About the ME3 endings fuss [some major spoilers ahead]

I finished university some years ago (and as a historian at that, so...), so I'll have to take your word for it.

Again, I can't understand that BW would kick its fans in the groin like this. It's not an "artistic" ending (beside, it's not that ME would come close to that anyway), it's not "gutsy", not "thought provoking", it's just plain bad & inconsistent.
I also have problems with the "It's their game, they do what they want"-mentality. Without us, there would have barely been ME1, let alone 2 & 3...

You missed something (spoilers below, Highlight to read)
[SPOILER] The endmost cutscene of ME 2 shows this. The Reapers used slightly more conventional FTL drives from Darkspace to try to get to the Alpha Relay.[/SPOILER]

The events of Mass Effect 2 DLC: Arrival also has something to do with this. And is a VERY big part of why Shepard is on Earth at the start of ME 3.

RE: Endings: They were rather rushed, I think, and EA* wanted ME 3 out on 3/06/12 come h*** or high water. I think that the current ending (yes, singular) was just tacked on so that there WAS some sort of ending.

* A few days before the Release date, there were some emergency actions by Bioware and/or EA dealing with some companies no longer able to afford to ship games out, and even cancelled pre-orders. Don't say things weren't rushed. They were. What Bioware will do, tho, I can't say. Rumor from BSN says that PAX will have some new info, but both Bioware and EA both are keeping Quiet. Only official thing is that there WILL be new info sometime this month, and that the face import bug is fixed, slated for the first patch even.

GD - Thanks for the reminder, but I don't have that DLC! The whole production was rushed. Too many story seeds in ME and 2 for it to be finished as a trilogy.

To finally get at the question in the title of this thread, I was replaying ME1 and 2, trying to view it purely as a game. I was worried that nostalgia for the first two games in the series (which did have good endings), was affecting the view of ME3.

In all three games I found boring or frustrating combat in cover based shooter gameplay, where the cover didn't work properly! It's hardly much of an RPG either, in terms of game mechanics. The setting was hardly original ot inspiring, the story is shot full of holes... and a whole string of other flaws.

We overlook all this because of the characters. The characters are the thing. Shepard and companions (apart from James) were great. Some great story moments with them. Take that away, and what do you have left? A weak game series with a weak ending. So why the fuss?

This thread is probably dead now.

About as dead as my interest in BioWare games.

The announcement that BioWare are not changing or providing any more ending solutions show how out of touch they are. Merely clarification. And it's DLC only. It seems I was correct in saying that they punish off-line players. GawainBS was obviously correct in stating the company has the wrong attitude to it's customers.

Given that I have seen web articles criticising the ending with over 100,000 hits, if just 10% to 20% of those people elect to withdraw their custom, it could cost half a million dollars (or more) on every future release. I do not see how BioWare can replace those customers with their attitude.

I never want to talk about or experience this awful customer service again.

DISGRACEFUL.

The Metacritic scores are telling: "professional" reviews rate it in the 90's, most of which probably had a deadline, or a deal, or lack the guts to kick BW's shins.
The user's reviews rate it at 4.8/10, with some perfect 10's mixed in from either fanboys (I call them that as they give no argument pro this dismall ending) or people who haven't finished the game yet.

I shared your disgust when BW announced the DLC. It will be free, though, but the fact that they won't alter anything, is shocking to say the least. I've resolved to no longer buy BW products again, and unsubbed from SW:TOR.

The atmosphere/tone of the game was quite a bit darker/grimmer than ME1/2, sometimes maybe a bit too much for my liking, but it served the plot very well. This was afterall genocide on a galactiv level commited by an almost invincible enemy that we were facing. Still I enjoyed the game a lot and think for the most part it was done well. Obviously it couldn't live up to all the hype by Bioware and fans alike, but I expected as much. They promised a lot and I really didn't think they could live up to all of it.

I suppose I could even have accepted their choice of introducing the crucible as some mysterious device to stop the reaper threat. They had afterall a whole game to explain how it would function and why it would be the solution to the reaper problem. Unfortunately no such explanation was forthcomming. The whole game I garnered support to build and deploy a device that no one had any idea what it would actually do. A device that had obviously been designed (and improved upon!!!) by countless extinction cycles even though no one seemed to have any clue as to its actual function. Heck, unless I missed something, it's not even explained why we think that it will stop the reapers. (At least not beyond the whole "Protheans build it to stop the reapers" angle.)

Nevertheless the rest of the story was compelling. Curing the genophage, resolving the quarian/geth war, meeting some of our old friends and allies again, bringing the galaxy together in a final epic struggle for survival. Yes, despite it's shortcommings despite quite a few loose ends and holes in the plot, I could enjoy this game. It wasn't all it could or should have been, but it was a good game. Up until the last stand in London I would probably rate the game 7/10 or 8/10, but then hit the ending ...

While I hope that the promised DLC can give enough clarification and closure for me to come to terms with this abmissal ending I somehow doubt it. It just feels like nothing I did over the course of the game really mattered at all. In the end it really boiled down to Godchild thinks you should choose a colour. Which do you prefer - blue, green or red ?

The only thing in their favour right now is that at least they will give away that "Extended Cut DLC" for free. Sure, it should have been in the game at release (together with a non-stupid ending), but at least it's not a complete rip-off. If they had decided that we should pay to get a ending to a game we already paid for it would probably have been the last straw for me. As it stands I will wait for the release of this DLC and judge afterwards. I have a feeling that it won't improve my disposition to ME3 and Bioware much though, which is a shame because I really enjoyed many of their games ever since Baldurs Gate.

Does it help if I say that the War Assets are the true power of the Crucible?

Get too little, and Earth effectively gets hit by the ME equivalent of the Death Star Superlaser......

Even there, we have a problem: what's the relation between the amount of military assets and the fate of Earth in relation to the Crucible?
Why would they suddenly determine wether or not you get the Synthesis-ending?

How well-constructed the Conduit is. The more Assets you gather, the better it works.
[SPOILER]
Synthesis/Merge: Saren's Choice from ME 1 ("The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither").
Control: T.I.M.'s choice. But can it be broken later? :speech:

Destroy: The Reapers are gone, even if at a high price.

[/SPOILER]

Oh, and the lack of persuasion ability with the so-called "Starbrat". What point? Even if you could, what would it change? You still won't get anything different. I think that the Extended Cut, available later this summer, is really the best idea/comprimise. Bioware doesn't have to use up more resources and time (both of which they may lack) re-creating their chosen ending, and the fanbase gets a better understanding of why they chose to go this route.

You are so talented .











__________________________________________________
'galaxy' Nike Air Foamposite One

Actually, GoldDragon, that doesn't make any more sense. If Assets purely represented manpower/resources to the Crucible, it might make sense. Now only a percentage does. The rest are purely direct military assets. How will having more firepower make the Crucible better?

Bioware should have the self-esteem to make a mea culpa and recognise the mess. (Not that they ever would, it's something a giant like them never would and I have a feeling they stopped respecting their players a long time ago.) There is nothing for fans to "better understand": the ending is completely incoherent from the rest of the three games. The game stops making sense from the point that Shepherd gets beamed to the Citadel/Crucible.

Hammer (Ground forces) Require 2,000 EMS (Sword (the Space fleet) requires the other 2,000) to be totally effective. The total combined decides the Final Strength of the Crucible.[SPOILER] As less than 1700 total, you get ONE option: Destroy. And it Destroys Earth, which means a technical win for the Reapers[/SPOILER] One of Bioware's Developers was speaking about that last night on BSN. I might have mis-understood a bit.

Ok, that explains the game mechanics. But where's the narrative sense in that?

I could see Shield effecting the crucible indirectly. A stronger shield fleet might give the crucible more time to fully deploy or preventing the reapers from damaging (and thereby weakening) the crucible.

Hammer on the other hand ... Can't really see how it effects anything but the strength of the reaper-forces on the ground.

@GoldDragon:
Thanks for sharing that info.

Given that that's the gamemechanics which determines the nominal end-game, some in-game explanation might be suitable. (Not that there can be any logical one.)