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

Jester252

Maximilian wrote: »

If they charge for it, I think the internet will burn with anti-EA rage.

I though it had

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Maximilian wrote: »

If they charge for it, I think the internet will burn with anti-EA rage.

maybe
but fanboys will still buy it, ea will still make a big profit on it and it will become a good option for any other publishers to try in th efuture.

bizmark

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

maybe
but fanboys will still buy it, ea will still make a big profit on it and it will become a good option for any other publishers to try in th efuture.

people might buy it to complete a series they played for 120-200 hours but the damage to future games specially from bioware would be noticeable id say

Retr0gamer

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you are an unbelievable twat

Banned for three weeks for personal abuse and making me come into this thread at the risk of spoiling a game I've not even bought yet.

InvisibleBadger

Just finished the game. Pretty amazing game all the way through..until that ending. I didn't mind it too much at first because the game was so good, but after reading this thread and looking at the bioware forums, the indoctrination theory seems solid and explains the oddness of the ending (i got tricked).

Outkast_IRE

InvisibleBadger wrote: »

Just finished the game. Pretty amazing game all the way through..until that ending. I didn't mind it too much at first because the game was so good, but after reading this thread and looking at the bioware forums, the indoctrination theory seems solid and explains the oddness of the ending (i got tricked).

So did i and i would hapilly admit it, i reloaded a save and did the renegade ending as well just to watch vid, i might do the third ending some time.
Im fully convinced the indoctrination theory is real , its a waiting game now to see what happens, but im trying to flesh out in my head what way the choices would lead if real , what also convinces me of something fishy going on is to save anderson you have to click for a renegade reaction , since when is shooting the bad guy whos about to kill your friend a renegade reaction .

Does anybody know what happens if you dont click the 2nd renegade click to shoot illusive man before he shoots you??

bizmark

Its not indoctrination its very very clear how that works we have seen it many times through out mass effect from saren to the guys on the dead reaper in mass effect 2 and so on its slow so slow you almost know whats happening but dont care its not "flick switch your indoctrination!" its a slow process people would of noticed shepard acting odd shepard would of likely noticed himself acting odd.

I can imagen this being how the games ending came about.
Bioware: wait this inst a series about Cerberus ! what was that reaper guys name in the last game Harvey? harmony ? er Hammond? no wait harbinger! get him to shoot shepard in the face just to remind the player the reapers are a threat then *takes some sweet sweet drugs* then man oh i can see god man **** we need this in the game and like the Normandy in ftl because i can see the light show in my mind and its so awesome *passes out*

Its almost as plausible a explanation for the ending

blatantrereg

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

So did i and i would hapilly admit it, i reloaded a save and did the renegade ending as well just to watch vid, i might do the third ending some time.
Im fully convinced the indoctrination theory is real , its a waiting game now to see what happens, but im trying to flesh out in my head what way the choices would lead if real , what also convinces me of something fishy going on is to save anderson you have to click for a renegade reaction , since when is shooting the bad guy whos about to kill your friend a renegade reaction .

Does anybody know what happens if you dont click the 2nd renegade click to shoot illusive man before he shoots you??

[Spoilers for that bit next obviously]

You die. I read a blog where a guy was complaining he was being forced to take a renegade action with his good-guy shepard. If you have a high enough paragon rating [very high] you can deal with the situation via conversation options before getting to that bit anyway though:

You can convince the illusive man to shoot himself with either a very high pragon or very high renegade rating

AceCard Jones

bizmark wrote: »

Its not indoctrination its very very clear how that works we have seen it many times through out mass effect from saren to the guys on the dead reaper in mass effect 2 and so on its slow so slow you almost know whats happening but dont care its not "flick switch your indoctrination!" its a slow process people would of noticed shepard acting odd shepard would of likely noticed himself acting odd.

I can imagen this being how the games ending came about.
Bioware: wait this inst a series about Cerberus ! what was that reaper guys name in the last game Harvey? harmony ? er Hammond? no wait harbinger! get him to shoot shepard in the face just to remind the player the reapers are a threat then *takes some sweet sweet drugs* then man oh i can see god man **** we need this in the game and like the Normandy in ftl because i can see the light show in my mind and its so awesome *passes out*

Its almost as plausible a explanation for the ending

One form of indoctrination is slow over a long period of time, it can also be done at speed at great risk to the organic that is being taken over. It can kill them within hours/days instead of months/years. Also if you don't call those Dreams he was having all through the game a sign then I don't know what is, even some of the trees/bushes from the dreams appear on your way to the beam after being hit by harbinger just growing randomly out of the road.

I also think the kid from the very beginning is something in Shepard's head, nobody else ever sees him or looks at him, and when Anderson snaps Shepard out of the conversation with the kid and he suddenly disappears, you can hear a deep growl from inside the Vent. From the Novels when a Reaper fails to take over a target it growls in frustration. And when the kid gets on the shuttle that blows up at the start, nobody else looks at him, no soldier helps him on board, nothing. I just think the kid is suspect from the start.

Again I'm not blind to the fact that the indoctrination theory could be wrong, but there is answers to most doubts about it.

BlitzKrieg

Its not indoctrination its very very clear how that works we have seen it many times through out mass effect from saren to the guys on the dead reaper in mass effect 2 and so on its slow so slow you almost know whats happening but dont care its not "flick switch your indoctrination!" its a slow process people would of noticed shepard acting odd shepard would of likely noticed himself acting odd.

Two points on the issue

1. Much of the indoctrination theory argues that Shepherd has been under siege by it for most if not the entire game and that there are numerous nods to this that can be past off as exhaustion/guilt. Primarily the dreams he keeps having. less so the game makes a point to constantly point out how much shepherd is running himself ragged throughout the game.

2. More important as you point out harbinger is pretty much absent from this game, which is incredible odd considering how much of the franchises lore has focused on harbinger/sherpherd connection. Harbinger has a personal interest in shepherd, from trying to steal his body prior to mass effect 2 to addressing him personnally at the end of Arrival. So for harbinger to be absent this entire game and then only show up in the final seconds for one shot at shep is incredible odd and poor storytelling. Other odd elements include how the reaper on speaks of shepherd on rannoch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfIdDNRyxBE

go to the 5:20 point. Harbinger speaks of you. you resist but you will fail.

A lot of people think harbinger is the one directly trying to indoctrinate Shepherd, intending to make him his avatar like how Saren was Sovereigns and the collector leader was Harbinger's in 2. Hence the dreams, hence his absence and more importantly *like* Saren and Sovereign when you stick you and him right next to each other his influence on you triples (consider that Sovereign by the end of of mass effect could take control of Saren's body)

While I agree with there being too much turning over little details and trying to make them work to prove the indoctrine theory and a fair chunk of it I would throw out (noises in Normandy, the Reaper IFF from ME2, Shepherds implants being of reaper origin?) I do think looking at ME3 exclusively as a story and a sequel to the franchise as a whole, then the indoctrination theory makes more sense story wise based on shepherds interactions with harbinger, harbingers personal focus on him and the dreams which do not lead anywhere.

More so the dreams because of how the final scene is done. The dreams could have worked if the *catalyst* played up its appearance close to how the aliens did in the film Contact. Which is funny considering how much that sequence is loathed in film. But the catalyst taking the appearance of that child has no effect on shepherd or the story because it isnt used, the child delivers a dull monotone exposition, no thought on why it looks like the kid or even an attempt to comfort shepherd which would be the reason why the child's form was taken in the first place either by shepherd's sub concious or by whatever entity was the catalyst.

blatantrereg

Sorry, I'm a bit anal, but the number of posts getting the following wrong is irking me:

Shepard = Name of ME protagonist
Shepherd = Someone who looks after sheep.

Thanks

bizmark

go to the 5:20 point. Harbinger speaks of you. you resist but you will fail.]

Isnt that just more holding onto tiny little throw away lines uttered dureing the course of the game to try and prove this theory ? if the destroyer reaper had said "Harbringer speaks to you you resist but you will fail" i can see that as proof however he just utters a completely generic your going to fail line that makes far far more sense to think of in a militaristic sense after all they just had a stand up fight than any mind battle shepard might be fighting..

BlitzKrieg

bizmark wrote: »

Isnt that just more holding onto tiny little throw away lines uttered dureing the course of the game to try and prove this theory ? if the destroyer reaper had said "Harbringer speaks to you you resist but you will fail" i can see that as proof however he just utters a completely generic your going to fail line that makes far far more sense to think of in a militaristic sense after all they just had a stand up fight than any mind battle shepard might be fighting..

Yes it would be except as I said I consider all the little things people throw out in favour and against theories in the context of story telling over the mechanical need to place shepherd under reaper tech (such as the Reaper IFF arguments go, that it is on normandy somewhere and is what is projecting indoctrination to shepard). As such its what the little things tell me is missing from the games story and narrative over technical details, little things to hint at whats missing not at a string of clues to give you the secret answer and while yes its a throw away line there are some things to consider.

1. Its the only reaper to speak in this game, so I would consider details of that dialogue more important then the 3rd of 4th visit to James when he mentions weird noises.

2. I dont believe one can go through mass effect 3 and prove one way or another which theory is true or not, I've always felt that there would be a DLC pack involved and I do firmly believe considering how the weight of Harbinger related content prior to 3 that it will directly involve the reaper and an indoctrination attempt by Harbinger is the most direct and effective way of progressing that story and keeping it on a one to one level between shepard and Harbinger over some sterile detail.

3. harbinger never crosses shepard (sorry about that earlier) throughout the game, numerous other reapers do, this would be the 2nd one you take down so the dialogue seems odd since the whole sentence is present tense. If both Harbinger and Shepard were actively crossing paths even in a small manner (such as Shepard escaping Harbinger when he escapes earth rather then reaper destroyer number 63344) then yes I'd pass that comment over. Except he doesnt, he's encountered other reapers and yet it is harbinger presently speaking of shepard resisting? Shouldnt quite a few reapers across the galaxy be bitching about the normandy showing up and stirring up sh*t for them? harbinger could have been talking about the ME2/arrival events but it's a bit late for him to start talking about them months into the invasion.

To put simply I am not holding up a little detail and saying it proves a theory, I'm holding up a little detail because it draws attention to a major hole in the me3 narrative that is deliberately missing, Harbinger is only 2nd to the illusive man in showing up in Mass Effect material, he is more prominent then the illusive man as a villain in those material and directly influenced the events of Mass Effect 2. 2 of the DLC packs (Arrival which is considered the most important and lair of the shadow broker) and has appeared in the expanded universe. To directly name the character at two key points of the game (right before the ending and after you take down a reaper destroyer yourself for the first time) but to never even address the storyline with the character directly (let alone resolve it) and yet use him specifically in instigating the game's current ending (It is Harbinger that shoots you).

it's a surgical narrative cut, its not laziness, its not that the character was not relevent or unimportant. Its a specific and measured avoidance of key material. And if you accept the recent Bioware announcement on DLC directly affecting the endgame material then you'd agree if one was a financially motivated business that wanted to make money based on a fanbase then you'd remove one of the game's two antagonists and sell their conclusion in the DLC. My surprise is that illusive man bucked harbinger for the main game. Though if you got martin sheen voicing a character you damn well get your worth up front.

Zillah

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And if you accept the recent Bioware announcement on DLC directly affecting the endgame material

Wait, what's this? Have bioware specifically said there will be DLC affecting the endgame?

BlitzKrieg

But we also recognize that some of our most passionate fans needed more closure, more answers, and more time to say goodbye to their stories-and these comments are equally valid. Player feedback such as this has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the series.

http://kotaku.com/5894186/mass-effects-producer-promises-well-keep-listening-and-new-content-that-brings-closure?tag=masseffect

RichTea

Finished the game last night and I've been in a funk since then.

What were they thinking?

I fully accept that Shepard dying would make sense but this God child just completely spunked all over the three games.

I don't think there'll be any post-ending or ending-changing DLC but surely Bioware, or at least some of them, regret the direction they took the series.

Was the ending to the trilogy written along with Mass Effect 3 or was it the intention of Bioware throughout the whole series?

blatantrereg

I bet they wish they just broke the mass effect relays before the reapers arrived in the first place. Problem solved; no invasions at all.

sink

blatantrereg wrote: »

I bet they wish they just broke the mass effect relays before the reapers arrived in the first place. Problem solved; no invasions at all.

It was explained in the game that destroying the Mass Effect relays would only slow the Reapers down. They've already travelled trough dark space at standard FTL speeds for an extreme length of time, they have the time and patience to cross entire galaxy even if it takes centuries. Destroying the relays will only hamper the galaxies efforts to fight back.

Jester252

New ending it was all a radio play by HG Wells

calex71

I don't get what the fuss is about ???? I thought the end was totally acceptable

After hearing how rubbish it was i was expecting an ending like Rage had, but I sat through it and thought what is all the fuss about

hightower1

calex71 wrote: »

I don't get what the fuss is about ???? I thought the end was totally acceptable

After hearing how rubbish it was i was expecting an ending like Rage had, but I sat through it and thought what is all the fuss about

The ending was fine... the fact that a game built and promoted on choice vs consequence had only one real ending and your choices has nearly no effect on that is a fail.

Arawn

calex71 wrote: »

I don't get what the fuss is about ???? I thought the end was totally acceptable

After hearing how rubbish it was i was expecting an ending like Rage had, but I sat through it and thought what is all the fuss about

hightower1 wrote: »

The ending was fine... the fact that a game built and promoted on choice vs consequence had only one real ending and your choices has nearly no effect on that is a fail.

that and the fact at the end of 2 the reapers **** **** up against earth, then in 3 the totally pro earth guys are suddenly bad working with the reapers who are the main bad guys in the first 2 games totally get ignored apart from a few bit mentions

blatantrereg

hightower1 wrote: »

The ending was fine... the fact that a game built and promoted on choice vs consequence had only one real ending and your choices has nearly no effect on that is a fail.

What colour explosion would you like?
Congratulations, you have united the whole of galactic civilization against the reaper threat - Green explosions unlocked!

namelessguy

Yeah... so Mass Effect 3 ending. With

star-child, different colours and winter planet

Just going to leave this here.

Robdoo

namelessguy wrote: »

Yeah... so Mass Effect 3 ending. With

star-child, different colours and winter planet

Just going to leave this here.

Huh, that's interesting.

Burgo

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true&pli=1

Detailed document about the fallacies of the endings.

bizmark

not sure if its been posted

http://i.imgur.com/ms6Zg.jpg

Kirby

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The whole f*ck up with the characters coming out of the normady is a strong argument for indoctrination because the people that come out of the normandy are always the ones you took with you on your last mission, so it is downright impossible for them to be there.

But they aren't. Javvik came out of the Normandy for me and I NEVER used him. I took Liara and Garrus with me for most of the game including the last mission and neither showed up. It was weird. I was quite surprised to see other people claim their squad showed up. Didn't happen that way for me.

Overall the ending is terrible. On many different levels I could write pages on. But the short answer is.....if your fans hate it, you have failed. The marketing department has described it as "Your story!" which is just a slap in the face. The last 10 minutes are so unlike everything in the first 3 games. It's like the ending to a different game tacked on at the end.

BlitzKrieg

But they aren't. Javvik came out of the Normandy for me and I NEVER used him. I took Liara and Garrus with me for most of the game including the last mission and neither showed up. It was weird. I was quite surprised to see other people claim their squad showed up. Didn't happen that way for me.

huh.

your the first I've heard having this happen. Every time I've done it one of the two people (or both if I opted for the destroy ending) that I took with me have come out of the ship.

Quick survey how high was your score at the end (did you get a *good/perfect* ending?)

blatantrereg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

huh.

your the first I've heard having this happen. Every time I've done it one of the two people (or both if I opted for the destroy ending) that I took with me have come out of the ship.

Quick survey how high was your score at the end (did you get a *good/perfect* ending?)

who didn't come out for you with the non-destroy option?
I had Liara and EDI. They both come out for the control option. EDI obviously doesn't with the destroy. Garrus does instead as far as I remember, and I never used him.

BlitzKrieg

blatantrereg wrote: »

who didn't come out for you with the non-destroy option?
I had Liara and EDI. They both come out for the control option. EDI obviously doesn't with the destroy. Garrus does instead as far as I remember, and I never used him.

I took Tali and Garrus the first time and Garrus comes out.

Then I took Liara and james and both came out for the destroy ending

Then I took EDI and Garrus for control and I assume EDI was default to come out with Joker except for when its destroy and Garrus came out.

Jester252

The two squadmates are the two who you have the biggest relationship with.

Kirby

Jester252 wrote: »

The two squadmates are the two who you have the biggest relationship with.

That can't be right. I took Garrus and Liara with me on most missions, and chatted to them more than anyone else. I used Javvik on one mission only to try him out. Yet he is the one who appeared at the end with Joker.

I selected the blue-splosion option of killing all A.I. so obviously EDI can't be there but I found it odd that the hard faced prothean is the only one who survived and shows up. I had over 5,000 EMS btw so it can't be that.

Odd things happened to me though with ME3. This wasn't the only one. It seems buggy. As I've said before, my ME2 save with all the DLC done seemed to think I didn't romance anybody, even though I romanced Miranda. I also saved all 12 members at the end of ME2 yet Kasumi is nowhere to be found in my ME3 playthrough even though Zaeed, the other dlc character, is there. It's all very odd.

Jester252

That what I read. It has to do with how many times you talked to them. She is ine of the cidial missions the one with the hanar

Kirby

I know that because I looked it up. The hanar diplomat. However she isn't there in my playthrough. She isn't on the dead list on the Normandy like the rest. She just wasn't there. Very buggy.

BlitzKrieg

That can't be right. I took Garrus and Liara with me on most missions, and chatted to them more than anyone else. I used Javvik on one mission only to try him out. Yet he is the one who appeared at the end with Joker.

Supposable if you got a low score at the end of the game you should see just after harbinger attacked one of your squadmates dying at your feet so they dont appear in the ending cinematic?

Kirby

But I had over 5 thousand EMS. My bar had been full since the Geth encounter. Before Thessia, Sanctuary, Cerberus base and then finally earth. For about a third of the game. So a low score can't explain the Magical Javvik because I didn't have one. It was obviously just buggy code.

Kiith

I was best buds with Garrus and romanced Liara, and brought them both on the final mission. Neither of them were there after i got hit with the reaper beam, and then Liara walked off the ship at the end.

Thanks for leaving me Liara....bitch :pac:

stiffler123

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Supposable if you got a low score at the end of the game you should see just after harbinger attacked one of your squadmates dying at your feet so they dont appear in the ending cinematic?

You don't see them dying, they are just dead on the ground. Killed off screen:mad:. If I would of kept walking forward and not looked around I wouldn't have even noticed.

Lordhogo

As per what most people have said enjoyed the game not the ending blah blah blah.

Anyway my gripe is quite different. When facing the Illusive Man with Anderson my paragon level was not high enough to have him shoot himself so I went with whatever the other dialogue choice was. My problem is that when he is about to shoot Anderson the renegade option appears but being a paragon I did not hit this so he shoots Anderson now the renegade option appears again and again I did not hit it as I had no idea what would happen so I end up getting shot. I had to go through that whole flipping cut scene again and was unable to skip it which had me very pissed come the actual end as it is quite long.

I know it may be hard to understand how annoyed I was since it seems this has not happened to anyone else but this broke up the whole tempo of the ending for me.

Kirby

Lordhogo wrote: »

As per what most people have said enjoyed the game not the ending blah blah blah.

Anyway my gripe is quite different. When facing the Illusive Man with Anderson my paragon level was not high enough to have him shoot himself so I went with whatever the other dialogue choice was. My problem is that when he is about to shoot Anderson the renegade option appears but being a paragon I did not hit this so he shoots Anderson now the renegade option appears again and again I did not hit it as I had no idea what would happen so I end up getting shot. I had to go through that whole flipping cut scene again and was unable to skip it which had me very pissed come the actual end as it is quite long.

I know it may be hard to understand how annoyed I was since it seems this has not happened to anyone else but this broke up the whole tempo of the ending for me.

Yeah that would be quite annoying. Replaying sections can be a pain.

My illusive man shot himself and it was quite reminiscent of when I convinced Saren to top himself. I loved Saren doing that and is still one of my favourite moments in gaming as I had no idea he didn't do it for everyone else. The Illusive Man doing it just didnt feel the same.

On the other hand, looking at all the evidence such as the kid, the dialogue, Anderson's wound matching your own, Shepard not questioning the kid at all, etc. etc. it looks likely none of that actually happened after Harbinger shoots you on London and it's all in Shepard's head so it doesn't really matter in the end anyway.

G.J.

Did anyone else see those two blue lines at the top left of the screen when you're about to go into the conduit? It's one full line and one broken line?

I'm almost certain I saw the exact same thing at some point during the game, and for some reason I thought it was during the Geth Fighter Squadron mission when you enter the Geth server, but I watched a video of someone playing through that mission and didn't see it. I'm just wondering if it's just something strange on my end or whether it has some sort of meaning. I'm sure it popped up at some other point in the game, and I want to figure out if it's important...

Sad Professor

Finished this last night. I loved everything up until the final choice which completely confused me. Okay, so you can choose the blue option to control the reapers and save the galaxy, but you'll die. Or you can chose the red option to destroy the reapers and save the galaxy, but you'll die. Wuh?

I spent about a minute trying to understand how controlling the reapers was a good thing considering that I just shot TLM a minute earlier because he wanted to control them. So much for there being consequences for your actions. At least in ME2 if you messed up your crew died. In ME3 it seems to end pretty much the same way no matter what you do. There's just a different colour explosion. Lame.

The "god child" stuff didn't bother me that much. I get what they were trying to do with that. I think the problem for most people was what followed. After everything you've been through you really want to see what happened to Garrus et al, but instead you get some vague ending with a door opening in a jungle and maybe some of your crew stepping out depending on how many stupid scanning side missions or multiplayer you did.

The indoctrination/dream theory seems like a desperate form of denial on the part of the fans. But if Bioware are smart they'll pretend it was deliberate and do something about this train-wreck of an ending. I'll have probably traded the game in by that stage though. I won't be playing the multiplayer as MS's piece of overpriced crap WiFi adapter is on the fritz.

Oh and what was with the big deal about finding Cerberus HQ? Why didn't Shepard just ask Miranda? We saw her in the TLM's lair in ME2, so she obviously knows where it is.

blatantrereg

Sad Professor wrote: »

I spent about a minute trying to understand how controlling the reapers was a good thing considering that I just shot TLM a minute earlier because he wanted to control them. So much for there being consequences for your actions.

The Illusive Man had been indoctrinated and would be unable to control the reapers. This was said explicitly by the avatar-child.

The way he wanted to control them while under indoctrination supports the notion of Shepard being indoctrinated really. It was mentioned earlier in the game that the Protheans were delayed in deploying the crucible because of internal conflict about whether to destroy or control the reapers. Both of these things suggest the reapers put the idea of control in the minds of subjects they indoctrinate..

Sad Professor

blatantrereg wrote: »

The way he wanted to control them while under indoctrination supports the notion of Shepard being indoctrinated really. It was mentioned earlier in the game that the Protheans were delayed in deploying the crucible because of internal conflict about whether to destroy or control the reapers. Both of these things suggest the reapers put the idea of control in the minds of subjects they indoctrinate..

That makes a lot of sense, but I still don't think it was deliberate on Bioware's part. If it was then the blue ending should have resulted in an aftermath that made it clear that you were indoctrinated and just let the reapers win, while the red ending would have suggested that you just beat the indoctrination and saved the galaxy. That would have been cool. Instead both endings are pretty much the same. I know you get to see Shepard crawling out from under rubble in one ending, but that's hardly definitive. If anything the indoctrination theory proves that Bioware overlooked what would have been a far superior ending in which your choice would have had real consequences.

mewso

Finished it last night myself and it was a disappointing end all right. Someone earlier said it would be lame to have an ending with all characters receiving medals etc. but I don't think it would have been lame to have you and your remaining companions survive but in a down beat way, millions dead, muted embraces and so on.

The most frustrating thing for me in the end is how well Bioware got me to care about these characters and yet leave me with little to no information on how it all ends for them never mind the vague end for Shepard. It's especially bad when you consider the fantastic end for Mordin (assuming you got the ending I'm thinking of).

While in general I'm not a big fan of the way Bioware has taken it's idea of rpg they are due a lot of respect imo for the trilogy as a whole in terms of character development and the continuing threads throughout. Would love to see more of this in games.

If the clutching at straws theory (sorry indoctrination theory) isn't true then the writing for the final sequence has to go down as some of the worst in history (while a lot of the writing in Mass Effect had been cheesy up to then it was good cheesy imo or I wouldn't have loved the characters as much as I did).

G.J.

I honestly support the majority of the Indoctrination Theory's ideas, but I don't think it was indoctrination. I think it was a dream more than anything.

It could be similar to how Shepard hooked up to the Geth server, how they manipulated it to help Shepard to make sense of it. The Reapers are the most advanced synthetics that the galaxy has seen, maybe the manipulated Reaper 'server' is a lot more realistic than the Geth's server?

The biggest gripe for me about the ending was where he was for the entire final scene. He was standing in space without the need for a helmet. Surely he should have stopped being able to breathe the second that lift hit the level he got to? I know it's the Citadel, but that doesn't mean there's earth-like gravity and atmosphere everywhere on the Citadel, inside and out, surely?

The one thing I don't completely understand is the very last scene after the credits if you choose the 'Destroy' option. You see Shepard in a pile of rubble. How could he possibly be alive after the events on the Citadel? It blew up, in space. This means that Shepard floated through space (again, without any helmet), and landed on a planet somewhere. These events mimic those of ME2's intro. Except somehow we're supposed to believe that Shepard experienced the same sequence of events and survived? Are we supposed to believe that Shepard rode a magical Keeper back to Earth? (or wherever he was)

Kiith

The only way that could really be Shepard alive after the Destroy option, is if the Indoctrination theory is correct. You wake up in London, having fought off the Indoctrination, and still have to get to the Citadel.

Mr Freeze

Kiith wrote: »

The only way that could really be Shepard alive after the Destroy option, is if the Indoctrination theory is correct. You wake up in London, having fought off the Indoctrination, and still have to get to the Citadel.

That's what I was thinking too.

But, there is no way EA/Bioware are going to change the ending or give a free DLC extended ending or charge for it. They are damned if they don't but will cause absolute uproar if they do.

RichTea

Still peeved about these endings. No variety and no sense.


This synthesis ending... wasn't Shepard very clear about how organics were free-willed and tried to foster understanding of different cultures etc.

His merging of organic and synthetic life-forms without anyones say-so is a bit crazy isn't it?

"Hey everyone! You're all half-robots now!"