Why are users so upset about the Mass Effect 3 ending? (Spoilers)

[Anteaus]

I think it can all be explained with one word. Ur-Quan! Ok, I'll take my bad joke with m and leave the thread.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Look up broken steel for fallout 3.

I wasn't aware EA published Fallout 3.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I guess what gets me is that the ending to KoTOR2 was pretty shoddy as well. Yet no one got this bent out of shape over it.

I think people were expecting a third game that would tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately we never got it.

 

[zerocool84]

I guess I made a good decision on waiting to buy this game. Too much complaining so I'll wait until it all gets worked out.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is-working-on-a-modified-mass-effect-3-ending

Surprised no one has commented on this yet.

I'm happy that Bioware listened to their fans. Shows they do care and aren't a mindless EA drone yet. Hopefully these follow up endings are better and free DLC. If they try to charge for these endings Bioware will lose a lot of nerd love.

 

[Zenoth]

I'm replaying ME2 since the past few days and I finished the Suicide Mission (for the millionth time I guess, I finished ME2 very often since it was released). I must say that, after all, it's much better than

Spoiler

ME3's Priority: Earth

, anyone else agree? It's not just about the choices made with allocating the right teammates for the right tasks part, but really just the whole mission is better. The music, the actual level design, the intensity and context and, believe or not, even the last boss.

In fact, since I've basically just replayed the whole of ME2 (including all major DLCs) I think that ME3, for me, is getting over-rated. I do really and honestly like it overall but some parts seemed rushed even compared to ME2's "filler" theme of the series. I do still prefer the combat system of ME3, but the interactions between party members I believe is better overall (including most of the dialog) in ME2. Both great games but anyway, yeah I think that ME2's last moments are superior to ME3's.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I guess I made a good decision on waiting to buy this game. Too much complaining so I'll wait until it all gets worked out.

The game is amazing. The ending sucks.

 

[novasatori]

The game is amazing. The ending sucks.

Indeed.

As I was playing the game I had been hearing from people it was terrible, but I kept playing and they closed so many holes explained so many things and overall the entire game up until the end was very satisfying.

I just couldn't see how so many people could complain to me about the end, but then I got to it.

All of a sudden it made sense. I would have rather a black screen that said the end, and you make up your own ending.

Spoiler

For my particular ending, I wanted to choose synthesis, but since my whole game I'd been working to defeat the reapers and kaiden, mordin, etc all died to kill the reapers, I chose the destroy reapers option.

Normandy crashed and Joker got out with my character I chose to romance the whole game, Ashley, and put his arm around her. To top it off the relays are destroyed and my Shepard somehow survived and was in the rubble on earth.

I went back and chose synthesis and it was a much more satisfying ending, I died and joke got to be with EDI.

 

[ramj70]

Surprised no one has commented on this yet.

I'm happy that Bioware listened to their fans. Shows they do care and aren't a mindless EA drone yet. Hopefully these follow up endings are better and free DLC. If they try to charge for these endings Bioware will lose a lot of nerd love.

They didn't say they were going to change the endings, only that they have some "initiatives" regarding the ending game. He also mentioned how the fans just need more clarity on the endings. I think they are just going to try and explain their endings in more detail, no necessarily change them.

It seems like he is saying the game is great, the endings are fine but the fans just don't understand the ending is all.

 

[Red Storm]

They didn't say they were going to change the endings, only that they have some "initiatives" regarding the ending game. He also mentioned how the fans just need more clarity on the endings. I think they are just going to try and explain their endings in more detail, no necessarily change them.

It seems like he is saying the game is great, the endings are fine but the fans just don't understand the ending is all.

Yeah, I don't think they understand that a lot of people felt the ending was terrible, simple as that.

 

[yllus]

I'm replaying ME2 since the past few days and I finished the Suicide Mission (for the millionth time I guess, I finished ME2 very often since it was released). I must say that, after all, it's much better than

Spoiler

ME3's Priority: Earth

, anyone else agree? It's not just about the choices made with allocating the right teammates for the right tasks part, but really just the whole mission is better. The music, the actual level design, the intensity and context and, believe or not, even the last boss.

In fact, since I've basically just replayed the whole of ME2 (including all major DLCs) I think that ME3, for me, is getting over-rated. I do really and honestly like it overall but some parts seemed rushed even compared to ME2's "filler" theme of the series. I do still prefer the combat system of ME3, but the interactions between party members I believe is better overall (including most of the dialog) in ME2. Both great games but anyway, yeah I think that ME2's last moments are superior to ME3's.

I really think that Mass Effect 2 is one of the top three or five games I've played in my entire life. The intensity of Suicide Mission was great - the way you split your team not once but twice to assault separate adjectives, the individual missions you have to send people on (crawl through the ducts), the way that Samara (in my playthrough) was just barely holding the biotic forcefield up by the end of the mission to keep enemies out... Damn, what a game.

Regarding the end boss of Mass Effect 3: I believe there is video content out there that explains that the end boss in ME3 was actually taken out completely. Supposedly it was to be the Illusive Man, but they decided to take out due to... I forget the reason.

Yeah, I don't think they understand that a lot of people felt the ending was terrible, simple as that.

They understand that perfectly. Problem is, you can't accept people's money for something that you admit has a garbage ending - you're essentially ripping people off.

Now I don't think that's true - while I agree the ending is terrible, the rest of the game was worth my money - but people will use it as a lever to ask for refunds and maybe even lawsuits. That's why truth is to be avoided.

 

[Kyanzes]

Well, the problem with the ending is, as pointed out by many here, that it doesn't wrap up the story of your crew (and other important character in the game).

You do get some glimpse at maybe three of them but even that is very shallow in detail.

Not even an artistic picture with a one-liner to say what happens to them.

I loved the old Fallout games that provided some info on the outcome of some of your decisions, fate of certain people etc.

In that regard, the ending is a bit weak.

It also stinks that you can only get the truly perfect ending if you participate in multiplayer (to bring galactic readiness to the required level for your otherwise dormant war assets to come into play). No amount of war assets gathered from ME1/ME2 is going to prevent that.

It's supposed to be a single player "your saga" kind of game. Yet it suddenly becomes multiplayer-dependent at the very end.

They could have just added 10 cents to the pricetag and forgotten about multiplayer and be done with it.

Otherwise a very good game. Obviously.

 

[Red Storm]

It also stinks that you can only get the truly perfect ending if you participate in multiplayer (to bring galactic readiness to the required level for your otherwise dormant war assets to come into play). No amount of war assets gathered from ME1/ME2 is going to prevent that.

You know what's really frustrating? I'm only just now hearing about this. Why in the hell does multiplayer have any impact on the campaign...?

I've got a new theory. Bioware has become indoctrinated by EA and they no longer remember what it is that made them a beloved dev company. Nothing else makes sense. :hmm:

 

[alent1234]

i bet EA/bioware made some kind of deal with MS to get people to sign up for x-box live. and with apple due to the fact that the companion apps are only iOS now. EA supposedly gets early peeks at new apple hardware/software

 

[darkewaffle]

You know what's really frustrating? I'm only just now hearing about this. Why in the hell does multiplayer have any impact on the campaign...?

I've got a new theory. Bioware has become indoctrinated by EA and they no longer remember what it is that made them a beloved dev company. Nothing else makes sense. :hmm:

In Mass Effect 3 for the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360, one of the primary ways to see the different endings to the game is by gaining a certain number of effective military strength.

One way to increase your military strength is by increasing your galactic readiness rating. The galactic readiness rating is only raised by playing the Galaxy at War multiplayer games (which require the Online Pass), or by playing a couple of the games for iPhone and iPad. These apps are called Infiltrator, and Data Pad.

Raising your galactic readiness rating simply lets you apply more of your military strength into effective military strength. Playing no multiplayer games leaves your readiness rating at 50%, meaning that a 5000 military strength score is reduced to 2500. If you play a lot of multiplayer games and increase your readiness rating to 100%, then you would get your full 5000 points of military strength.

Note that you shouldn't need to worry about this rating if you don't want to, since you can increase your military strength by collecting war assets in single player, however you're going to need around 8000 military strength, since playing no online games will take your effective rating down 50%.

People that play multiplayer get a bonus applied so that they don't need as much military strength; Galactic Readiness is the only thing affected by multiplayer and determines absolutely nothing on it's own.

 

[rchiu]

It's obvious that instead of coming out with a complete and satisfying game, EA is putting out a game full of holes, maybe trying to fill in future DLC and make more $$.

eh, don't even feel like getting angry anymore. business is gonna be business and try to squeeze last cent out of us consumers. I am not gonna play into their hand, will just wait a few month to a year, and buy the platinum or whatever version for 20 bucks.

 

[RampantAndroid]

It's obvious that instead of coming out with a complete and satisfying game, EA is putting out a game full of holes, maybe trying to fill in future DLC and make more $$.

eh, don't even feel like getting angry anymore. business is gonna be business and try to squeeze last cent out of us consumers. I am not gonna play into their hand, will just wait a few month to a year, and buy the platinum or whatever version for 20 bucks.

EA, or Bioware?

I wasn't aware EA published Fallout 3.

I'm not saying they did. I'm pointing to another game that did it, making me believe it's entirely plausible for Bioware to do it.

 

[rgallant]

one could say any ending to a good game is a bad ending.
BW said they left the ending open so each player could fill in the blanks with their own perspective on what they felt the game was about to them.

to me the game ended meeting all of the 3 games missions objectives
-stop the reapers
-life to go's on with out a threat of the extinction every 50k yrs. ,at it's own pace.

-so the real game mission was successful. some lived , some died - but it was live or die for all life ,not a just few.
-so it was a happy ending within the games terms BUT came too fast.

 

[BD231]

Spoiler

I caved and bought this one, beat it yesterday and have to say the gameplay is great. Having to shut off access to the entire mass effect universe however, not so exciting.

This story would be amazing if the reapers won, imminent death of the entire human race minus the many that COULD HAVE ESCAPED VIA THE MASS EFFECT RELAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. The whole AI plot was good but bogus being that the Reapers are exactly what the reapers are trying to stop from happening to organic life. Very odd plot ... tired of the corny " earth won " space stories, they should have bucked the trend and destroyed earth.

 

[novasatori]

they should have bucked the trend and destroyed earth.

Spoiler

I think there is an ending that destroys earth

 

[Zenoth]

Well, the problem with the ending is, as pointed out by many here, that it doesn't wrap up the story of your crew (and other important character in the game).[...]

Indeed, there's that.

But also that, overall, it doesn't really make sense.

Spoiler

If the Reapers simply annihilated all organic life down to the last single-cell organism, then and only then they would ensure that organic civilization wouldn't end up creating synthetic life only to later destroy it. That way, by wiping out all life (not just "advanced" civilizations) they would have found their so called "solution" to the repeated pattern of Organics Vs. Synthetics conflicts from the very first cycle a billion years ago if not more. Instead, for some reason, they created the Mass Relays network, and imposed that loophole of sorts, that technological trap upon the "lesser" civilizations that they left alone during their cycle, so that those civilizations will inevitably one day or another find the Mass Relays and propel themselves hundreds of years in advance technologically speaking, growing on the desired path of evolution implemented by the Reapers just like Sovereign mentions on Virmire in ME1.

That way, when the Reapers come, if there's a Shepard-like individual able to confront them in any given cycle, the Reapers or that entity can go "You see! Look around you! It's happening just as we predicted!". Well, duh, you guys (Reapers) left the Relays network in the galaxy on purpose so that lesser civilizations would find them, evolve faster than if it had been done by themselves (like Legion suggests in ME2). And now that those civilizations fell in your trap you're there pretending that basically it's just an inevitable pattern that has repeated itself since the past thousand cycles due to organic life's chaotic nature, rather than your actual Mass Relays network trap?

So, why don't you guys (Reapers) just not remove your Relays to start with right now and just not also wipe out all organic life while you're at it? That way, you'll find a solution to what you believe to be an inevitable pattern. Do that, and then go back in Dark Space, come back in 50K years and then give me some news as to where "life" resumed and how much growth occurred since the last time you wiped it all out. The problem right now in ME3 is that the Reapers pretend that their "solution" to that technological singularity of sorts is to simply come back every 50K years to impose order (again, like Sovereign says on Virmire). Well... yeah that's the problem, they come back because they kind of... you know... forget about the fact that when they come harvesting they don't actually kill all life, they always leave some behind that will one day inevitably fall in their trap, which pleases them since then they can pretend that it wasn't a trap but in fact a mere inevitability.

And all that, doesn't make sense in the end.

 

[dighn]

just finished the game. chose the green option and can't say I minded it at all. very hand-wavy, but so are a lot of other things in the franchise. from what I read, the other two choices are similar in their level of detail and finality, just for different preferences. not really sure what the big fuss is about. the story is full of difficult choices and sacrifices.

imo some more details would definitely be welcome but shouldn't be necessary for a sufficient ending.

 

[RampantAndroid]

just finished the game. chose the green option and can't say I minded it at all. very hand-wavy, but so are a lot of other things in the franchise. from what I read, the other two choices are similar in their level of detail and finality, just for different preferences. not really sure what the big fuss is about. the story is full of difficult choices and sacrifices.

imo some more details would definitely be welcome but shouldn't be necessary for a sufficient ending.

Again, as Zenoth pointed out, there are MASSIVE plot holes. The ending of the game makes ZERO sense, unless you tell me a 4th grader wrote it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

just finished the game. chose the green option and can't say I minded it at all. very hand-wavy, but so are a lot of other things in the franchise. from what I read, the other two choices are similar in their level of detail and finality, just for different preferences. not really sure what the big fuss is about. the story is full of difficult choices and sacrifices.

imo some more details would definitely be welcome but shouldn't be necessary for a sufficient ending.

Not to mention that all those difficult choices made no real difference in the ending. At least in ME2, the way you assigned your crew affected how successful your mission was. Part of the problem was that EA/Bioware hyped the element of choice and how much it would affect ME3, and didnt deliver on that hype in the end.

 

[darkewaffle]

Again, as Zenoth pointed out, there are MASSIVE plot holes. The ending of the game makes ZERO sense, unless you tell me a 4th grader wrote it.

It comes with the territory. Big stories, especially those set in sci fi and fantasy settings, are full of them. In general I think it's not so much an 'oversight' as it is the creators of the story asking readers and players to essentially maintain their suspension of disbelief understanding that explaining and answering everything is essentially beyond the scope of almost any given project and a waste of resources.

Not to mention that all those difficult choices made no real difference in the ending. At least in ME2, the way you assigned your crew affected how successful your mission was. Part of the problem was that EA/Bioware hyped the element of choice and how much it would affect ME3, and didnt deliver on that hype in the end.

Or... now that the game is out and generally a success you have this group of people who will take whatever flaw they can find and try to turn it into catastrophe. Call me crazy but I think if you asked people what the most important things about ME3 were prior to release, "multiple endings influenced by moral decisions I made" would have come in pretty low, well after "looks good" "plays good" and a blunt "I just want to know what happens!". I don't think it was that 'hyped', but making it sound like it was works very well opportunistically.