Mass Effect 3 $$(ENDINGS SPOILERS)$$
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
I think that Bioware may have meant synthesis as the "ideal" ending. Obviously the writers play renegade.
I think that Bioware may have meant synthesis as the "ideal" ending. Obviously the writers play renegade.
Personally, I thought synthesis was moronic. I mean, yeah, from a symbolic POV it makes sense, but if you actually think about it...not so much. How does fundamentally re-formatting every organic molecule equal eternal galactic peace? People are still people and they'll still find a way to start fights. Who's to say that they couldn't make new synthetics at some point down the line? Also, how this is supposed to apply to synthetics, especially when the games have already stressed that the geth and EDI exist as separate entities to their hardware? Though they do need physical hardware to support their existence, they're not permanently tied to it an change move from body to body at will.
And don't get me started on how the "destroy ALL synthetics" is supposed to work. How can it possibly be that selective? Does every mechanical device cease to function, or just electrical ones? Do people with implants just drop dead? What about bio-amps? What about all the ships and stations throughout the galaxy? Do they all stop dead as their crews suffocate and freeze to death? What about quarian and volus exosuits? Can you imagine billions of volus simultaneously suffering from explosive decompression as their suits fail?...OK, that's a little bit humorous, but in a very dark and horrific way.
There's speculation for everyone alright, it's just speculation at just how horrible the consequences are.!
You jest, but for me it really was that simple. Perhaps it's because I'm importing lv30 characters that are predominantly one alignment or the other (a 70/30 paragon and a 5/95 renegade) but not once did I encounter a greyed out dialogue option.Pfft, all this talk of how to reunite the Geth and Quarians... All you need to do in every game is always pick the upper left / upper right dialogue options every time. Problem solved.
Do new games start you at lv 1 or something a bit more reasonable like lv15? Either way those that import appear to have a distinct advantage.
Yep, it would have been really nice to have a dialogue option or interrupt to tell him about the EDI/Joker pairing or the geth/quarian peace (assuming you managed to achieve those outcomes) and that his "cycle" is based on a false premise.
On a somewhat related note, did anyone notice that when it presents the options to you, it's not actually Shepard in those little movies? For the destroy option, it appears to be Anderson firing at the conduit and for the control option, it looks like the Illusive Man. Oddly, nothing is shown for synthesis. I wonder if that is supposed to leave another subtle hint that the end is not what it appears to be.
Assuming, of course, that the indoctrination theory is correct and that the current "ending" is not Bioware's version of a "valentine to the fans".
What I found most interesting was that the Illusive Man represented the blue paragon option while Anderson represented the renegade. Are Bioware saying we should have been helping Cerberus the whole time? If so then I call BS because just like ME2 didn't give us an option to run away from the buggers, ME3 doesn't allow us to rejoin them. Talk about railroading.
It's more than infuriating, it's unforgivable. Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with a little mystery and ambiguity, but after all that hassle and the lacklustre London mission I would have liked a straight answer. No wonder the indoctrination theory is so popular, people don't want to believe that Bioware just made a horrifically bad decision.
That sounds about right. I think I worked out that had the Kasumi and Aria missions not glitched out on me on my first playthough, or had I had any idea that certain fetch quests would disappear if I didn't turn them in before Tuchanka then I might have made it to 3700, or near as damnit. The only other things I could have done to improve the score would have been to destroy the Geth heretics and hand the Collector base over to Cerberus in ME2. There might have been some other minor stuff like not recruiting Chakwas or Ash, thus making them assets (though who would want to deprive themselves of a main character?) or resisting the urge to knock out al-Julanni, but that's chicken feed by comparison.
Not even at the Illusive Man in the finale? Or did you happen to get that right the first time through? (The Internet didn't lie to me, the conditions for those are always giving him consistent paragon or renegade answers?)
The demo started you out at level 1; I expect retail to work the same way, but haven't tried it.
While I recruited Kaiden, I never actually used him; leaving his bland self or Ashley's xenophobic streak behind as a war asset wouldn't have affected my gameplay any, I think.
(Does Ashley continue her religious bent in this game? I noticed that it seems like Shepard suddenly got one, despite my telling Ash that I'm not a believer back in the first game.)
I just don't get that. The game went out of its way to point out that this cycle's strength comes from the diversity of all the races, that their ability to think and act differently while working together is something the Reapers weren't prepared to handle properly. So why is the supposedly optimal ending advocating smushing organic and synthetic life into one? There's a thematic disconnect between the last five minutes and the rest of the game, and that tears apart the "artistic integrity" defence for me. There is no integrity in that ending, the story falls to pieces in the last five minutes.I think that Bioware may have meant synthesis as the "ideal" ending. Obviously the writers play renegade.
It makes some sense considering the Geth and EDI were upgraded with Reaper code, so if the crucible is capable of overloading the Reapers' AI then it might overload the AI of synthetics that contain Reaper code.
But really, it's space magic.
I am watching the video of the ending where you are given a choice. I think many are listening only to the first part of the Destroy option, and ignoring the second part. If you choose the destroy option, what will happen, according to the Catalyst, the destruction will be two-fold: (a.) all synthetic life will be destroyed and (b.) "most of the technology you rely on" will be destroyed. Then the Catalyst mentions that Shepard is partly synthetic, and mentions that "your children will create synthetics" and the cycle will begin anew.
What does this mean? The quarians are partly synthetic. Their cybernetic implants help the quarians with their immune systems and sensory perception, just to cite two examples.
So, if the Destroy option is chosen, then both Shepard and the quarians will be adversely impacted. Shepard may survive, but will the quarians? This may be not a problem, if the player chose to side with the Geth and the quarians were annihilated. But what if they sided with the quarians, or brokered a peace between the quarians and the Geth? The implications for me are disturbing as my Shepard was a peace maker.
What does this mean? The quarians are partly synthetic. Their cybernetic implants help the quarians with their immune systems and sensory perception, just to cite two examples.
So, if the Destroy option is chosen, then both Shepard and the quarians will be adversely impacted. Shepard may survive, but will the quarians? This may be not a problem, if the player chose to side with the Geth and the quarians were annihilated. But what if they sided with the quarians, or brokered a peace between the quarians and the Geth? The implications for me are disturbing as my Shepard was a peace maker.
No, all the options were open in the Illusive Man conversation, even IIRC the paragon ones for my renegade Shep, which I thought was odd considering he had next to no paragon points.
Actually I was really disappointed with the interactions with Ash after you recruit her. Hardly any conversation of substance and I gather those that romance her don't get anything more besides final romance scene and a line or two in London. Hell of a let down as Ash was always my second favourite squadmate after Tali.
So to answer your question, no. As far as I'm aware Ash never brings up her faith. Even her...well, it's not really xeno-phobic as a lot of people say, but rather her vague distrust of aliens isn't addressed either. From looking a some vids on youtube, if you romanced Tali, under certain conditions (don't know what since I didn't get this scene), when you talk to her at the hospital she'll say Tali is like a sister and she approves. Very odd considering I don't think those two have ever been seen interacting up until that point.
More evidence of an 11th hour revision. A good ending, whatever it may be should be the culmination and fruition of everything that came before it. It couldn't have been more nonsensical and out of step with the rest of the story if the lines had been delivered to the tune of the 'The Yellow Rose of Texas' by Pennywise the Clown dressed as a morris dancer.
Which is my main problem with it. It's contrived. They only threw that bit about the geth in to make the "destroy the reapers" option to have dire consequences. I mean surely if the catalyst can control the reapers directly then there's a link there, which given the lore is probably through QEC enabled nanites. With that common link shouldn't it be possible to cause them to overload or just shut down?It makes some sense considering the Geth and EDI were upgraded with Reaper code, so if the crucible is capable of overloading the Reapers' AI then it might overload the AI of synthetics that contain Reaper code.
But really, it's space magic.
If they had to have "dire consequences" for that option then why not have it be the crucible causing that kind of overload will scorch Earth and probably wipe out the fleet, but the the rest of the galaxy is safe? I'll tell you why not, it's because they wanted you to choose between three very specific options; control the reapers, destroy all synthetics or join with them. Like I said. Contrived.
Six Reasons Why Changing The Mass Effect 3 Ending Won't Threaten Its 'Artistic Integrity'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...n-its-artistic-integrity/?partner=forbespicks
Also the 1980s movie
Clue's Multiple Endings Confused Everyone Way Before Mass Effect 3
http://m.kotaku.com/5897929/clues-multiple-endings-confused-everyone-way-before-mass-effect-3
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...n-its-artistic-integrity/?partner=forbespicks
Also the 1980s movie
Clue's Multiple Endings Confused Everyone Way Before Mass Effect 3
http://m.kotaku.com/5897929/clues-multiple-endings-confused-everyone-way-before-mass-effect-3
I too was disappointed by my interactions with Ashley Williams. She was a more developed character in the first game. In the times I visited the character, I never saw her with the other crew members and, when she did socialize, it was done off-screen.
I have a question about Ashley Williams. What action did she do that would make her a candidate for Spectre status? From the available evidence, it would seem that her becoming a Spectre was a political calculation by Councilor Udina, and wasn't attributable to any action that Ashley Williams undertake on her own initiative. What did I miss?
I have a question about Ashley Williams. What action did she do that would make her a candidate for Spectre status? From the available evidence, it would seem that her becoming a Spectre was a political calculation by Councilor Udina, and wasn't attributable to any action that Ashley Williams undertake on her own initiative. What did I miss?
I don't think it was any one action for either Ashley or Kaidan.
For Ashley, I think it was a combination of her prior service with Shepard; the work she did during the two years between ME1 and ME2 for Anderson; and whatever it was she did between ME2 and ME3 to get promoted from Operations Chief to Lieutenant Commander.
For Kaidan, I think it was fairly similar - his prior service with Shepard; the work he did during the two years between ME1 and ME2 for Anderson; and his command of the 1st Special Operations Biotic Company between ME2 and ME3. Military records prior to serving with Shepard might also have been weighed in, with Alenko having had a more distinguished record than Williams.
In both cases, I think political calculation played a role. Udina would very well have been aware that Williams and Alenko were distrustful of Shepard for his/her time with Cerberus, and arranging for the second human Spectre during the Reaper War might have been intended to provide some small bit of rallying point for the Alliance military. Udina may also have thought that he could control either of them more effectively than Shepard ever would have bowed to political pressure.
For Ashley, I think it was a combination of her prior service with Shepard; the work she did during the two years between ME1 and ME2 for Anderson; and whatever it was she did between ME2 and ME3 to get promoted from Operations Chief to Lieutenant Commander.
For Kaidan, I think it was fairly similar - his prior service with Shepard; the work he did during the two years between ME1 and ME2 for Anderson; and his command of the 1st Special Operations Biotic Company between ME2 and ME3. Military records prior to serving with Shepard might also have been weighed in, with Alenko having had a more distinguished record than Williams.
In both cases, I think political calculation played a role. Udina would very well have been aware that Williams and Alenko were distrustful of Shepard for his/her time with Cerberus, and arranging for the second human Spectre during the Reaper War might have been intended to provide some small bit of rallying point for the Alliance military. Udina may also have thought that he could control either of them more effectively than Shepard ever would have bowed to political pressure.
That's pretty much it I think. But then Shepard was considered a viable candidate based mostly one her service history (Torfan, Akuze or Elysium) so perhaps Ash's survival on Eden Prime and subsequent service with Shepard and later Anderson was enough justification. Either way I think it was wasted. I mean what difference did it really make having another Spectre aboard?
Again, plenty of build up and zero payoff.
Speaking of Shepard's service history, something occurred to me while playing the other day. Wouldn't those dream sequences have been better if they integrated them with flashbacks to Shepard's origin?
Like say every time you catch up to the kid and you hear the reaper bellow you see a brief cut scene with your Shepard reliving either Torfan, Akuze or Elysium, similar to how you get brief looks at Javik's memories. Only to zapped back into the woods.
Perhaps if it were really ambitious then each dream gets more and more twisted with dead squad mates showing up in the flashback where they shouldn't be. You know, something truly surreal and personal to Shepard, not some pop psychology stroll through some trees.
I think it also would have been nice for those who picked the spacer origin for Shep's mother to make an actual appearance. It shouldn't have been too hard from a design standpoint since they could have just made an older looking version of the default femshp and adjust her eye, hair and skintone depending on your Shep's appearance. You know, like they did with Hawk's family in DAII. The equivalent scene for the other origins could be a scene where Shepard learns that Mindoir has been destroyed again and another where Shepard sees footage smuggled off Earth of the Reapers obliterating whatever megatropolis she grew up in.
Last edited:
I hate to be crass, but I am going to be. Most people don't get worked up if a random stranger gets killed, unless they have a personal stake in the matter. The shooting of Martin in Florida is an example of this. Many in the black community didn't know the kid, but they are worked up because they see larger issues that are connected with the incident. These issues being racial profiling by some police officers and the media, and what they perceive as hypocrisy and bigotry in the American legal system.
The boy in Mass Effect 3 is a random stranger to Shepard. His death was symbolic of the guilt that Shepard felt for leaving Earth and for not saving more lives (the personal stake). I feel the writers either forgot or ignored the conditions that created Shepard in the first place. Commander Shepard was a hardened soldier, and, depending on the path chosen, was an empathetic person (paragon) or a sociopathic person (renegade). The commander may have felt sadness that the kid was killed, but the commander would have very little personal stake in the kid being killed. The kid was collateral damage.
My Commander was a paragon female. She was a War Hero and a Spacer. Her mother served as the commander of a warship. Two possibilities present themselves.
(a.) Possibility One: Shepard was unable to save her mother, and was forced to witness her mother's ship being destroyed by the Reapers. The only thing working against this was that Shepard had minimal interaction with her mother in the course of the games.
(b.) Possibility Two: Shepard was emotionally invested in the colony of Elysium. She had fought to save this colony from the batarians. I am thinking that being forced to defend this colony, only to see Elysium fall to the Reapers might have a meaningful impact on Shepard.
Regardless, whatever Shepard experiences, he or she had to face the no-win scenario. The battle against Saren and the suicide mission to the Collector Base were, in my opinion, not no-win scenarios. The possibility of winning always existed with either one, if the Commander played her cards right. I feel this no-win scenario would be the psychological trauma that haunted the Commander through her campaign against the Reapers.
That was another issue I had with the third game. Throughout the game, I felt that I was playing on the paragon path. Where was the renegade path? Throughout the first and second games, the renegade was fighting for human domination of the galaxy, and, by the end of the second game, was a loyal member of Cerberus. Would a loyal member of Cerberus be actively fighting against the Reapers, or wouldn't they be actively against this for they felt that learning to control and influence the Reapers would work in concert with the goals of human domination as espoused by Cerberus?
Personally, if I ran Bioware, I would have started the game with a teaser showing the Reapers gaining control of the Citadel. The game would then have the player playing either as a Paragon or as a Renegade. In the beginning, a Paragon would have surrendered her ship to the Alliance at Arcturus Station, and submitted herself to a hearing for what happened in the Bahak System. The Renegade, on the other hand, would be on the lam from Alliance and Citadel ships, and actively protected and supported by Cerberus.
Instead of Earth being attacked, I would have the Reapers moving slowly and methodically towards the Sol system. When I think of the Reaper threat, I am reminded of the Star Trek episode "Operaton -- Annihilate!" and the Dominion War of Deep Space Nine. Reapers indoctrinate agents who then work for them. Through these agents, they can influence the course of events on worlds through subterfuge and deceit, thus leaving the worlds open to conquest. If worlds prove resistant, the Reapers can attack the worlds in more direct ways. I would have the Council home worlds fall one by one to the Reapers, and I would have the Council flee to Earth where they could set up a provisional government. I would have the Council threaten by agents of the Reapers on Earth with this attempt being thwarted forcing the Reapers to chose a more direct method.
During the course of the game, I would have the player play divergent paths. I am thinking here of the first game where the player, based on their paths, were presented one of two missions. (UNC: Besieged Base, UNC: The Negotiation). Depending on which path they play, a select number of worlds would be open to the player that wouldn't be open to the player who chose a different path. Each of the missions on these select worlds would play to the strengths and weaknesses of the path chosen.
The Paragon path would have the player uniting the galaxy in an effort at building an armada that would stop the Reapers. This would be the destroy path - destroy the Reapers.
The Renegade path would have the player ascending from a loyal follower to the leader of Cerberus and, eventually, the first galactic emperor. The allies may not be fully aware of what is happening because the player was manipulating their fears into a weapon that could be used against the Reapers and against them after the threat has been eliminated. This would be the control path - control the galaxy.
A third path would appear during the course of the game. In this path, the synthesis path, this would be a compromise path for the paragon player if they run into difficulties in uniting a galaxy, or ,for the renegade player, this would be the next step in the evolution of humanity.
Throughout the course of the game, the player will be offered opportunities to change their path.
I would not have included a living Prothean. I would have offered instead a chance for either the paragon or renegade player to discover the homeworld of the Protheans, and an opportunity for them to find a Prothean Library of Alexandria. This library would be well-protected and well-hidden, and would have the collected knowledge of the Protheans and those who came before. This knowledge would give information on the Reapers, and this knowledge would be used according to the path chosen by the player.
I would have left the origins and motivations of the Reapers a mystery. I don't feel it's important to know them in any detail. It's enough to know that they are an existentialist threat to the galaxy.
I would have resolved the genophage plot line and the geth-quarian plot line.
At the end of the game, I would have had a major battle fought between the Reapers and an armada of ships from all over the galaxy. The battle would be fought in space and on Earth. Goal - Reapers destroy the Council, Armada - preserve the council (paragon), preserve the dream of a human empire (renegade).
Following the battle, there would be an epilogue stating that the Reapers were driven from the galaxy, and stating what happened to the galaxy dependent on what path the player followed.
The boy in Mass Effect 3 is a random stranger to Shepard. His death was symbolic of the guilt that Shepard felt for leaving Earth and for not saving more lives (the personal stake). I feel the writers either forgot or ignored the conditions that created Shepard in the first place. Commander Shepard was a hardened soldier, and, depending on the path chosen, was an empathetic person (paragon) or a sociopathic person (renegade). The commander may have felt sadness that the kid was killed, but the commander would have very little personal stake in the kid being killed. The kid was collateral damage.
My Commander was a paragon female. She was a War Hero and a Spacer. Her mother served as the commander of a warship. Two possibilities present themselves.
(a.) Possibility One: Shepard was unable to save her mother, and was forced to witness her mother's ship being destroyed by the Reapers. The only thing working against this was that Shepard had minimal interaction with her mother in the course of the games.
(b.) Possibility Two: Shepard was emotionally invested in the colony of Elysium. She had fought to save this colony from the batarians. I am thinking that being forced to defend this colony, only to see Elysium fall to the Reapers might have a meaningful impact on Shepard.
Regardless, whatever Shepard experiences, he or she had to face the no-win scenario. The battle against Saren and the suicide mission to the Collector Base were, in my opinion, not no-win scenarios. The possibility of winning always existed with either one, if the Commander played her cards right. I feel this no-win scenario would be the psychological trauma that haunted the Commander through her campaign against the Reapers.
That was another issue I had with the third game. Throughout the game, I felt that I was playing on the paragon path. Where was the renegade path? Throughout the first and second games, the renegade was fighting for human domination of the galaxy, and, by the end of the second game, was a loyal member of Cerberus. Would a loyal member of Cerberus be actively fighting against the Reapers, or wouldn't they be actively against this for they felt that learning to control and influence the Reapers would work in concert with the goals of human domination as espoused by Cerberus?
Personally, if I ran Bioware, I would have started the game with a teaser showing the Reapers gaining control of the Citadel. The game would then have the player playing either as a Paragon or as a Renegade. In the beginning, a Paragon would have surrendered her ship to the Alliance at Arcturus Station, and submitted herself to a hearing for what happened in the Bahak System. The Renegade, on the other hand, would be on the lam from Alliance and Citadel ships, and actively protected and supported by Cerberus.
Instead of Earth being attacked, I would have the Reapers moving slowly and methodically towards the Sol system. When I think of the Reaper threat, I am reminded of the Star Trek episode "Operaton -- Annihilate!" and the Dominion War of Deep Space Nine. Reapers indoctrinate agents who then work for them. Through these agents, they can influence the course of events on worlds through subterfuge and deceit, thus leaving the worlds open to conquest. If worlds prove resistant, the Reapers can attack the worlds in more direct ways. I would have the Council home worlds fall one by one to the Reapers, and I would have the Council flee to Earth where they could set up a provisional government. I would have the Council threaten by agents of the Reapers on Earth with this attempt being thwarted forcing the Reapers to chose a more direct method.
During the course of the game, I would have the player play divergent paths. I am thinking here of the first game where the player, based on their paths, were presented one of two missions. (UNC: Besieged Base, UNC: The Negotiation). Depending on which path they play, a select number of worlds would be open to the player that wouldn't be open to the player who chose a different path. Each of the missions on these select worlds would play to the strengths and weaknesses of the path chosen.
The Paragon path would have the player uniting the galaxy in an effort at building an armada that would stop the Reapers. This would be the destroy path - destroy the Reapers.
The Renegade path would have the player ascending from a loyal follower to the leader of Cerberus and, eventually, the first galactic emperor. The allies may not be fully aware of what is happening because the player was manipulating their fears into a weapon that could be used against the Reapers and against them after the threat has been eliminated. This would be the control path - control the galaxy.
A third path would appear during the course of the game. In this path, the synthesis path, this would be a compromise path for the paragon player if they run into difficulties in uniting a galaxy, or ,for the renegade player, this would be the next step in the evolution of humanity.
Throughout the course of the game, the player will be offered opportunities to change their path.
I would not have included a living Prothean. I would have offered instead a chance for either the paragon or renegade player to discover the homeworld of the Protheans, and an opportunity for them to find a Prothean Library of Alexandria. This library would be well-protected and well-hidden, and would have the collected knowledge of the Protheans and those who came before. This knowledge would give information on the Reapers, and this knowledge would be used according to the path chosen by the player.
I would have left the origins and motivations of the Reapers a mystery. I don't feel it's important to know them in any detail. It's enough to know that they are an existentialist threat to the galaxy.
I would have resolved the genophage plot line and the geth-quarian plot line.
At the end of the game, I would have had a major battle fought between the Reapers and an armada of ships from all over the galaxy. The battle would be fought in space and on Earth. Goal - Reapers destroy the Council, Armada - preserve the council (paragon), preserve the dream of a human empire (renegade).
Following the battle, there would be an epilogue stating that the Reapers were driven from the galaxy, and stating what happened to the galaxy dependent on what path the player followed.
I was working on April fools day, so now that I have a day off I was looking back at some of the jokes in the gaming community. The second to last "feature" in this one made me chuckle and seemed relevant here.
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/supplydepot/
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/supplydepot/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bioware-announces-mass-effect-3-130000574.html
Mass Effect 3: The Extended Cut. Now with 50% more star child.
Seriously though, this is good news and I'm very much looking forward to what is added/removed. Plus it's free, so I don't see how I could possibly complain.
Mass Effect 3: The Extended Cut. Now with 50% more star child.
Seriously though, this is good news and I'm very much looking forward to what is added/removed. Plus it's free, so I don't see how I could possibly complain.
^Oh, they'll find a way. They always do.
Even more seriously though, while for some this might take away the sting, it's really a case of fixing the stable door after the horse has fled, changed it's name and joined a barbershop quartet. First impressions matter and nothing can make most gamers forget how their first playthrough ended.
Indeed, from that description they're sticking with the ending they have, but are just now telling us exactly how screwed the galaxy is after we arbitrarily pick our favourite colour....hmm, there's a Python joke in there somewhere...
On the positive side at least they might actually explain what the Normandy was doing and how Liara magically teleported aboard.
Even more seriously though, while for some this might take away the sting, it's really a case of fixing the stable door after the horse has fled, changed it's name and joined a barbershop quartet. First impressions matter and nothing can make most gamers forget how their first playthrough ended.
Indeed, from that description they're sticking with the ending they have, but are just now telling us exactly how screwed the galaxy is after we arbitrarily pick our favourite colour....hmm, there's a Python joke in there somewhere...
On the positive side at least they might actually explain what the Normandy was doing and how Liara magically teleported aboard.
I dunno, I'm not liking the content of what was announced, they need additional endings to be added because the ones they put in the game were so off the charts terrible. It just sounds like they're adding onto what's there and not expanding on what they need to. I hope I'm wrong, but the fact that they blew the endings so catastrophically has shattered my confidence in them on this issue.
No, I think you're right. "Fixing" the endings would IMO require them them completely redo the London mission to make your decisions up until that point pay off (like they did in ME2's suicide mission) and ditch the colours for an ending that makes sense...and that's just not feasible for a free DLC. Personally I'm resigned to the fact that the Mass Effect saga is just unfortunately cursed with a crap ending and will try not to let it spoil any further enjoyment of the games.
What if the extended ending reveals that the star child is Jar Jar Binks, Lwaxana Troi, and Byron combined?http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bioware-announces-mass-effect-3-130000574.htmlPlus it's free, so I don't see how I could possibly complain.
If they stick with the star child crap then Mass Effect 3 will never have a good ending, it will always be hokey and weird. But this extended ending may be... serviceable, and hopefully it will be able to remove the stink that currently hangs over the franchise.
It's not the franchise, it's just Mac Walters and Casey Hudson. Rehire Drew Karpyshyn & get a different producer, and I'd be all over another Mass Effect game.
Rehiring Drew is the worst thing they could do. He's the one who created the human-wanking and equally nonsensical "Reapers try to defeat Dark Energy by forcing Milky Way races to use dark energy manipulating tech, thereby worsening the problem" plot. If anything, they need a culture change so they can move away from "ancient evil comes back to ruin everything plots" to plots with villains that don't require deus ex machinas to beat or (in the case of Mass Effect) blowing up the universe they created.
Similar threads
