Feedback: Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy

Posted: April 4, 2012
Feedback: Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy
Blair Herter and the Feedback crew finally addressed Mass Effect 3's controversial ending.

Comments are Closed

  • untitledbymiles

    I know this entire page is about the ending, and trust me, I despise the ending, but the one major thing that bothered me about this game besides that? THE SIDE MISSIONS. Most of them were tedious, mundane, and simply poorly done.

    The part with the Illusive Man had some hiccups, but overall was good. But once you met the God child? Aww man.

    The God Child idea wasn't even bad, had it been more alluded to through the game it would have been great, but the final three decisions... and the repercussions of those decisions, so, so bad.

    I mean, we didn't get to see what happens... nothing is explained, at all.

    But I digress. At the end of the day, it was Bioware's decision on how the game should end, not ours. Whether or not you think that it should have been is another story. Their game. We're disappointed, but oh well - you just have to move on. (trying to get someone to change THEIR game to satisfy YOU is selfish... you don't need to, or have the right to, change everything that isn't how you WANT it to be).


    Posted: April 4, 2012 10:32 PM
  • willywong

    I don't have any Problem with the ending to mass effect 3 It's a true ending.. so getting All Butt hurt about it would be pointless

    Posted: April 4, 2012 10:19 PM
  • thezeppo1138

    At least we still have Uncharted (knock on wood). I used to say Mass Effect was the Star Wars of video games and Uncharted was Indy (obvious & unoriginal, I know, but still true). Uncharted has never let me down. Naughty Dog for life. But, jeez, I like Episode I better than Mass Effect 3. Naughty Dog needs to come and train the writers on the importance of "maintaining the internal logic of a game's narrative", so eloquently stated by Rhianna Pratchett. And give them a how-to seminar.

    Nikole was awesome! Too bad she didn't get to talk about any of the actual important details about the ending that we wanted to hear discussed. She did great, though, with what she was able to get out. Don't be too frustrated with Stephen, guys. He obviously doesn't know much about the narrative logic of the series or even what Mass Effect is about. So his arguments and opinions were laughable. But they are his opinions so that I respect. But what I don't respect is him seemingly being opposing to be kind of a troll. Did anyone else feel that way? Like half his opinion was the way it was just to be kind of a jerk for the sake it. And to be argumentative and outspoken. I think I've even seen him trolling on this thread. That's just not cool. I just felt bad for Nikole the whole time. We're with you Nikole, keep you're head up.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 10:11 PM
  • Kogashi

    Also, this argument between appeasing as many people as you can all at once against appealing a certain audience is one of the most common debates across all mediums of entertainment from as far back as widely spread media. Books, paintings, radio shows, TV shows, movies, comic books, 'graphic novels', now video games. This is the fine line ever form of entertainment or art must walk.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:48 PM
  • Kogashi

    This is mainly to Nikole's complains about the ending. 1) of course what shows up is the child, that's what's been in Shepard's mind since the beginning of the game, as a symbol of what he's lost, as a symbol of why this fight is important. Mordin explained in before the final mission in 2. "Hard to think of defending the galaxy, to vast, to vague. Can think of favorite nephew though." So of course, when the final existence of basically the first ones to face the reapers appears, what better form to appear to Shepard as, then the physical idea of what this war against the Reapers meant to him. THAT child. The one that, no matter what, he could not save. The thing isn't an actual child, it's simply the form it had to take.

    2) As for 'oh, one of the choices is to destroy synthetics but it didn't let me explain-'. It wasn't about what you could explain or not. It wasn't about what choices you made. It was telling you what it was made for. It could either destroy or control... Or evolve organics but that was not what it was first made to do. Before Shepard, all it could do, is destroy, or control. So you saved the Geth? So Edi fell for Joker? That's good... They would still be seen as synthetics, and would be destroyed. It would be like, 'One choice is to drop this nuke, which will wipe out these towns' 'oh... well I like one of those towns. Can me making them my friends make the nuke not destroy that town?' '...No... it's a nuke.'

    3) Yes they were basically the same cut-scene, but what was important, was what the choice you made at the end, implies. Sure, it would have been nice if visually there was a stronger difference, but come on, you should see that difference just in what those choices mean.

    4) Yes the Normandy in space with the crew doesn't make a lot of sense, but it can easily be bulled into working. Like say 'well... they got fried, quick let's get moving before we all get killed and hope we get another chance at this.'

    5) No, they are not stranded, it just means they'll need to use their ship's faster than light drives to get home instead of the relays... Though part of me thinks that would make a fun web comic.

    6) I do not get why people are so angry that the story of Commander Shepard is still being told who knows how many thousands of years later. They aren't saying 'oh, you don't get it? That's just cause you're a child.' It's an easy way to leave things open for more adventures in the ME universe, maybe even more Shepard games.

    7) The choices did matter though. You saw that, through out the games. That was the whole pull. Did the ending become an opened ended slaw of a mess trying to force in the effect of every single choice made through out 3 games no. Did they handle it perfectly of course not. But through out the whole of the game series, the choices mattered. What choices you made in 1 and 2 affected 3.

    8) And oh, I'm so truly not at all sorry that you didn't get to fix the problems of the galaxy by shooting at it enough times. I'm sorry for the snark on this one but it just feels like such an annoying, simplistic, caveman response to an ending. The series was not about boss fights, it wasn't about 'well with enough bullets the problem will be solved so why don't I just shoot it enough?' I believe Bioware was right to remove the boss from the end. Never mind the fact that the Illusive man was never a physical force standing in your way. He's not that simple, so to think it would have been better to deal with him, the first time being in the same room as him, is with a gun, just to shot at him till he's not a problem... That isn't Mass Effect, that isn't the Illusive man.

    *breaths* ... think I'll just finish up the video now since I'm only half way done.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:38 PM
  • magikwizard

    Nikole Zivalich - game companies are a two headed giant. One head is the talent who can create and have no business sense and the other is the businessmen who have no talent.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:37 PM
  • RedfoRdsto

    Question (and feel free to yell at me): as a consumer, should I not feel "entitled" to various different endings if they were promised in multiple press releases? Isn't that part of being a satisfied customer? Granted, I may never be satisfied, but part of buying a product is having the right to complain about it if it isn't the product advertised or in some way faulty. I'm not asking for a refund, but in the same way if I hated a books ending, isn't it my right as a paying customer to bitch about it?

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:34 PM
  • theoriginalbadassmofo

    Since most peoples comments are typically the same complaints about the ending, which i myself agree with the dissatisfied, i will bring another issue up that no one has addressed. HOW ABOUT THE BIG F'n FLEET OF SHIPS AND SOLDIERS STUCK IN ORBIT AROUND EARTH. I know its a game and all but lets seriously analyze this situation. I played on insane and spent a good amount of time uniting everyone i possibly could to help fight the reapers, which by the way makes no difference what so ever in the long run with how the final battle plays out other then adding more game play to your story. But in the end none of it mattered, why build up the emotion and the intensity of such a great potential space battle then just make it worth absolutely nothing in the end? Plus no matter which way you finish the game, the ending is the same, the mass relay system is destroyed which means everyone is basically stranded in the sol solar system with only FTL engines to traverse the immense distances to get home. So if you look at it in my perspective, shepard made things worse in a way. The larger the fleet the larger the amount of stranded species that are stuck around earth which mean i screwed everyone over because now earth is in ruins and not only are there thousands of strand aliens and people but i brought as many as i could with me and now they are all now stuck and will never get to go home So they are all loosers in the end. I, shepard am responsible for the largest displacement and most likely the deaths of all of them. Food and supplies will be in short demand on earth and without outside help, which is now impossible now, most of those aliens and human are screwed. Thanks shepard, all he did was take more people down with him then was necessary due to the games pointless efforts to unite everyone under one banner.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:33 PM
  • Garfred92

    100+ hours spent making choices in ME 1-3 to mold your own unique universe and Shepard, only with it to essentially converge into 3 different endings that are more or less the same. I mean come on.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:33 PM
  • kyledhansen

    When did the Mass Effect series become "their" (Bioware's) game? The pitch to the whole series was that it was such a personal experience that it was "our" game. The games played out how we wanted them to because of the choices we made. All this talk of how it is "their" game and they can do what they want with it didn't even come into play until the ending of the 3rd installment. Seems pretty selfish to me to carry a series on the ideals that it will play out how we want it to just in time to say f the decisions you've made, we're gonna end this game our way. I didn't completely hate the ending as I thought it just needed to explain the aftermath of the final decision to be acceptable to me. Maybe that will be covered in DLC, but I really don't see how they can have DLC regarding the aftermath of the final decision because everything and everyone is cutoff (at least in the synthetic-organic ending). It'll be interesting to see where they go with it because they pretty much cut themselves off with that ending.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:31 PM
  • Spybreak

    The thing about Mass Effect is that the series is all about the player, all about what we would do. We felt like we WERE Commander Shepard, man or woman. We felt like we defeated Saren and some how took on a Reaper. We felt like we helped the Krogan in the long run destroying Saren's Krogan Labs/Base by also saving Wrex to lead the Krogan people to something they deserve. We became enthralled with a new space culture of the Quarians and their epic tech struggle with the Geth. Blah blah blah, add in personal stories we felt in Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3's ending feels like Bioware killed us!

    I was planning on going back and playing ME1 and ME2 over again, and even though the journey is incredible, I really have no desire to do it when I know all the diverging lines and paths connect back to one really awkward and disappointing end point. That was one of the biggest shots to the face, hey hey play more DLC as this grandfather tells more "stories" to his grand child. *Insert Chris (Seth Green) Griffin from Family Guy "4th wall, you're breaking the 4th wall!" haha

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:17 PM
  • NuBeatz

    Where were you people when Halo 3 ended?

    Posted: April 4, 2012 9:02 PM
  • PredatorHell

    Many sites talked about the ME3 ending rage: Gametrailers Invisble walls, IGN, 1UP, Gamespot...

    G4 is the worst discussion on this subjet!!! Besides having 3 opinions, you discussed about it miserably!!! Good to have competition to get it better delivered!

    And to say YES Blair Herter YOU COULD TALKED ABOUT IT MORE! At the begining of February, Another EA game, Kingdoms of Amalur, Feeback PLAYED FOR 52 MINUTES!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Your budjet is getting cut or what??? Why getting always smaller Feeback's???????????????????

    Posted: April 4, 2012 8:47 PM
  • cwbys21

    I would like to remind people (SPOILERS) that Kratos dies at the end of God of War 3 and there wasn't a big public out cry, (END SPOILERS) so I was kind of surprised that it was brought up as something that might have caused this big argument.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 8:30 PM
  • JWFernel

    Mass Effect 3 was like a runner who was in first place, dominating the competition, and then tripped and did a face plant right as he approached the finish line.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 8:25 PM
  • DeathFury

    It's unfortunate they have such a short amount of time, as they said, there could be hours of discussion about this. I really would have loved to hear their thoughts on the indoctrination theory.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 7:44 PM
  • chapelx13

    What does he mean not lacking?There was no closure.You have no idea what happened to the squadmates you worked hard with not to mention the gaping plotholes such as what happened to all the alien species trapped on Earth and what were the repercussions of the destruction of the Mass Relays.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 7:42 PM
  • CycoMiko138

    Let me start off by saying that although I have huge problems with the ending, I'd still give ME3 a 5 star score. It really is a great game up until the last 10 minutes and it's disheartening to see Bioware drop the ball so badly on the most important part of this phenomenal series.

    Now, I'm not upset that we didn't get a happy ending. I can deal with minor plot holes and can honestly admit that not every tiny inconsistency with the ending has to be scrutinized to the point that they have been. I'm okay with a gun with infinite ammo simply being a game mechanic. I can believe that, in this instance, the mass relays' destruction may not have obliterated entire star systems. My problem with the ending has to do with the fact that it was extremely lazy and contrived, and at times even downright insulting to the spirit of the series.

    The "ghost kid" Reaper A.I,? Silly. Being unable to argue with him? Inexcusable. Joker fleeing the final battle? Completely out of character. My squad members in the final push somehow ending up on the Normandy? The best explanation for that would be a glitch...but how the hell do you not catch that one!?! And, to me, the biggest slap in the face to fans of the series - more than even the color-swap cinematics - is exemplified by the green "Synthesis" ending.

    Up until this ending, the Mass Effect writers had done a great job at making the future tech portrayed in the series seem authentic. There are codex entries explaining everything from biotics to weapon mechanics to ship components in great enough detail that you could believe that they may actually exist someday. The same goes for the alien races and their physiologies. I didn't ever doubt the fact that the Quarians evolved without basic immunities or wonder how something like the genophage could be created. This was a future and a galaxy you could believe in and want to be a part of.

    All that effort is then stripped away when we're asked to accept that the Reapers have somehow always had the capability to merge all biological and synthetic life in the galaxy, instantly, into some new hybrid? Really? Nevermind the fact that having that kind of absolute mastery of genetics and molecular physics would make them equivalent to gods. If that was always the case, then why do they bother with such mundane things as lasers and shield technology? Why bother physically invading worlds to accomplish their goals at all? If their motives are so benevolent, why don't they just snap their fingers (or tentacles) and beam everyone up to the "Reaper collective" without causing any suffering or bloodshed? Because it makes no freakin' sense; that's why.

    And that's why I can so easily believe in the Indoctrination Theory. All told, it does make a lot of sense, and I'm still not entirely convinced that it wasn't Bioware's original plan to begin with. But then, if that were true, we'd still be left without a real ending...and that's a whole new issue to deal with.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 7:39 PM
  • Nebulous

    I didn't like the game-play of Mass Effect 3, because I couldn't explore. I couldn't drive around the planets. I didn't have any time to breathe. The best part for me was the post ending because it brought me back to that feeling of exploration that I loved from the first one.

    Posted: April 4, 2012 7:35 PM
  • FearTheMurph

    Great game until you get to the end. Then you just listen to people talk for 30mins to pick an "ending" which either one you pick isn't satisfactory at all, I by no means have a problem with Shepard dying in the end, but at least make is original as soon as you find out about the crucible I new Shepard was getting whacked. And I'm I the only person totally lent down by the like of squad mates, No krogan sorry James no where near the beast that Grunt or Wrex was!

    Posted: April 4, 2012 7:34 PM