on a new mission. With Legion mentioning directly that the Geth don't understand how Organic's think and reason. They purposefully spy and test Organic life in small ways to try and understand it and understand why the Quarians did what they did. And after all that Legion still tries to hack Tali's omnitool and download classified data because it would help the Geth. Cut to ME 3 during Priority Rannoch arc. Every single action the Quarians and Legion take are simply for the benefit of their own race. They are in the middle of a galactic war for the survival of every advance race and each one focuses with almost single minded determination to push their own group in the best possible position. It is blatantly obvious with the Quarians and even the most Synthetic friendly Paragon as possible Shepard can call Legion out for lying it's shiny metal ass off to him on several occasions.

Heck even the Reaper Destroyer calls out Shepard when he claims that Organics and Synthetics can work together. Pointing out all that has happened during the battle of Rannoch as living proof why that is unlikely. And the Reaper isn't completely wrong. Even the peace potential of that part of the game has the context of how it was made ignored. Because to achieve it you needed the Reapers posing a massive mutual threat to all life in the galaxy. On top of Shepard allowing the Geth to get a massive upgrade and out right tells the Quarians if they attack he isn't bailing them out anymore. Literally the only difference between the Geth wiping out the Quarians and the peace between them is the Quarians standing down. And if one side or the other is chosen and they wipe out the other side. Neither one show any sort of remorse for committing whole sale genocide of an entire race.

This is all on top of we know from the moment Sovereign fully introduces it self on Virmire that the Reapers exist and act for a reason. There is a reason they allow races to develop, grow to their apex and then harvest them. We know they have repeated the cycle hundreds of thousands of times. ME 1,2 and most of 3 have a very simple set up.

The Reapers build the Mass Relays, the Citadel, left behind scraps of technology to allow races to advance and grow to their apex and then harvest them because ____________.

All the ending does is fill in that blank.

And that blank also fits into entire trilogy. Because the Trilogy is based on the threat the Reapers pose and the attempts to stop them. Which means without the Synthetic vs Organic conflict the Reapers would have never done anything. Sovereign wouldn't have recruited the Geth and indoctrinated Saren to attack the Citadel. There would be no reason for Sovereign to summon the Reapers to harvest the races and would be no reason for Shepard to try and stop it. There would equally be no need for the Collectors nor any need for them to harvest humans from colonies to transform them into a proto Reaper. And no need for Shepard to be out hunting Geth bases, no need for the Collectors to attack the SR-1 and no need for Cerberus to recover his body and bring him back to life. No reasons for Reapers to wipe out advanced organic life means no galaxy wide conflict with them resulting in the death of billions. No need for dozens of cycles to work together to create the Crucible. No need to build the Crucible and no need to go on a massive fight to the death to get it to the Citadel.

Take away that reason that conflict which the final choices are set up to solve in different ways. And not only does nothing happen in the Trilogy but the entire in game universe is altered on a fundamental way because there is no reason for the Reapers to exist in the first place. Thus literally everything they altered would change. Meaning humanity as we know it might never exist at all.




The point of the Reaper solution is to prevent organic life from reaching the point were they are capable of creating synthetic life that can then surpass them. Which leads to conflict in which organic life is at a disadvantage.

Or to put it another way the Catalyst is doing the equivalent of talking to your 16 year old son about the importance of safe sex and giving them a box of condoms just encase so they don't knock a girl up while still in high school.

What you purpose is to give your 16 year old son a talk about importance of safe sex and giving them a box of condoms AFTER they knock up their 16 year old girlfriend.

It is fairly important context to remember. If they want to stop something bad from happening it is pretty stupid to attempt to stop it after it happened.