Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mass Effect 3: The Ending(s) [** Spoilers **]

11416181920

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    George Lucas: a fine case study in how retrospectively 'changing' a completed work has wholly positive consequences!

    Agreed, but I don't remember him F'ing up the ending the first time around. The subsequent alterations were carried out by his own accord. In that case, he tainted a near perfect product.
    Whereas in ME3's case, the ending cannot be tainted any further, no matter how many additions are made. Heck, they could put the starchild on a magic pony and tell us that the reapers only want a hug and it would make as much sense as the current ending.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Zillah wrote: »
    Let's see how you feel once they released the next DLC which is adding new cutscenes to clarify what happens in each of the endings (hint: The indoctrination theory is nonsense. It would be really nice if Bioware were devious masterminds that have woven an elaborate secret web through the trilogy, but the fact is they screwed up, ran out of time and threw together a terrible ending that made little sense and didn't do the series justice. Sorry.)


    Have you watched the 20 minute video?

    In the absence of other evidence or the extended scenes then I have to say it is very conclusive "theory" imo.

    The new scenes won't necessarily disprove the theory(a theory made all the more likely by what Bioware have said).

    Now that I think about it though, why would actions that take place in Shephard's head destory the Reapers?

    Anyway, we shall see.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    noodler wrote: »
    why would actions that take place in Shephard's head destory the Reapers?

    No, the indoctrination theory suggests that the entire scene is in his head and that the reapers are trying to break his will to destroy them by fooling him into thinking they are right. By Shepard picking the destroy option, it signifies that he can break the indoctrination. Any scene after that is just a smoke screen. The Shepard breathing scene is him waking up from the indoctrination attempt and thus he can then go on to destroy the reapers for real....outside of his little nighty nighty dreamy snoozy snooze.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Ian7 wrote: »
    No, the indoctrination theory suggests that the entire scene is in his head and that the reapers are trying to break his will to destroy them by fooling him into thinking they are right. By Shepard picking the destroy option, it signifies that he can break the indoctrination. Any scene after that is just a smoke screen. The Shepard breathing scene is him waking up from the indoctrination attempt and thus he can then go on to destroy the reapers for real....outside of his little nighty nighty dreamy snoozy snooze.

    Ah gotcha.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    Ian7 wrote: »
    No, the indoctrination theory suggests that the entire scene is in his head and that the reapers are trying to break his will to destroy them by fooling him into thinking they are right. By Shepard picking the destroy option, it signifies that he can break the indoctrination. Any scene after that is just a smoke screen. The Shepard breathing scene is him waking up from the indoctrination attempt and thus he can then go on to destroy the reapers for real....outside of his little nighty nighty dreamy snoozy snooze.

    But then how does the later scene that shows a man years later telling a kid about shepard's story tie in?

    That only occurs after he would have broken the indoctrination attempt, which would imply he woke up and then destroyed the reapers....which we dont get to see


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 23,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kiith


    That old man scene could mean anything tbh. It could be the entire thing is just a made up story told to his grandson. It's actually one of the most pointless additions i've ever seen in a game. As bad as the end of the Matrix with the little girl and the purple sky.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 134 ✭✭InvisibleBadger


    BizzyC wrote: »
    But then how does the later scene that shows a man years later telling a kid about shepard's story tie in?
    It's not actually a kid though. Look again. It's a little man. Indoctrination proof or Bioware being lazy again? I think it's laziness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    BizzyC wrote: »
    But then how does the later scene that shows a man years later telling a kid about shepard's story tie in?

    That only occurs after he would have broken the indoctrination attempt, which would imply he woke up and then destroyed the reapers....which we dont get to see

    We don't know anything about them really. Where they are or where they fit in, timeline wise. The kid even say's "the Shepard" suggesting that not all of the facts of the old man's story are correct.

    I think it's just Bioware's method of alluding to something more to come. He does say 'one more story' or something along those lines. I'm not 100% sure to be honest but as Kiith say's above, it really could mean anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 903 ✭✭✭Herrick


    As much as I want the indoctrination theory to be true, I have come to the conclusion that the Bioware team were simply on the beer while writing the ending.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,439 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    Or those two members of the Bioware team rumoured to have written it without consulting anyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 903 ✭✭✭Herrick


    Or those two members of the Bioware team rumoured to have written it without consulting anyone else.

    Say the rumor the entire ending sequence was written by just the two team members without consulting the rest was true, surely there would have been an opportunity for others to voice concerns before the game was sent to the publishers?

    I was just wondering if there was any sort of review process of the game by the team once it was all written and that. Does this ever happen with games? I mean the staff holding a meeting and having a review of the game plot, story arcs, to look for inconsistencies and plot-holes before wrapping it up?

    Whether it was the work of two or twenty two you'd think someone would have put up their hand in a meeting and asked things like "why the fcuk is the Normandy leaving Earth and wtf is up with our squadmates getting off the ship?" :confused: I mean how would a writer just stick in a cutscene like that with no lead in reason and not think to them self why is this happening?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Herrick wrote: »
    Say the rumor the entire ending sequence was written by just the two team members without consulting the rest was true, surely there would have been an opportunity for others to voice concerns before the game was sent to the publishers?

    I was just wondering if there was any sort of review process of the game by the team once it was all written and that. Does this ever happen with games? I mean the staff holding a meeting and having a review of the game plot, story arcs, to look for inconsistencies and plot-holes before wrapping it up?

    Whether it was the work of two or twenty two you'd think someone would have put up their hand in a meeting and asked things like "why the fcuk is the Normandy leaving Earth and wtf is up with our squadmates getting off the ship?" :confused: I mean how would a writer just stick in a cutscene like that with no lead in reason and not think to them self why is this happening?

    The story goes that for most of the writing the whole team would get together and brainstorm/give feedback and whatnot, but that for the end sequence Casey Hudson and one other guy went into a room and wrote it without any input, and the voice actors were recording it by the time the rest of the team even knew what was going on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Zillah wrote: »
    The story goes that for most of the writing the whole team would get together and brainstorm/give feedback and whatnot, but that for the end sequence Casey Hudson and one other guy went into a room and wrote it without any input, and the voice actors were recording it by the time the rest of the team even knew what was going on.
    Regardless of whether they knew about it, there was absolutely nothing they could have done. He was the boss. He said it was happening this way. The end unfortunately.

    What could they have done? Go over Hudson's head and email Ray Muzyka about it? Know what happens to people like that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    Zillah wrote: »
    The story goes that for most of the writing the whole team would get together and brainstorm/give feedback and whatnot, but that for the end sequence Casey Hudson and one other guy went into a room and wrote it without any input, and the voice actors were recording it by the time the rest of the team even knew what was going on.

    Anybody else find it odd that a situation like that can happen with such a big franchise? There's something not quite right about it. Does this have something to do with them deviating from the original leaked script I wonder?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    The indoctrination theory is built on the common theme of indoctrination throughout the whole series. There's no secret in that. Suggesting that Shepard is somehow immune to indoctrination is more nonsensical than us suggesting that he is indoctrinated. He has had more exposure to the reapers than all of the husks in the game put together remember.pacman.gif

    Just noticed something on my second playthrough....the event which many people say disproves the Indoctrination Theory is that bit on Thessia with the Prothean VI. It says: "Indoctrinated presence detected" (or similar) when TIM and Kai Leng show up, and then closes down. Those who are anti-indoc theory say that if Shep was indoctrinated the VI would have detected and so would have closed down.

    HOWEVER, there is a difference between undergoing indoctrination and being indoctrinated. TIM is obviously indoctrinated, as was Saren, but Shepard has been killing hundreds of Reapers and building up vast war assets for a counterattack on Reaper-held Earth. So clearly he isn't indoctrinated. It does not, however, rule out the possibility that he is undergoing indoctrination! I maintain that he is undergoing indoctrination and reaches a crisis point before the evilbadnotgood ending of the game, which would explain the destruction ending's extra scene if your assets were high enough. The Reapers attempt to placate his psyche with a choice- choose the path of Saren, the Illusive Man, (both of whom have fallen) or stick on the path you have been following for the three games. If Shepard chooses destroy, it is the right option. Why does he awaken in the destroy ending and not the synthesis or control endings? Also, why does he certainly die in the synthesis and control endings (he disintegrates), and not the destroy ending?

    Also, notice Shepard's total subservience to the Catalyst. He simply does what it says, and does not question is obviously skewed logic, a fact which is made even more relevant by the relationship between EDI and Joker as well as the possible Geth/Quarian unity. Either a supermassive plot hole or else a symbol of the Reaper's control over Shepard, up until the superficial triple choice which the Catalyst grants him, and notice how biased the little bugger is against the Destroy (i.e the "break free" option)- "The Geth will be blown up, EDI will be blown up, you will blow up etc."

    Those who believe the IT is tripe maintain that Shep is waking up on the Citadel but that is absolute hogwash. They maintain the IT is a leap of logic and unrealistic, but they insinuate that Shepard can survive a massive explosion (while being at the epicentre of said explosion), in space, and somehow be nestled in the debris of the Citadel/ land safely on Earth, with little armour, no breathing apparatus, a gun wound in the side and being in a bad shape in general! Plus, notice that Shepard actually wakes up in the destroy ending, which would have been impossible due to mass effect relay armageddon.

    Also, there are other unusual coincidences/ schemes (Like why does Vega mention hearing "humming" on the Normandy? What is the purpose of this mention? Does Vega have tinnitus or something?? Did the Collectors place Indoc tech on the Normandy when they took over the ship in ME2?) and the surprising correlations between the words of the Rachni Queen and the dreams of Shepard. The Reapers are using the little kid to appeal to the inherently human Shepard. Humans naturally relate with children, and hate to see them suffer or similar. Hence why the Catalyst is the kid- its more relatable for Shepard. Not only because it is human-like, but because it is the kid from his "dreams"- its logic will appeal to him more if it is this kid.

    P.S Bioware saying that they will not change the ending does not invalidate the indoctrination theory, guys. The IT is an interpretation of the ending how it is, and assumes that the indoctrination is not revealed until the destroy ending is chosen. You then wake up, go up into the Citadel, use the Crucible and kill every single reaper in the galaxy, of course via DLC. You probably get blown up in the process but hey.

    Current ending imo is a placeholder for the real indoctrination surprise dlc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    I would be happy with the Indoctrination ending as long as Shepard doesn't live. He can't live. We knew from Day 1 of Mass Effect 1 that he was going to eventually die. So, as long as they don't make the ending typical God Bless AmericaEarth, and make an actual sensible ending, i'll be happy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    I would be happy with the Indoctrination ending as long as Shepard doesn't live. He can't live. We knew from Day 1 of Mass Effect 1 that he was going to eventually die. So, as long as they don't make the ending typical God Bless AmericaEarth, and make an actual sensible ending, i'll be happy.

    Whether he lives or not doesn't really matter. What's important is that it makes sense. If there's some logical way he could live it would be fine.

    Being on the Citadel while it explodes and furthermore, having to reenter Earth's atmosphere, presumably, like a dog clinging to a piece of driftwood going over Niagara Falls, is not something that one could survive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Current ending imo is a placeholder for the real indoctrination surprise dlc.

    Do you honestly believe that Bioware would still be keeping it as a big secret, even now, after facing one of the biggest PR disasters in the history of gaming?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Zillah wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe that Bioware would still be keeping it as a big secret, even now, after facing one of the biggest PR disasters in the history of gaming?

    The accounting department of Bioware might disagree with you there :) Controversial the saga of its ending may be, but Mass Effect 3's sales have not been hurt by this kerfuffle. Quite the opposite by the looks of things.
    Gbear wrote: »
    Whether he lives or not doesn't really matter. What's important is that it makes sense. If there's some logical way he could live it would be fine.

    Being on the Citadel while it explodes and furthermore, having to reenter Earth's atmosphere, presumably, like a dog clinging to a piece of driftwood going over Niagara Falls, is not something that one could survive.

    He 'survived' the very same scenario at the start of Mass Effect 2. Plus if anything, it was less believable in #2 because that was very definitely in the depths of space, whereas at least on the Citadel you could argue they were in low orbit or something more survivable (ala those high-altitude parachutists)

    Granted, he didn't survive as such in #2, but when he got the 6-million-dollar man treatment you could argue he was in a better shape to survive a repeat orbital sky-dive :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    Zillah wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe that Bioware would still be keeping it as a big secret, even now, after facing one of the biggest PR disasters in the history of gaming?

    PR coup more like. This thread is testament to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    pixelburp wrote: »
    He 'survived' the very same scenario at the start of Mass Effect 2. Plus if anything, it was less believable in #2 because that was very definitely in the depths of space, whereas at least on the Citadel you could argue they were in low orbit or something more survivable (ala those high-altitude parachutists)

    Granted, he didn't survive as such in #2, but when he got the 6-million-dollar man treatment you could argue he was in a better shape to survive a repeat orbital sky-dive :)

    That's an interesting take on it alright, but why would he be alive? I mean, Bioware have stated over and over again that he won't survive after saving the galaxy (or what ever it is that he has just done). The only reason I can see for him to be alive would be to round house kick Harbinger in the quads once and for all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭luckyfrank


    Great game Shi/te ending /thread


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZOyeFvnhiI&feature=related

    Another indocrination video.

    Specifically, an additional scene about the boy. I didn't know he ran into the building at the start (you can actually see him if you are quick enough) and then the building is blown up by the Reaper ray but he still survives.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Ian7 wrote: »
    That's an interesting take on it alright, but why would he be alive? I mean, Bioware have stated over and over again that he won't survive after saving the galaxy (or what ever it is that he has just done). The only reason I can see for him to be alive would be to round house kick Harbinger in the quads once and for all.

    Well assuming there's nothing to the Indoctrination Theory and what we got was the actual ending, I would guess it was simply done as a little Hollywood-style cocktease at the end. The fact you only got the breathing scene if you chose the Destroy option does make me think there's more to it than this.
    noodler wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZOyeFvnhiI&feature=related

    Another indocrination video.

    Specifically, an additional scene about the boy. I didn't know he ran into the building at the start (you can actually see him if you are quick enough) and then the building is blown up by the Reaper ray but he still survives.

    Good video; I'm already a paid-up member to the Indoctrination Theory, but watching this new video simply re-confirmed what I already thought. That said, the Crappy Writing Theory is equally compelling; a lot of what happened was so cookie-cutter I could equally believe it was simply slapdish writing rather than some final, sneaky powerplay by the Reapers :) Always thought it strange they never tried to trick or turn Shephard mind you...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Good video; I'm already a paid-up member to the Indoctrination Theory, but watching this new video simply re-confirmed what I already thought. That said, the Crappy Writing Theory is equally compelling; a lot of what happened was so cookie-cutter I could equally believe it was simply slapdish writing rather than some final, sneaky powerplay by the Reapers :) Always thought it strange they never tried to trick or turn Shephard mind you...

    I am also signed up to the theory - and although I think it was brave/clever...I do agree that it sets a dangerous precident that you don't get the real game ending out of the box.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I would be happy with the Indoctrination ending as long as Shepard doesn't live. He can't live. We knew from Day 1 of Mass Effect 1 that he was going to eventually die. So, as long as they don't make the ending typical God Bless AmericaEarth, and make an actual sensible ending, i'll be happy.

    Considering this is a Choose Your Own Adventure, Shepard doesn't "have to" anything. It would be good if they gave an option to get the best possible ending and Shepard would survive, but so much would be lost in the process. Or else he could die of course. I always believed that MY Shepard had to die. But if people want him to live, they can work to get the best possible ending and do so.

    Then he and Vakarian will be sipping pina coladas on a beach with a dead reaper's legs sticking out of the water in front of them etc.
    I am also signed up to the theory - and although I think it was brave/clever...I do agree that it sets a dangerous precident that you don't get the real game ending out of the box.

    Its not a precedent- this stunt has been pulled many, many times. Asura's Wrath, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3...and FO3 Broken Steel added a lot of gameplay after the ending as well as new features.
    Do you honestly believe that Bioware would still be keeping it as a big secret, even now, after facing one of the biggest PR disasters in the history of gaming?

    No, Bioware are probably weighing their options at the moment. Its pretty obvious they have a penchant to keep things secret, considering they changed the original ending after it was leaked. Why wouldn't they keep it as a big secret? It would come as an even bigger surprise and therefore have a better chance of salvaging their reputation.

    And ffs, they're hardly going to reveal it is indoctrination now are they? That would be ruining the ending DLC so they obviously will keep it as a secret..
    He 'survived' the very same scenario at the start of Mass Effect 2. Plus if anything, it was less believable in #2 because that was very definitely in the depths of space, whereas at least on the Citadel you could argue they were in low orbit or something more survivable (ala those high-altitude parachutists)

    I'm pretty sure he died of asphyxiation, then crashed and burned up on the planet. His brain was then recovered and his body rebuilt by Cerb. Considering in ME3 the Citadel blew up, with the explosion's epicentre right in front of his face, do you honestly believe he survived the drop to Earth in lieu of this? With no armour, breathing apparatus etc. and then still be intact enough to take a breath? That is serious suspension of disbelief.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Ian7 wrote: »
    he won't survive after saving the galaxy (or what ever it is that he has just done)

    :D
    pixelburp wrote: »
    Granted, he didn't survive as such in #2, but when he got the 6-million-dollar man treatment you could argue he was in a better shape to survive a repeat orbital sky-dive :)

    He didn't really survive at all I don't think. He wasn't in a coma or anything. He was seriously very dead.

    Cybernetics or no, being exploded and then riding massive heavy exploding debris through the atmosphere when you're wearing basically, a heavy tracksuit isn't something you'd tend to shrug off.

    Even aside from the tinfoil-hatedness of the Indoc theory, I don't think it would work as an ending to ME3. It'd be better than the current one alright, but they'd have plenty of plot holes to fill for it to make sense as the game currently is.

    I certainly like elements of the Indoc theory.
    Like how it better explains the nightmares with the kid burning and how it could follow Shep's mental progress (the downer after Thessia). Rather than it being a case of game designers getting ideas above their station and pretending they're artists, the dream sequences would have an actual use.

    Even if they were considering pretending like they meant it all along, I think they'd be better off just scrapping everything after you Thanix Missile the destroyer in the face and start again.

    More Harbinger. Lots more Harbinger.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure he died of asphyxiation, then crashed and burned up on the planet. His brain was then recovered and his body rebuilt by Cerb. Considering in ME3 the Citadel blew up, with the explosion's epicentre right in front of his face, do you honestly believe he survived the drop to Earth in lieu of this? With no armour, breathing apparatus etc. and then still be intact enough to take a breath? That is serious suspension of disbelief.

    Ah I was only being a little facetious really; just saying that #2's orbital faceplant was as unbelievable as the one from number 3 that could have happed. But as a disciple in the Indoctrination Theory, what I actually believe is that Shephard was waking up from being knocked out whilst assaulting the teleportation beam on Earth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »

    Its not a precedent- this stunt has been pulled many, many times. Asura's Wrath, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3...and FO3 Broken Steel added a lot of gameplay after the ending as well as new features.

    I take it back but nobody gave a **** about F3's main storyline - it was almost irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    noodler wrote: »
    I take it back but nobody gave a **** about F3's main storyline - it was almost irrelevant.

    I only played through and finished Fallout 3 late last year, and i can't really remember what it was about tbh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I take it back but nobody gave a **** about F3's main storyline - it was almost irrelevant.

    Liam Neeson and Malcolm McDowell didn't think so...
    I only played through and finished Fallout 3 late last year, and i can't really remember what it was about tbh.

    Had a good storyline. Mainly about securing fresh water to the wasteland. Pretty realistic considering the game was filled with giant crab-things and mutant bears. I do admit that it was a little bit badly done, animation-wise. Who can forget Colonel Autumn doing the robot in the radiation chamber when your dad sacrifices himself? Which is also a very badly done moment. I mean, come on, its your dad dying! And the character just stands there frozen.
    But as a disciple in the Indoctrination Theory, what I actually believe is that Shephard was waking up from being knocked out whilst assaulting the teleportation beam on Earth.

    Me too.
    It'd be better than the current one alright, but they'd have plenty of plot holes to fill for it to make sense as the game currently is.

    Like what?
    Being on the Citadel while it explodes and furthermore, having to reenter Earth's atmosphere, presumably, like a dog clinging to a piece of driftwood going over Niagara Falls, is not something that one could survive.

    A dog clinging to a piece of exploding driftwood would be more likely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Two questions:

    1: Would a DLC introducing a Batarian squaddie interest you guys (after the ending dlc of course)

    2: What enemy faction is the easiest to beat in multiplayer? My guess would be the Geth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Two questions:

    1: Would a DLC introducing a Batarian squaddie interest you guys (after the ending dlc of course)

    YES! Batarians are badasses. Well.. hmm.. again.. it's the Mass Effect version of badass where badass doesn't mean generally cool but rather that you endorse genocide and slavery.

    Still, it'd be good.

    I don't like that they just glossed over the extinction of the Batarians. They were such a dark and mysterious bunch with their web of secrecy. It would've been nice to do something like "priority Kar'shan - resuce Batarian government".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    I'm not interested in paying 10 euro for one mission and a squadmate.

    It has to be a bit more than that.

    As it turns out, Jarik was probably worth it. And some of the extra information he provided at certain sections of the game was quite enlightening (the mian one being the events at Thessia - I can't imagine that section without Jarik).

    Although, in truth, the intertwined nature of Jarik into the story probably just highlights that he was really part of the main game and cut out and sold as DLC.

    EDIT: OR Javik.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I don't like that they just glossed over the extinction of the Batarians. They were such a dark and mysterious bunch with their web of secrecy. It would've been nice to do something like "priority Kar'shan - resuce Batarian government".

    They weren't all killed off, but Hackett mentions that their government (and possibly empire) is "history". Personally Balak (from Bring Down the Sky) would be a good choice if he was still alive in people's games as he and Shep have history and they could spend the whole game finally understanding each other for who they are and what they want. It would also fit in with the games themes of unity (Quarians and Geth working together...who knew?) and remember the galvanisation of the Geth when Legion was introduced? Everyone had a soft spot for them when that stunt was pulled. Otherwise the "Geth are misunderstood" twist wouldn't have been believable.
    YES! Batarians are badasses. Well.. hmm.. again.. it's the Mass Effect version of badass where badass doesn't mean generally cool but rather that you endorse genocide and slavery.

    Personally I love the aesthetic of the Batarians online and I love the play style involved with them. The crew is missing a Vanguardish type squaddie and a Batarian could fill that niche.

    Also, only their government endorses slavery. We have yet to see the opinions of its citizens, who I presume are scattered all over the place after the Reapers hit. And humans endorsed slavery for thousands of years. Also, Javik endorses genocide and slavery!

    Also, Batarians are the only major alien race (that is feasible to implement) that has not been represented in Shepard's crew at any point during the three games.
    As it turns out, Jarik was probably worth it.

    He was a good character BUT the DLC was overpriced. Way overpriced. Zaeed offered slightly more and it was free launch DLC. 800 points is way to expensive for a generic shooting mission with two achievements, some cutscenes, a new squaddie, some new appearances and some unique dialogue.

    Also, Javik needed a loyalty mission. ME2's loyalty missions really made me feel engrossed in the characters.
    I'm not interested in paying 10 euro for one mission and a squadmate.

    I'm suggesting free DLC, however.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Its not a precedent- this stunt has been pulled many, many times. Asura's Wrath, Prince of Persia, Fallout 3...and FO3 Broken Steel added a lot of gameplay after the ending as well as new features.
    While I've yet to play FO3 so can't comment on that, in neither of the other two cases was the post-release DLC a "stunt" of the same caliber as Mass Effect 3 is being made out to be. The games had a very definite ending and were, had the DLC not been released, absolutely complete as presented on-disc. From what I've seen online, the majority of the people who are complaining about these two games in particular are those who haven't even played them. :(
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Also, Javik needed a loyalty mission. ME2's loyalty missions really made me feel engrossed in the characters.
    I'd be quite surprised if they've not planned for such a mission, probably in the form of a journey to find his buried squad mates whom he mentions when he touches the echo shard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    We have covered quite a bit in this thread while dissecting the ending, however there is one section near the end that seems to be overlooked...

    When you meet Anderson and Major Coats in the building they are discussing "Hammer's" strength and what percentage has made it to earth. My question for you guys is what percentage did Anderson say for you and do you think this is directly related to the Effective Military Strength. If it turns out that everyone hears Anderson saying the same number regardless of your higher EMS then I think there could be more to it.

    I had 4000+ EMS going into the end and Anderson stated that barely 50% of Hammer had made it to earth. While these two figures are roughly the same, I want to know what people with 5000+ EMS heard.

    Also, what's up with that Major Coats guy? He gets a fully rendered pre-release trailer but only briefly appears in the game? I don't see how we could get a pre-ending DLC involving this guy either. Seems as if some more material involving him was cut or deliberately left out. Unless they just wanted to flesh out the Military a bit, possibly to give the feeling that there is more fighting for earth other than Shepard, Anderson and Hackett.

    P.S. When I say there may be more to it I mean, if everyone hears Anderson saying 50% then what are the remaining 50% doing? Could it be that they are only landing while the first wave are advancing toward the beam or afterwards even? (When Shepard wakes up he may need a bit of an Army like.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Ian7 wrote: »
    P.S. When I say there may be more to it I mean, if everyone hears Anderson saying 50% then what are the remaining 50% doing?

    They're busy being dead.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,565 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    They're busy being dead.


    Ehh yeah this to be honest.

    If you listen to the guy on the radio in London he is clearly implying (with the percentages) that x% made it (or survived) - not that they just stopped or ran away scared!

    I believe for the company with 100% casualties the phrase 'wiped out' is used.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Also, what's up with that Major Coats guy? He gets a fully rendered pre-release trailer but only briefly appears in the game?

    Because camping in Big Ben for three days sniping husks makes you an instant badass anyway.
    They're busy being dead.

    Nobody's quite sure but presumably they are. Or else they got lost and landed somewhere else, maybe?
    While I've yet to play FO3 so can't comment on that, in neither of the other two cases was the post-release DLC a "stunt" of the same caliber as Mass Effect 3 is being made out to be.

    Looking back on it now, Broken Steel wasn't that big of a stunt. All they did was keep the same ending, but extended the gameplay a bit further afterwards. So you essentially woke up after "dying" (which had been the case before and the game simply ended when that happened) and pursued the bad guys for a bit more in post-ending missions. Then, when that was done, you got to play perpetually! As opposed to your game ending before the DLC was installed. Basically they listened to fan feedback and fans were pissed off that the character died and the game ended (in an RPG no less) so Bethesda decided to develop Broken Steel. It also added other stuff, like weapons, armours, sidemissions, new locations, creatures and raised the level cap. It was a pretty unprecedented DLC.

    In Fallout New Vegas however, the game ended when the main quest was beaten, and its going to stay that way (basically depending on your ending the final battle has huge societal repercussions, but I'm not going to get into that).

    I actually recommend buying Fallout 3. Buy the GOTY edition because the DLC is quite good, but Broken Steel is the necessary minimum, because it adds so much, but the others are also good. New Vegas was alright. To some people it was a buggy mess and I hit a few annoying bugs here and there, plus the DLC for the most part is rubbish. The DLC for FO3 adds about 20-25 hours of gameplay, I think.

    Although Bethesda listening to fan feedback and extending (not changing) the ending of FO3 is definitely a good precedent. People who don't want their ending extended, don't have to buy the DLC. Simple as. (It was 800 points btw)


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,872 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Frankly, if the ending was purposefully left off the disc it's a fairly shocking precedent and a dark day for artistic integrity (not that, as a gamer, I've come to expect that particular luxury). I don't like the idea that something was knowingly incomplete when shipped. However, everything I've seen suggests Bioware was caught off guard and are desperately trying to placate the fans. Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about the game to play through the repetitive final stretch again just to see an extended cutscene. Youtube it is.

    I also think the Indoctrination theory is a fairly desperate effort to cover-up the shortcomings of the ending as is. It fits, fair enough, but even if it was Bioware intention its poor implementation in terms of storytelling and execution renders any good intentions moot. Personally, I'm going to be a cynic and suggest that if they do ultimately accept the theory in the epilogue, it'll simply be them trying to cover their asses. As said, the often obnoxious fan reaction does not seem to have been part of the plan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I don't like the idea that something was knowingly incomplete when shipped.
    Considering the likelihood that From Ashes was ripped from the disk and sold as launch DLC, this idea has possibly already been fulfilled.
    It fits, fair enough, but even if it was Bioware intention its poor implementation in terms of storytelling and execution renders any good intentions moot.
    What do you mean by 'its poor implementation'? The point is to not let the gamer know that they are being indoctrinated...
    As said, the often obnoxious fan reaction does not seem to have been part of the plan.
    It was not mostly obnoxious. Considering fans have invested hundreds of dollars/euros/whatever individually into the series, and spent huge amounts of hours playing each installment, not to mention DLC. As customers they have every right to voice their hatred of the ending, and express their desire to have it changed/extended/turned into indoctrination.
    Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about the game to play through the repetitive final stretch again just to see an extended cutscene.
    Me too, unless it is indoctrination.
    However, everything I've seen suggests Bioware was caught off guard and are desperately trying to placate the fans.
    They should have expected it, however, considering they changed the original, much more fitting ending for this self-contradictory, trichromate tripe of a finale.
    Personally, I'm going to be a cynic and suggest that if they do ultimately accept the theory in the epilogue, it'll simply be them trying to cover their asses.
    Either that or they meant it all along. Nobody really knows. Hence Indoctrination 'Theory'.
    and a dark day for artistic integrity

    Here we go again with 'artistic integrity', lol.

    If they had such 'artistic integrity', they wouldn't have changed the ending in the first place after it was leaked. Clearly 'artistic integrity' blah blah blah has already been thrown out the window. What's stopping them changing it again? Except obviously they announced it will remain as it is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Ian7 wrote: »
    I had 4000+ EMS going into the end and Anderson stated that barely 50% of Hammer had made it to earth. While these two figures are roughly the same, I want to know what people with 5000+ EMS heard.

    I had about 8000. It's still the same.

    Lots of hammer were destroyed. You even see some of them getting shot down when there's a big load of shuttles.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,872 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    What do you mean by 'its poor implementation'? The point is to not let the gamer know that they are being indoctrinated...

    Because, Indoctrination Theory or not, it's still bad storytelling as is. The game never makes it clear what is happening, and while I'm all for a bit of narrative ambiguity, the hints are too vague and contradictory to be considered well handled. Even if IT is true (and I couldn't give two ****s if it is or isn't, frankly) then the Star Child, outflying an explosion and jungle planet nonsense remain nonsense.

    If the IT is true, it could have made for a fantastic revelation at the end of the game. That it isn't there suggests to me it was never the intention at all. If it is, then Bioware lacked the basic storytelling talent to pull off such a trick. If you've played Braid, then you know the ending to the game is quite revelatory, putting a new and exciting spin on the seemingly simple story that preceded it. Bioshock also pulled the rug out with convincing results. Bioware could have pulled off such a trick here, but instead put in a turgid ending that by all accounts a player who isn't into reading overly detailed Internet analysis would have presumed was final.

    I like games, films, TV shows, whatever to stand alone on their own merits as convincing 'wholes'. Mass Effect 3 is not that, and even with the potential Indoctrination explanation, what we currently have is a crap ending to a disappointing game, and no amount of non-interactive DLC is going to change that. Paid DLC would merely rub salt in the wounds. Unless they manage to pull off something like End of Evangelion (the inspired movie 'retelling' of the TV series' ambiguous ending). But, going by the evidence, I think that's wholly outside of Bioware's ability.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Just finished the game yesterday and had stayed away from all the spoilers. I enjoyed it though I do wish you got more REAL options at the end. And I didn't even want a happy ending. I wanted Shepard to have to Sacrifice himself but on his own terms with no guarantee of what outcome would happen. I would have loved an ending in the Citidal where I had to hold off the husks in that slowmo shooting style while Anderson works the Control Panel with me being overwhelmed just after I had given him enough time. Something like that would have left me happy as a consumer and sad as an experiencer.

    Edit - Then I'd want plenty of cut scenes after the war was over that were different depending on my actions over the 3 games...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭AnCapaillMor


    Playing the witcher games at the moment and they seriously put this and any other bioware games to shame, decisions throughout the game have consequenses that involve something more than different colours. The more i play the witcher the more the ME3 ending begins to knaw at me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Considering the likelihood that From Ashes was ripped from the disk and sold as launch DLC, this idea has possibly already been fulfilled.

    That likelihood only exists if you really, really want to believe that in the face of everything else telling you that you're wrong.

    Which is to say, not at all.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 52,104 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    That likelihood only exists if you really, really want to believe that in the face of everything else telling you that you're wrong.

    Which is to say, not at all.

    I wouldn't trust anything developers say. We got the same spiel from Eidos and Crystal Dynamics about the DLC for Tomb Raider Underworld until developers that were dumped off contract revealed that the DLC sections were cut from the game late in development to be used as DLC. Then there's assassins creed 2; the official line there is that the DLC was developed seperately....

    I'm pretty sure EA planned to have that DLC from day one and directed resources from it but I still think it's pretty gullible to totally believe developers that are under contract. I'm pretty sure telling people that content was cut to be sold on is not going to do a lot of good for said developers employment prospects. I wouldn't say there's conclusive proof either way and it's not as simple as both you two are making it out to be.

    I still think day one dlc is a pretty lousy development but something I'll have to live with but if indeed Bioware ran out of resources and rushed the ending well those resources seem to have been engaged elsewhere.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,872 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    It was not mostly obnoxious. Considering fans have invested hundreds of dollars/euros/whatever individually into the series, and spent huge amounts of hours playing each installment, not to mention DLC. As customers they have every right to voice their hatred of the ending, and express their desire to have it changed/extended/turned into indoctrination.

    Sorry, meant to common on this. I agree they have the right to voice their hatred for the ending in a considered, sensible manner. They have absolutely no right to demand they change it, and no right to send hate mail. A few of us have repeated time and time again in this thread why audiences have no right to demand the resolution they want: that's art by consensus, which is frankly a terrifying prospect. What matters first and foremost is the vision of the creators. In this case, that fell short in many regards, but you as a player and paying customer was still provided with 25 hours plus of relatively high quality content, an otherwise will-fleshed out narrative etc... as you were in the previous two games. That's what you paid for - a game - not the assumption that you'd like every single thing about it. Heck, even though I had issues with the game well and beyond the ending, I never felt short changed.

    To use a comparison. I very strongly disliked the epilogue to Harry Potter, which I thought was a poorly-written and misguided conclusion to an otherwise perfectly enjoyable tale: one that was several thousand pages long and cost me a hundred euro or so to experience. I did not write to JK Rowling demanding she changed it, because that would be unreasonable. Indeed, I respect her right to handle it the way she did, as it is after all her story rather than mine. I am entitled to voice my opinion of why I didn't like it, but I am in no way entitled to demand less blunt closure through a couple of extra pages sent through the post. Similarly, I think the ending of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is about 20 minutes too long, but am unwilling to send death threats to Peter Jackson, and respect but criticise his decision to make the ending longer again in his extended cut. Because, again, I feel it's his baby, not mine.

    But then again, Harry Potter is merely a moderately enjoyable yarn about a load of teenage wizards, while Mass Effect is merely a moderately enjoyable yarn about a load of guys and gals having space adventures. They are far from the prime example of a medium's capabilities (although ME2 remains a good example of the potential of interactive stroytelling). Most importantly, a sense of perspective is necessary when it comes to these things.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    noodler wrote: »
    If you listen to the guy on the radio in London he is clearly implying (with the percentages) that x% made it (or survived) - not that they just stopped or ran away scared!

    Just to clarify, I'm talking about the middle of the earth mission where you meet Anderson and not the bit where Shepard gets hit by the beam, in which case...exactly..it doesn't explicitly say that more than 50% of Hammer have been killed on the way down. They just say that "X percent have reported in".
    Anderson even says that "there's some stragglers still en-route".
    Gbear wrote: »
    I had about 8000. It's still the same.

    Lots of hammer were destroyed. You even see some of them getting shot down when there's a big load of shuttles.

    Yeah I just looked it up there earlier, 50% seems to be the max no matter how much EMS you have. I was going to say it's a shame but it all leads to one thing anyway....all of the ground forces in the run up the beam being wiped out as Major Coats says. Where is that crafty fecker hiding anyway while everyone else is dying?

    Shepard is alive after the rush, Coats is clearly alive, Anderson is still alive, all of your squad are alive and have made it back to the Normandy after the final rush. We even see ground forces still fighting the reapers after the Citadel blows up.

    Now, this could be just a case of loose writing, maybe there are soldiers still alive but not enough to be classified as part of the "hammer" strategy or.... perhaps....Shepard wakes up and has a reasonable force left to make one last stand?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement