Mass Effect 3 - the ending(s) SPOILERS!

[xjohnx]

Could do with DLC showing how the other char's deal with the situation, running concurrent to the Shepard story-line. This would fill in the gaps as to what happened and provide a reason/explanation as to what took place.

[SimonG]

We might get that when the ME3: Extended Cut DLC is released in a few months.

[Jordan Farley]

Hello all. I hope you don’t mind me hijacking this thread for a minute. As you may or may not know I wrote a column about the Mass Effect 3 ending in our latest issue, and Werthead had this to say about it:

Originally Posted by Werthead

I was extremely disappointed by the column by Jordan Farley about the ending controversy to MASS EFFECT 3. First off, it was factually erroneous: a company changing the ending to a work after a negative reaction is not 'unprecedented' at all. It happens all the time with films (those infamous test screenings). The creators revisisted the ending of EVANGELION several times after the ending baffled everyone (not that it helped much). In gaming, the ending to FALLOUT 3 was revisited in the BROKEN STEEL expansion and was changed from the main character inevitably dying (despite enormous reasons why he wouldn't) to him surviving. PORTAL's ending was also changed via a patch, from the lead character apparently escaping to freedom to her being recaptured and dragged back inside the science complex. Arthur C. Clarke also had an annoying habit of ballsing up his own memorable endings by releasing unnecessary sequels which clarified them.

In addition, the article completely ignores the fact that the ending to the game was controversial within BioWare itself. One of the writers actually broke ranks to complain that the final minutes of the game were written by the producer by himself without the extensive peer-review system used in the rest of the game and the trilogy, and that if the ending had been put through that process it would almost certainly have been changed.

As with many of these articles rushing to defend BioWare, it totally ignores that almost all of the complaints were about several specific things rather than the ending as a whole (and certainly not the game as a whole which, outside of the final few minutes, has received near-unanimous praise). Most notably, these are that the ending completely ignores the promises made earlier by BioWare (including the suggestion that the game would have 'very different' endings taking into account the thousands of variable choices made by the player throughout all three games, when in fact it has one ending with two minor variations), that no explanation is given for impossible events at the end of the game (how people can go from standing right next to you to being on a spacecraft several star systems away in the space of 10-20 minutes of in-game time) and that the ending betrays the structure of the entire trilogy, which is that Shepard questions everyone about everything. In the ending he accepts a highly dangerous decision made by the enemy he's spent three games trying to destroy and passively carries it out with no questioning of it ("I've come to kill you," "How about fulfilling my plan instead, you know the one you've just spent 90 hours trying to defeat?", "...Sure, why not?").

The article also then compounds its mistakes by suggesting that a 'tiny minority' of fans were aggreived. All the info we have shows that this is not the case at all. Repeated polls on multiple websites have shown repeatedly that 85-90%+ of the tens of thousands of fans who voted have problems with the ending. Whilst hardly statistically watertight, such polls indicate a substantial number of people had problems with the ending and it was not a negligible but vocal number.

The article also makes a reaching comparison with LOST. LOST's ending made sense. Whether people thought it was any good or not is a different matter, but the ending was (more or less) logical and fit in the ethos of the show. The complaint about ME3's ending was that it made no sense on its own and was totally inconsistent with the themes of the games. A better comparison would have been with the similarly nonsensical ending to BSG.

In summary, this was a poor, badly-sourced column. I normally expect much better from SFX.

To address your points directly, first off, you’re twisting my words. I didn’t say a company changing the ending to a work after a negative reaction is unprecedented. What I said was this specific example sets a dangerous precedent going forth, and that levels of entitlement from complainers online was “unprecedented”. Broken Steel was a piece of DLC Bethesda always planned as the “true” ending of their story, while Portal’s was changed because Valve never thought they would be making a sequel one day. The key difference with both of them is that the creators themselves took the initiative in the decision to “change” their endings. Bioware were forced into a corner.

Secondly, I’m well aware of Mr Weekes allegations, but as he’s one man in a company of hundreds I’m not sure it’s wise to take his word as gospel. For all we know Casey Hudson could have sat on his hamster the night before. And until Bioware release a statement saying Mr Weekes’ words are true, I don’t think it would be responsible for me to spread them in print. And if I did I would need to qualify them by saying “this may or may not be true”, which weakens my argument and isn’t exactly in the spirit of Soapbox.

Thirdly, I think you may have missed the point of the piece a little. I’m not saying the complainers don’t have a leg to stand on, they do, I have problems with the ending myself. But that’s an entirely different Soapbox, hence my decision to sum it up in as few words as possible, and on a point I wanted to come back to later (342 words, remember). The focus of the Soapbox was my problem with the fact that Bioware had effectively been forced into compromising their own creative vision (whatever you think of it) by pandering to fans.

Fourthly, I never said a “tiny” minority of fans were aggrieved. You’re putting words into my mouth. What I said was a “vocal” minority. Mass Effect 3 sold 1.3 million copies in its first month on sale alone. Even if only 1/4 of that number had seen the ending at the time these polls were taking place “tens of thousands of fans” out of 300,00+ IS a minority. That’s just maths. And let’s face it, the most passionate people on the internet are the ones who have something to complain about, so it’s only natural polls would swing that way.

I also feel that you misunderstood the reason why I mentioned Lost and are reading too much into it. I wasn’t trying to draw any pertinent parallels between the reasons WHY people were upset, but the mere fact that they WERE, so “whether people thought it was any good or not” is not a different matter at all, it was my whole point!

I hope that clears a few things up. And I hope whatever Bioware is cooking up makes everyone happy, I really do, but I’m concerned that it even got to this point. Any truly artistic endeavour shouldn’t just be predicated on what makes the masses happy, because that road leads to a barren creative wasteland, and if the games industry focuses all its energy on pandering to players, it will become paralysed by them.

[vonbloodbath]

Yeah, but there's a problem with that view Jordan: video games, and especially RPGs, are interactive. They're not passively received, they're actively engaged with. Surely it's inevitable that people who've spent 90 hours making decisions and moulding a character will feel "entitled" to an ending tat doesn't wee all over those 90 hours?

And the art/ entertainment dichotomy is also problematic: as per Wertheads comment, it's not simply a work of art, a statement or whatever, it's a piece of interactive software. Even more so than movies, it's entertainment.

Lastly, it's impossible to know just how many people were disappointed with the ending, but your assertion that it it's definitely a minority because only tens of thousands of people posted online s flat out disingenuous.

[Veela Magnet]

I'm surprised I've not posted in this thread yet, as I completed the game the other week, and while I'm not as filled with disgust as many on the internet seem to be, I was understandably baffled by the very bottleneck ending. Maybe because it was late and I was tired, and the difficulty spike had really kicked my arse up until that last fifteen minutes.

Two things I was a little bit miffed about. One was obviously the whole "closure" thing, about how I'd like to have seen how all my teammates had gotten on, considering just how much time we'd spent together.

But the one big thing that really did irk me, and obviously because I'd been avoiding spoilers like the plague, I didn't read about it until I'd finished the game, was the whole "Galactic Readiness" thing.

The idea that the game forces you to play the multiplayer game in order to better influence the one-player experience is one of my biggest pet peeves with videogames. It doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, it really bugs me that I'm expected to go into an online lobby, and wait around for a space to open, and then participate in a soulless shootout (I appreciate that people do like the shooting aspect, but that's just not how I percieve Mass Effect).

At first I thought I was doing something wrong, or perhaps the game had a glitch, because all my sectors will still aqt 50% readiness, and it was getting perilously close to the end of the game, no matter how many side-quests I'd been doing. It wasn't until I read up on it and then learnt that all of those sectors are crucially dependent on your success in multiplayer missions just really disenchanted me.

I don't mind when games have a multiplayer aspect; hey, people seem to really like taking them online, but when it directly impacts the one-player experience, something which I'd grown to really love about the Mass Effect Series up until the third game, then I'm sorry, but it totally lost me.

[deGooder]

Originally Posted by Veela Magnet

I'm surprised I've not posted in this thread yet, as I completed the game the other week, and while I'm not as filled with disgust as many on the internet seem to be, I was understandably baffled by the very bottleneck ending. Maybe because it was late and I was tired, and the difficulty spike had really kicked my arse up until that last fifteen minutes.

Two things I was a little bit miffed about. One was obviously the whole "closure" thing, about how I'd like to have seen how all my teammates had gotten on, considering just how much time we'd spent together.

But the one big thing that really did irk me, and obviously because I'd been avoiding spoilers like the plague, I didn't read about it until I'd finished the game, was the whole "Galactic Readiness" thing.

The idea that the game forces you to play the multiplayer game in order to better influence the one-player experience is one of my biggest pet peeves with videogames. It doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, it really bugs me that I'm expected to go into an online lobby, and wait around for a space to open, and then participate in a soulless shootout (I appreciate that people do like the shooting aspect, but that's just not how I percieve Mass Effect).

At first I thought I was doing something wrong, or perhaps the game had a glitch, because all my sectors will still aqt 50% readiness, and it was getting perilously close to the end of the game, no matter how many side-quests I'd been doing. It wasn't until I read up on it and then learnt that all of those sectors are crucially dependent on your success in multiplayer missions just really disenchanted me.

I don't mind when games have a multiplayer aspect; hey, people seem to really like taking them online, but when it directly impacts the one-player experience, something which I'd grown to really love about the Mass Effect Series up until the third game, then I'm sorry, but it totally lost me.

I thought you could still do it without playing the multiplayer. I probably played a couple of rounds and no more and think went into the end game at aobut 70% I think and I did notice the side-quests etc pushing more score up.

I could be wrong but I'm sure they said you could just play the single player and come out with the 'best' ending. Anyone know any more?

[Werthead]

To address your points directly, first off, you’re twisting my words. I didn’t say a company changing the ending to a work after a negative reaction is unprecedented. What I said was this specific example sets a dangerous precedent going forth, and that levels of entitlement from complainers online was “unprecedented”. Broken Steel was a piece of DLC Bethesda always planned as the “true” ending of their story, while Portal’s was changed because Valve never thought they would be making a sequel one day. The key difference with both of them is that the creators themselves took the initiative in the decision to “change” their endings. Bioware were forced into a corner.

With regard to Broken Steel, the level of complaints about the ending to FO3 after release was enormous. Bethesda always planned DLC and one of those would continue the story, but they certainly never said it would go back and totally alter the ending. In fact, I recall the initial speculation was that you could get your Brotherhood of Steel ally to sacrifice herself instead (the only way you could survive the original ending, only to have Ron Perlman berate you for it in the closing monologue) and that would be the canon ending. Bethesda actually rewriting the whole end sequence, even lampshading why the original ending was dumb, did feel a lot more like a move from people responding to fan criticism.

In addition, BioWare have not been forced into a corner. The game sold more than 3 million copies in its first month on sale. There was no financial need for them to do anything (especially as any future ME games will apparently be prequels). And in fact they have not changed the ending at all, with the new DLC merely 'clarifying' it. The fanbase's general assumption is that whilst some elements will be explained a lot more (probably the Normandy situation), the underlying problem - that the three-shades-of-ice-cream ending is nonsensical - will remain intact.

Secondly, I’m well aware of Mr Weekes allegations, but as he’s one man in a company of hundreds I’m not sure it’s wise to take his word as gospel. For all we know Casey Hudson could have sat on his hamster the night before. And until Bioware release a statement saying Mr Weekes’ words are true, I don’t think it would be responsible for me to spread them in print. And if I did I would need to qualify them by saying “this may or may not be true”, which weakens my argument and isn’t exactly in the spirit of Soapbox.

It should be noted that BioWare has not specifically denied Mr. Weekes's allegations either (to my knowledge). If a writer says something about a project and his colleagues do not contradict him, despite being able to easily do so, then I think we can take it as accurate.

Thirdly, I think you may have missed the point of the piece a little. I’m not saying the complainers don’t have a leg to stand on, they do, I have problems with the ending myself. But that’s an entirely different Soapbox, hence my decision to sum it up in as few words as possible, and on a point I wanted to come back to later (342 words, remember). The focus of the Soapbox was my problem with the fact that Bioware had effectively been forced into compromising their own creative vision (whatever you think of it) by pandering to fans.

Again, there is no sign that the new DLC will substantially change the ending - or compromising the creative vision - of MASS EFFECT 3 significantly.

It is also notable that unlike with novels or even TV series (where a single showrunner or creative vision at least kicks things off) or movies (where the director has the final word), computer games are created by substantial teams of people. Drew Karpyshyn created much of the world and lore of MASS EFFECT but moved on from the series during the writing of MASS EFFECT 2 and has said that not just the ending but the underlying premise of the series changed radically from his conception (in his original plan, the Reapers were trying to contain the effects of dark energy, which was being made worse by FTL mass relay travel). Only two writers (who had minor roles on the first game) made it through all three titles, plus producer Casey Hudson. In this case it is questionable if there was any unified 'creative vision' for the series to be compromised in the first place, as BioWare themselves kept changing that vision.

Fourthly, I never said a “tiny” minority of fans were aggrieved. You’re putting words into my mouth. What I said was a “vocal” minority. Mass Effect 3 sold 1.3 million copies in its first month on sale alone. Even if only 1/4 of that number had seen the ending at the time these polls were taking place “tens of thousands of fans” out of 400,00+ IS a minority. That’s just maths. And let’s face it, the most passionate people on the internet are the ones who have something to complain about, so it’s only natural polls would swing that way.

This may be the case. But the fact that the reaction has been overwhelmingly negative remains telling. People don't complain over nothing. And given that stats show that only a minority of people ever complete computer games these days (especially games with a multiplayer component), it is clear that a substantial number of people who completed the game disliked the ending. Sweeping aside that fact feels like trying to brush it under the carpet.

I hope that clears a few things up. And I hope whatever Bioware is cooking up makes everyone happy, I really do, but I’m concerned that it even got to this point. Any truly artistic endeavour shouldn’t just be predicated on what makes the masses happy, because that road leads to a barren creative wasteland, and if the games industry focuses all its energy on pandering to players, it will become paralysed by them.

Game companies certainly should listen to players, as they are their bread and butter. A story like MASS EFFECT's is collaborative. In fact, BioWare made this a major point of the series: it wasn't their story they were telling, but the player's, and the player could customise that story themselves through the character they created and played (male/female, paragon/renegade). They could choose to save or destroy the Rachni, or save or destroy the Collector base, or save Kaidan or save Ashley. Despite all of these choices, the ending of the game takes those choices and boils them down to three colour-coded endings which are variations on a single theme and do not make much sense.

If this was a very linear shooter like CALL OF DUTY or the recent MAX PAYNE 3, with no ability to control or affect the story, just react to it, the argument about the creator's artistic vision would hold more water. In this case, MASS EFFECT invites and demands the player's choices and participation in the creation of the story. When the game suddenly shuts the player out at the end and says, "Here's the ending, shut up and like it," it is only natural players will feel disappointed, especially when they'd been specifically told that the ending would be substantially variable (to the point of having 'sixteen' differet endings).

I could be wrong but I'm sure they said you could just play the single player and come out with the 'best' ending. Anyone know any more?

This was a lie. There is no possible way of coming out with the 'best ending' by just doing the single-player alone. You must either do a moderate amount of multiplayer or play the iPad tie-in game to raise your readiness to a high enough level.

[Pez]

Originally Posted by Werthead

This was a lie. There is no possible way of coming out with the 'best ending' by just doing the single-player alone. You must either do a moderate amount of multiplayer or play the iPad tie-in game to raise your readiness to a high enough level.

I don't want to get into the whole ending thing (I can understand the why the fans feel the way they do, but also it's Bioware's game, they can end it how they like) but I thought I'd address this. I didn't play multiplayer and I was given a choice of all three endings (I took destroy, and got the 'Shep in the ruins' scene). I tried to use the iPhone game, but I couldn't get it to connect for weeks. By the time I did, I was about to go to the Cerberus base, so I managed to get my readiness to no more than 52%. I got the 'Master and Commander' achievement at that point (I looked it up as I had no idea what it meant). So maybe that extra 1-2 percent made the difference, but I don't know...

[Veela Magnet]

Extended Cut DLC came out for the 360/PC version today. However the PS3 version's won't be out til July 4th.

[Werthead]

The Extended Cut DLC was surprisingly effective. Not brilliant, but it did a much better job of showing what BioWare were trying to do with the ending. It didn't change anything substantially, but it did clarify the differences between the three endings a bit more (Control no longer feels like a weak, pointless choice) and gave us the 'Refuse' choice, with amusing consequences.

Much more importantly, it solved the major logic flaws and plot holes of the original ending. So we know how your companions made it back to the Normandy, why the Normandy was trying to flee the system, why the mass relays didn't take out the entire galaxy in supernovas, how interstellar civilisation survived the end of the war, the ultimate fate of the relays, the races and the Citadel etc etc.

It doesn't solve all of the problems, of course, but it does elevate the quality of MASS EFFECT 3's ending from the level of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (inexplicable BS pulled out of the writer's backside at the last minute) to around that of LOST's (reasonable as long as you squint past a few iffy bits).

I don't want to get into the whole ending thing (I can understand the why the fans feel the way they do, but also it's Bioware's game, they can end it how they like) but I thought I'd address this. I didn't play multiplayer and I was given a choice of all three endings (I took destroy, and got the 'Shep in the ruins' scene). I tried to use the iPhone game, but I couldn't get it to connect for weeks. By the time I did, I was about to go to the Cerberus base, so I managed to get my readiness to no more than 52%. I got the 'Master and Commander' achievement at that point (I looked it up as I had no idea what it meant). So maybe that extra 1-2 percent made the difference, but I don't know...

You can get all three endings without doing MP or any of the other games. The 'best best' ending (which adds about 10 seconds onto the end of the 'Destroy' ending) is only possible with a higher Military Readiness score, only possible with the iPhone game or multiplayer.

However, as of yesterday and the new Extended Cut DLC, the requirements for the 'best best' ending have now been lowered so it's apparently possible to achieve with single-player only.