Mass effect Trilogy

[alanschu]

an actual real life stop caring about what you deliver because of your inability to deliver an ending to your story that doesn't make me feel royally ****ed,

 

This is where there's always going to be some level of disparity.

 

While I don't care for the execution (existence of the Catalyst and so forth), I *do* like the idea behind the ending. Had the game offered the same 3 choices, but presented in a way that was less Deus Ex Machina (and probably a bit more diverse depiction than was shown in the original release), I think I would have actually very much enjoyed the ending. I have a feeling that while you're probably not a fan of the execution, you probably also don't enjoy the choices nor the implications of each of them either.

 

 

If you're disappointed at the ending because you find things nonsensical with the Catalyst and whatnot, then you'll find me listening both as a gamer and as a developer. If you're disappointed at the ending because you find it sad or otherwise a downer, I get some level of hesitation. Granted, we can reflect and say "Evidently many of our fans don't care for this type of an ending," but it's a situation where I'm really only listening as a developer, but not as a gamer.

 

 

Then again, I'm a host of contradictions. I love player agency (that is, allowing the player to make choices), but dislike the notion of the player outright driving the narrative to the detail that he or she wants (this isn't the same as player agency). That is, I love that a game actually provides you a choice that's off the rails. That said, barring extreme circumstances I think it's entirely valid for making that choice to result in a game over. I wish MORE games did stuff like this. Like, there's a huge mob coming to Lothering. Well dammit, we're going to take a stand. Except you get overwhelmed and die horribly to wave after wave of surging Darkspawn. Forcing the player to not be able to make that decision is unfortunate. Allowing the player to make that decision and have it pan out the way the player would like it to is worse, IMO. It makes no sense for the player to be able to stand up to those kind of odds on his own at that stage.

 

So I'm not the one that feels that there should necessarily be different endings simply because someone wants there to be a different ending. I really wanted a different ending for Lee in The Walking Dead, based purely on my emotions and my attachment for Lee as a character. But I honestly don't think they could have done the ending to that series any differently and had it be superior to what we were given (it should be noted that its execution is phenomenal too).

 

Then again, I think BioWare is too fanservicey at times.

 

 

I thought the biggest FU was making sure that EDI dies in destroy, which she didn't in the original

 

I actually prefer the ambiguity of the original ending in this regard. I can understand why EDI would die with destroy (impartial energy beam that doesn't discriminate), but liked the idea of the Catalyst being imperfect which was validated with the differences between low EMS ending and high EMS ending consequences on Earth, as well as Shepard's capability to still survive. I would have preferred they left that ambiguity in.

Edited December 6, 2012 by alanschu

[Cariannis]

I always liked Brent Knowles, which is why I listen to him when he has something to say. Like here.

 

Again, I can't speak to the actual ending myself, because I have not played it but in generally I'd say a Role-Playing Video Game Trilogy Ending should (try to) do the following:

 

1. Reward the player's choices throughout the series. The big stuff they did should be noted. They should *feel* like they had a unique impact on the world.

 

2. End on a positive note. This is really important for video games... life in general is full of ****ty stuff happening all the time. When I invest a hundred hours into a game I need to walk away feeling like a hero.

 

When you waste a couple hours of a person's life with an artsy/depressing movie or short story or even a novel, it is more forgivable because the time spent is less. And presumably the consumer knew what they were going into when they started. Certain directors create certain styles of movie. Certain writers write specific types of fiction.

 

On the other hand somebody playing an epic role-playing video-game trilogy is going to *expect* to be the hero and save the universe. That's why they are playing the game. When expectations don't match reality, disappointment is created.

 

I don’t agree with everything he says but that was something of note that BioWare just doesn’t seem to understand now.

 

He was also the guy that made DAO, which I loved.

 

So I'm not the one that feels that there should necessarily be different endings simply because someone wants there to be a different ending.

 

I feel that I should also point out that it wasn’t just a handful of whiners complaining about the ending.

 

http://retakemasseffect.chipin.com/retake-mass-effect-childs-play

 

https://www.facebook.com/DemandABetterEndingToMassEffect3

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/06/26/mass-effect-3s-extended-cut-too-little-far-too-late/

 

There are others but the crap endings created a movement that got the attention of Forbes.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Cariannis

[Nepenthe]

If you're disappointed at the ending because you find things nonsensical with the Catalyst and whatnot, then you'll find me listening both as a gamer and as a developer. If you're disappointed at the ending because you find it sad or otherwise a downer, I get some level of hesitation. Granted, we can reflect and say "Evidently many of our fans don't care for this type of an ending," but it's a situation where I'm really only listening as a developer, but not as a gamer.

Admittedly, it's a case of both for me. But it's really a major can of worms, about how games are a different medium, characters as player avatars, etc that I really can't be bothered to get into, as many have said it better than me before, to no avail. It's hard to separate the contrived execution of the endings from the actual content (the knowles quote above touches on the nature of the medium aspect, I've seen some pretty good longer analysis on it, too).

 

 

I thought the biggest FU was making sure that EDI dies in destroy, which she didn't in the original

 

I actually prefer the ambiguity of the original ending in this regard. I can understand why EDI would die with destroy (impartial energy beam that doesn't discriminate), but liked the idea of the Catalyst being imperfect which was validated with the differences between low EMS ending and high EMS ending consequences on Earth, as well as Shepard's capability to still survive. I would have preferred they left that ambiguity in.

Yes. Especially as the DLC seems to have reinforced this idea of the Catalyst's fallibility.

 

Really, it's a multitude of small things that come together to make Neppy a very unhappy boy, some of which we've touched on here, some of which are really trivial and some that I probably can't even vocalise properly.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Zoraptor]

I'm starting to see how Volourn got broken, all those many moons ago. ME3 endings are the best ever FACT! Stop the falsities, commence the verities! It's all ME2's fault for not doing it's primary task of setting up the continuing story properly! Deus Ex showed that a similar ending can work! Some nice soothing ointment liberally applied to the effected areas and I'm sure everyone will be able to sit comfortably again.

 

Knowles is a pretty sensible guy from what I've read, but he's wrong about the endings. The most important thing about an ending is not that it is positive, but that it is fulfilling. Two of the best endings in CRGs are PST's and Fallout's, and there is very little positive about either. It's perfectly possible to get an absolutely dreadful- in an objective sense- ending for MOTB where you end up becoming the living embodiment of capitalism a personfication of hunger, and if you've played in that style it's a very good ending. And something like the end to NWN2OC or Fallout 3 is not bad because rocks fall, everybody dies/ illogical story stupidity death is 'negative', it's bad because they're appallingly bad endings. Conversely, the (LS) ending for KOTOR is positive, but still sucks more than a hole in the ISS.

 

I'll happily concede that the endings are not necessarily fulfilling since that is subjective, but I do kind of wonder what exactly people were expecting. Given the set up some sort of deus ex machina was pretty much inevitable and given some of the (again, deus ex like) set up for J C SHEPARD a happy ending with lots of little Liaras/ Ashleys/ Mirandas/ Carths/ et alias frolicking in a field of daisies was never on the cards.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Zoraptor

[Nepenthe]

I can't compare to all the other outcomes the story might've had, but sure, it's possible to make an ending that isn't "happy" yet is fulfilling. Press "a" to kill your friends, "b" to destroy your identity and become a dictator of the universe or "c" to enact the crazy machine's fantasy is neither. If you can't have a quality ending, better to make it "happy" and leave at least some people content.

[Guest Slinky]

Knowles is a pretty sensible guy from what I've read, but he's wrong about the endings. The most important thing about an ending is not that it is positive, but that it is fulfilling. Two of the best endings in CRGs are PST's and Fallout's, and there is very little positive about either. It's perfectly possible to get an absolutely dreadful- in an objective sense- ending for MOTB where you end up becoming the living embodiment of capitalism a personfication of hunger, and if you've played in that style it's a very good ending. And something like the end to NWN2OC or Fallout 3 is not bad because rocks fall, everybody dies/ illogical story stupidity death is 'negative', it's bad because they're appallingly bad endings. Conversely, the (LS) ending for KOTOR is positive, but still sucks more than a hole in the ISS.

 

This, very much this. I wonder what makes it so hard to make fulfilling endings, games have had problems with it from the start. Only thing I can think of is the devs don't yet know what to do with possible sequel.

 

Edit: Scratch that, fullfilling endings can be done without any "what happened later" stuff.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Slinky

[Gorth]

Knowles is a pretty sensible guy from what I've read, but he's wrong about the endings. The most important thing about an ending is not that it is positive, but that it is fulfilling. Two of the best endings in CRGs are PST's and Fallout's, and there is very little positive about either. It's perfectly possible to get an absolutely dreadful- in an objective sense- ending for MOTB where you end up becoming the living embodiment of capitalism a personfication of hunger, and if you've played in that style it's a very good ending. And something like the end to NWN2OC or Fallout 3 is not bad because rocks fall, everybody dies/ illogical story stupidity death is 'negative', it's bad because they're appallingly bad endings. Conversely, the (LS) ending for KOTOR is positive, but still sucks more than a hole in the ISS.

 

This, very much this. I wonder what makes it so hard to make fulfilling endings, games have had problems with it from the start. Only thing I can think of is the devs don't yet know what to do with possible sequel.

 

Must be a video game industry thing. I once read a trilogy of books written by a developer (Alan Campbell). Great story... until halfway through the third book, then it turned into really, really bad mess.

[Cariannis]

Feeling like a hero doesn’t have to be positive. Take Dragon Age Origins sacrifice ending. My elf warrior felt like a hero for sacrificing herself to stop the blight and kill the arch demon. It was sad but I still felt like a hero. I can say the same for the endings I got in Mass Effect 1/2 as well as some others. I finished ME3 and my Shepard (who spent the whole game saying things I would never have picked, like flirting with Vega for no reason) just takes what the star brat has to say at face value. That’s not cool. Star Fox Command had 9 endings for Miyamoto’s sake.

[GhostofAnakin]

I just don't understand how those responsible actually thought the inclusion of the Star Child and all that last bit would be a *good* thing. I'm all for "tragic" endings, or endings that don't leave you all warm and fuzzy at the end. So it wasn't the fact that the endings tended to be a downer that I have a massive issue with, it's the inclusion of the Star Child and his/its impact on the ending.

 

Seriously, even people who generally liked the ending aren't particularly fond of the Star Child. He's more of a "well, it's not that big a deal" or "he's not that bad". Is that what we're striving for, here? To end games with "it's not that bad" or "I can look past this", rather than actually end games on notes that are a high point for the game?

 

Nevermind lack of player choice, or lack of happy ending, or lack of whatever else the complaints are about the ME3 ending. I just don't know how those folks who came up with the Star Child actually thought it was going to be an actual positive to the narrative. At the absolute best, the Star Child seems to be "wasn't how I'd end it, but I can look past it" to even the most biased of fans.

[Raithe]

I think part of it was the sudden appearance of the Star Child figure with dialogue that really was a tad bizarre. Throw in the weirdness of the "reaper controlling AI was actually IN the citadel" made a chunk of ME1's story seem just.. mad. Add in the feel that b asically, after everything gearing up about "the choices you made would effect the finale".. you pretty much had no feeling that any choices you made had any real effect on your choice of light colours. There's pulling a deus ex machina, but there's doing so in a way that feels consistent with the story and the universe and what has gone on before....

 

Okay, maybe it's player expectations, but I have to admit, while I didn't think the ending would be amazingly responsive to the choices you made, I thought they'd have some recognisable element to it, and that there'd most likely be some form of epilogue that would provide some sense of closure to the universe at large and would reflect a larger portion of choices you'd made through the three games. As it was, all choices pretty much resolved to a visible numeric number that had very little to do with anything that happned in the last hour of the game. Unless you count potentially getting a 5 second shot of Shepard alive in rubble.

 

Edit: Pondering on it further, maybe if they'd pushed more "your choices would effect your journey towards the ending", it would have felt more consistent. Because yes, you did get a lot of the journey was responsive to elements you'd decided earlier in the game(s). But , at the end of the day, none of those choices had any real meaning to how the finale of the story went down.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Raithe

[Tasaio]

To be honest, two of the biggest disappointments about ME3 still remain even after the EC:

 

 

the complete lack of Harbinger (he was set up in ME2 as the main antagonist for ME3, then makes a brief cameo at the end)

the lack of a final boss battle (considering the ME1 and ME2 both had dramatic boss fights, I think that everyone was expecting ME3 to have a truly spectacular final battle)

 

Edited December 6, 2012 by Tasaio

[Guest Slinky]

Fully agree on the first, fully disagree on the second. I found both bossfights in ME1&2 more or less crappy. In the first it was a dumb shoot for 5min "fight", the second had better mechanichs but the human terminator reaper was rather facepalm stuff.

 

If I would have got to decide, the "endboss" would been a long and spectacular cinematic (yep!) showing off the huge battle against the reaper armada, shaping up depending what you did during the trilogy.

[Zoraptor]

I just don't understand how those responsible actually thought the inclusion of the Star Child and all that last bit would be a *good* thing. I'm all for "tragic" endings, or endings that don't leave you all warm and fuzzy at the end. So it wasn't the fact that the endings tended to be a downer that I have a massive issue with, it's the inclusion of the Star Child and his/its impact on the ending.

What would you suggest instead of the star child though? It may be a weak "it was OK" style defence, but there has to be something better offered as an alternative, and something that doesn't involve rewriting ME2/ the whole trilogy after the fact. Ultimately the problem is that the sort of progression needed to get to the ending of ME3 from the ending of ME2 needs either exactly the sort of exposition that video games aren't really very good at and which requires very good planning from the start (which didn't happen) or a star child like info dump/ interactive wikipedia approach; or a kludgey "Get the hell out of my galaxy!"/ bang! superweapon! style ending which is equally poor storytelling.

 

What it really comes down to is that ME2 did not do the job required of it as the second game in a series in terms of advancing the main story, it was more Mass Effect: Cerberus or Mass Effect 1 part 2 than ME2- it set up stuff and did it well, but it was all peripheral stuff with the main series' storyline barely advancing. It left too much for ME3 to do what with tying up peripheral storyline loose ends as well as the whole Reaper invasion. So I tend to cut ME3 some slack not because I'm particularly happy about how it turned out (though I am, in parts) but because the blame for its shortcomings are more appropriately apportioned to ME2. Insufficient foreshadowing and groundwork means that everything gets dumped into the last game and it's too tight a fit.

 

In an ideal world the whole trilogy would have been planned out well in advance, and the various clashes/ counterpoints illustrated through the different ideologies of the 'agonists- the dichotomies between the Krogan/ genophage, Geth/ Quarians and Cerberus/ aliens should provide an ample framework and potential for developing a good 'deus ex' style choice ending. But there was simply no scope for that after ME2.

 

I actually think that:

I can't compare to all the other outcomes the story might've had, but sure, it's possible to make an ending that isn't "happy" yet is fulfilling. Press "a" to kill your friends, "b" to destroy your identity and become a dictator of the universe or "c" to enact the crazy machine's fantasy is neither. If you can't have a quality ending, better to make it "happy" and leave at least some people content

illustrates it quite nicely. There are very few complaints about, say, Mordin or Legion dying precisely because their situations were set up well across multiple games with the main themes introduced in ME1 and expanded upon in ME2 leading to a fulfilling ending to the storylines in ME3. If only there'd been similar attention to the main storyline I can see most of the complaints about star children and trinary choices and the like- which are effectively complaints about method of storyline delivery rather than storyline itself- being largely rendered moot.

[GhostofAnakin]

What would you suggest instead of the star child though? It may be a weak "it was OK" style defence, but there has to be something better offered as an alternative, and something that doesn't involve rewriting ME2/ the whole trilogy after the fact. Ultimately the problem is that the sort of progression needed to get to the ending of ME3 from the ending of ME2 needs either exactly the sort of exposition that video games aren't really very good at and which requires very good planning from the start (which didn't happen) or a star child like info dump/ interactive wikipedia approach; or a kludgey "Get the hell out of my galaxy!"/ bang! superweapon! style ending which is equally poor storytelling.

 

I have some ideas, but it would be a pretty big re-write of the last, oh, hour or two of the game. But if we want to talk simple, and while not "great" (Bio kind of painted themselves into a corner with the way the last couple of hours is structured), at least it would build upon the rest of the series is by simply having Harbinger play the role of the Star Child. Alter it a bit, like when Shepard rides the platform up to the spot he talks to the Star Child, instead he confronts a weakened Harbinger and so Harbinger then goes into desperation mode and tries to convince Shepard to choose Synthesis, and explains why the Reapers exist to Shepard as part of that attempt. The Destroy option would be Shepard's big FU to Harbinger about not listening to him, while the Control ending would be the "power hungry" Shepard's FU to Harbinger.

 

Obviously the above can be tweaked a little to make more sense, but the basic point is that it's Harbinger trying to "control" Shepard into selecting Synthesis because it's the outcome that the Reapers want most -- still alive, with no Shepard controlling them, and trying to convince him (through the dialogue the Star Child had with him) that Control and Destroy are a bad option to take.

 

Again, BioWare basically still gets there Red/Green/Blue ending, except at the very least it's after a confrontation with a villain that's been built up since ME2, not some random AI thing that takes the form of an annoying child.

 

What it really comes down to is that ME2 did not do the job required of it as the second game in a series in terms of advancing the main story, it was more Mass Effect: Cerberus or Mass Effect 1 part 2 than ME2- it set up stuff and did it well, but it was all peripheral stuff with the main series' storyline barely advancing. It left too much for ME3 to do what with tying up peripheral storyline loose ends as well as the whole Reaper invasion. So I tend to cut ME3 some slack not because I'm particularly happy about how it turned out (though I am, in parts) but because the blame for its shortcomings are more appropriately apportioned to ME2. Insufficient foreshadowing and groundwork means that everything gets dumped into the last game and it's too tight a fit.

 

I can't disagree with that entirely, but I still think ME2 left enough wiggle room leftover (including a new "main villain" in Harbinger) to finish off the series without having to come up with something as lame -- and possibly more importantly, the introduction of the Star Child practically out of the blue at the very end -- as they did.

[NOK222]

What would you suggest instead of the star child though?

 

Dead people speaking, changing constantly (Mordin, Thane, Virmire non-survivor, Saren etc.), reminding you of all the sacrifices. Instead of the image of the stupid child that the game wants you to care about, but end up not.

[AGX-17]

To be honest, two of the biggest disappointments about ME3 still remain even after the EC:

 

 

the complete lack of Harbinger (he was set up in ME2 as the main antagonist for ME3, then makes a brief cameo at the end)

the lack of a final boss battle (considering the ME1 and ME2 both had dramatic boss fights, I think that everyone was expecting ME3 to have a truly spectacular final battle)

 

 

Yeah, still can't believe this game is getting GOTY awards and nominations. To G4's audience's credit (I had thought them mere fratboy COD knuckleheads, but it seems I've been proven wrong,) ME3 didn't make it very far in their voting tournament.

[Zoraptor]

I can't disagree with that entirely, but I still think ME2 left enough wiggle room leftover (including a new "main villain" in Harbinger)

The problem I see with using Harbinger, or any reaper really, is that they lack any compelling personality or motive, and that goes right back to the first game and the conversation with Sovereign (which amounted to "YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND OUR MOTIVES!!!!") and continues in ME2. As such they're pretty much tools or cyphers rather than actual antagonists. I'd also presume that Harbinger would try to either kill Shepard or persuade him not to use the Crucible at all in preference to the synthesis option. On a more fundamental level, it would also be rather like asking an individual locust about the reasons for the apocalypse, at least at the moment you get to ask 'god' instead.

 

I wouldn't dismiss the suggestion out of hand though, I just think there are a fair few potential pit falls and much as with the current situation you'd need some fairly significant rewrites of earlier stuff to get the most out of it.

 

Dead people speaking, changing constantly (Mordin, Thane, Virmire non-survivor, Saren etc.), reminding you of all the sacrifices. Instead of the image of the stupid child that the game wants you to care about, but end up not.

This does nothing to solve the problem of exposition and explanation.

 

Also sounds like ME6th Sense, which would mean that Shepard really died at the start of ME2 and everything after is hypoxic hallucination [/twist].

[alanschu]

I feel that I should also point out that it wasn’t just a handful of whiners complaining about the ending.

 

I'm well aware thanks. In fact, I spent large chunks of my time voluntarily talking with the fanbase (of a game I myself didn't actually work on) figuring out what it is about a lot of aspects of the endings that I didn't like. I did learn that there wasn't actually consensus on what people were actually upset about (I found that I could typically categorize people into 3 different subgroups, though).

 

 

There are others but the crap endings created a movement that got the attention of Forbes.

 

Just don't forget that the same writer is a big fan of Day One DLC too.

 

 

 

Knowles is a pretty sensible guy from what I've read, but he's wrong about the endings. The most important thing about an ending is not that it is positive, but that it is fulfilling. Two of the best endings in CRGs are PST's and Fallout's, and there is very little positive about either.

 

I agree. On principle I don't have any serious issue with the ending being a "downer," and based on the fact that my favourite endings have been leads me to believe that these types of endings may be the type that I prefer. But then, I still enjoyed DAO's. Although it has some shades of uncertainty within it at well, and my favourite epilogue slide was the on regarding Harrowmont's reign of Orzammar.

 

 

I'll happily concede that the endings are not necessarily fulfilling since that is subjective, but I do kind of wonder what exactly people were expecting. Given the set up some sort of deus ex machina was pretty much inevitable and given some of the (again, deus ex like) set up for J C SHEPARD a happy ending with lots of little Liaras/ Ashleys/ Mirandas/ Carths/ et alias frolicking in a field of daisies was never on the cards.

 

This was very much the way I saw it. I also was a few days behind and had received ample heads up that something awful happened at the end, which undoubtedly also lowered my expectations and made me more receptive to virtually anything. That the Crucible existed (a plot device that I didn't so much care for from the get go) also prepped me for "the ending is going to have some unexpected stuff happen" simply due to the cryptic nature of the crucible. I was also the type of person that considered the Destroy ending to be pretty unequivocally "winning" (in that Reapers are now dead). I just didn't get into the galactic doomsday that a lot of other people started running with.

 

 

At the same time, however, the sadness aspect of the ending was easily the most common theme. Likely a result of combined unhappy ending for Shepard, as well as a perceived unhappy ending for the galaxy as a whole (which I think gained a lot of momentum simply because fans were mad and suddenly jilted, so they started piling on other aspects that they may have been more lenient about otherwise). There was a ton of bargaining going on, and the existence of the Catalyst was very commonly an aspect people were willing to accept, as long as it meant blue babies or building a house on Rannoch. For these people, seeing a universe that they fell in love with end on such a tragic note was much more painful than I figured would have been possible. I typically consider myself someone that gets pretty emotionally invested in games, but compared to some I am pretty tame.

 

 

Edit: Scratch that, fullfilling endings can be done without any "what happened later" stuff.

 

I think it's typically the best bet to restrict your what happens later type of stuff, particularly concerning the PC. I love that Fallout didn't touch much on it, since it couldn't know what my Vault Dweller would do. The consequences for the individual areas, however, is fine.

Edited December 7, 2012 by alanschu

[Bos_hybrid]

Also sounds like ME6th Sense, which would mean that Shepard really died at the start of ME2 and everything after is hypoxic hallucination [/twist].

 

I approve of this.

 

Bioware get on it.

 

When it comes down to my dislike of of ME3's endings, it's more how the choices were put and how the end mission played out. (wasn't to fond of the synthesis ending mind you)

 

Had Shepard's choices from the previous games and ME3 had been a major factor in the endings, I would of been a lot more forgiving.

 

ex: Control: Only available if Cerberus was given the collectors base.

 

I also don't see a need as to why the star child was created, there was no need to explain the reapers purpose or origins in ME3. The only thing that mattered was stopping them, in a convincing and well written manner. IMO the star child and colour coded choice does not do this. All it did was leave with a bad taste and a wtf expression on my face.

 

The other (and IMO big one)problem was the ending felt rushed from a design point of view. Remember in ME2 where how you used your squad would decide who lived or died, or whether the mission was successful or not? Where did that idea go?

 

How about making a ground invasion plan, deciding where Wrex, Grunt and the Krogan were positioned? Where Jack's biotic squad were sent? Where the Geth dropped in on reaper forces? Using choices like this to determine the amount of enemies faced, how successful the approach to the conduit was, allied casualties etc. Instead all we got was one long ass tedious dungeon run, with a few lines of dialogue with NPCs.

 

Shepard dying was never a problem for me and neither was not having an happily ever after ending.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[Calax]

There are very few complaints about, say, Mordin or Legion dying precisely because their situations were set up well across multiple games with the main themes introduced in ME1 and expanded upon in ME2 leading to a fulfilling ending to the storylines in ME3.

*insert trend bucking here*

 

I was ok with Mordin. He went out well, and we'd gotten to know him fairly well. However LEGION I was kind of pissed about. Not because he died, but because we basically didn't get to interact with him all that much. He shows up on one mission, then you have just enough time to get his loyalty up and do that before you end the game in ME2. And ME3 has him pop up only as a non-squaddie who WILL die (in one form or another). Legion is, overall, my favorite character, and showing my bias I am annoyed that he gets so little screen time... especially in comparison to Tali. I don't mind that he went out overall... it's just that in comparison to MANY of the other characters in 2 and 3, he wasn't allowed to visit with the players nearly as much as any other squad member in the game.

[Cariannis]

 

There are others but the crap endings created a movement that got the attention of Forbes.

 

Just don't forget that the same writer is a big fan of Day One DLC too.

 

Did I mention day 1 DLC? I don’t have a problem with day 1 DLC so how does this affect what I said? But if you want to bring up day 1 DLC I’m ok with it as long as none of the DLC information is on the game disk. Now if I data mine my Mass Effect 3 disk I won’t find Javik on there will I?

 

Also I don’t see this at Forbes…

 

 

or this…

 

http://draykenobi.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/picture-1.png

[GhostofAnakin]

The problem I see with using Harbinger, or any reaper really, is that they lack any compelling personality or motive, and that goes right back to the first game and the conversation with Sovereign (which amounted to "YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND OUR MOTIVES!!!!") and continues in ME2. As such they're pretty much tools or cyphers rather than actual antagonists. I'd also presume that Harbinger would try to either kill Shepard or persuade him not to use the Crucible at all in preference to the synthesis option. On a more fundamental level, it would also be rather like asking an individual locust about the reasons for the apocalypse, at least at the moment you get to ask 'god' instead.

 

I wouldn't dismiss the suggestion out of hand though, I just think there are a fair few potential pit falls and much as with the current situation you'd need some fairly significant rewrites of earlier stuff to get the most out of it.

 

But at least Harbinger (or another "boss" Reaper) would have already established motives for trying to convince Shepard not to hit the "destroy all button". Keep in mind that at the point I was mentioning, Harbinger is basically desperate because he knows Shepard's literally a hand-length away from annihilating the Reapers. So in his AI mind, it's better to convince Shepard of a Synthesis choice (which could actually be a fully indoctrinated state, which he doesn't tell Shepard) than the alternative of Shepard outright activating the Crucible and destroying them.

 

Also keep in mind that I'm talking about a possibility where no other aspect of the story or game is changed. Thus the limited scope of what I'm suggesting. As I said before, it would take massive re-writes of a lot of the game that came before that final 15 to 20 minutes with the Star Child, to effectively alter the ending in any other way. But at least my suggestion doesn't introduce a new character right out of the blue with no build up between them and Shepard. Harbinger being the one trying to convince Shepard which "button" to press at least follows up on the story threads previously established of a]Indoctrination, and the Reapers using it to convince beings to do as they want and b]Harbinger and Shepard's showdown that was suggested at the end of ME2.

 

So I'm not necessarily saying what I suggest would turn the ending into a "good" ending, but rather it would at least tie in with a lot of the lead up to the ending (ie. indoctrination, Harbinger/Shepard confrontation, etc.).

[alanschu]

Did I mention day 1 DLC? I don’t have a problem with day 1 DLC so how does this affect what I said? But if you want to bring up day 1 DLC I’m ok with it as long as none of the DLC information is on the game disk. Now if I data mine my Mass Effect 3 disk I won’t find Javik on there will I?

 

Nope, you didn't. But Forbes has been championed by many of the hater crowd, yet many conveniently ignore that he was their enemy literally one day before release.

 

Essentially, the Forbes article is a columnist that can write whatever he wants, as Forbes pays him based on traffic (Forbes doesn't hide this). People seem to grant it some extra degree of legitimacy simply because it's a columnist that posts on Forbes.

 

 

You also seem to think you're educating me on the matter, and bringing me up to speed on things that I don't already know. Yes, I know that there's articles on Forbes. They were championed on an almost daily basis (since the author agreed with them). Yes, I know that there wasn't exactly a small group of people upset with the endings. You linked me to movements that I already know (and there was several more that you missed). That BioWare did anything is a direct acknowledgement that BioWare agreed that it wasn't some trivial group of individuals that happened to be very loud.

Edited December 7, 2012 by alanschu

[exodiark]

Lol, I just saw EC today.

They butchered Harbinger even more.

I mean, Harbinger just sat there like a good kid, blasting stuff in the background, ignoring Shepard in his/her tearful goodbye with his/her friends.

You would think Shepard and co. would be higher priority targets after killing baby reapers, but eh.

Edited December 7, 2012 by exodiark

[Nepenthe]

There are very few complaints about, say, Mordin or Legion dying precisely because their situations were set up well across multiple games with the main themes introduced in ME1 and expanded upon in ME2 leading to a fulfilling ending to the storylines in ME3.

*insert trend bucking here*

 

I was ok with Mordin. He went out well, and we'd gotten to know him fairly well. However LEGION I was kind of pissed about. Not because he died, but because we basically didn't get to interact with him all that much. He shows up on one mission, then you have just enough time to get his loyalty up and do that before you end the game in ME2. And ME3 has him pop up only as a non-squaddie who WILL die (in one form or another). Legion is, overall, my favorite character, and showing my bias I am annoyed that he gets so little screen time... especially in comparison to Tali. I don't mind that he went out overall... it's just that in comparison to MANY of the other characters in 2 and 3, he wasn't allowed to visit with the players nearly as much as any other squad member in the game.

You can insert pretty much any ME2 squaddie here, really. Thane is very similar, and the Jacob fangirls were fairly royally pissed, too. Then there's the "we really don't have a good reason for not giving them to you even as temporary squaddies for the final climax, but we still won't do it, haha" crowd of Miranda, Jack, Wrex, Grunt etc.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Nepenthe