(Spoilers)Mass Effect 2 ruined the Franchise, 3 was continuation of that

[Forum Explorer]

This is the most important thing here, I think. ME3 just having a bad ending wouldn't be so bad if you could actually see some sign of the choices you made along the way in it, but as it is, you got 3 choices which only differed in which bits of the *same* ending video you saw, but with a different coloured filter over the top.

Because at its core Mass Effect was supposed to be this epic space opera with you shaping the fate of the galaxy. So we spend a decade on these games and make dozens of decisions along the way and it's all built up to be important. Then you get to the end and none of decisions matter. Not. A. Single. One. How are you supposed to replay and enjoy the series when you know that the entire premise is a lie? It's a choose your own adventure book where every path leads to the same last page.

And then to add insult to injury, that last page was ripped out and replaced with some sort of bad deus ex machina fan fiction.

Whoo! Double whammy!

Like I posted earlier, I challenge you to come up with an ending that actually did have meaningful choice in the final moments. Because 'activate the Plot Device to defeat the Reapers' was a pretty predicable ending that you could see coming right from the first mission of ME3. Even ME1 if I had really thought about it. So no, it didn't bother me when that was the only choice at the end, because what other choices were there?

Seriously, come up with something.

Because what I'm finding is a lot of people were quite frankly either deluding themselves or not thinking about it. Actually, sorry, I forgot that the hype did promise an ending like you described. I just never believed them. But anyways, I was not shocked or surprised or disappointed by the ending that was given me, because that was the logical result of the entire ME3 game. I mean, it wasn't great. There was a few stupid things, and yeah, they really could have expanded more on what happened after you win then a voice over. Give us a full, proper epilogue.

But the activation of the Crucible? That was just standard space opera right there. I'm not going to complain about it any more then I am about Star Wars having the Death Star blow up to a single shot.

Who else- you?

Maybe make a defense and we'll see how it lands since so far you've contained yourself to a single two word phrase repeatedly.

Maybe you can make a more detailed accusation then just 'it was really bad' first? I mean, I defend the ending of ME3, but I still only give it a C grade wise. There is tons of room for improvement to actually make that ending shine.

[Serenity]

To speak personally on the ending...actually, no, I don't really want to do that. I've posted pages and pages here over the last 7 years about why I didn't have a problem with it story-wise. Most of the issues I did have were spectacle-based, in that the choices you make aren't sufficiently shown in the cinematics.

The briefest summary I can really give is that I wasn't heavily involved with having my choices matter where the Reapers are concerned. Because as far as they're concerned, I'm just collecting resources for the battle. All of the narrative weight of your choices is resolved earlier in the plot. Did you take the time to learn about your squadmates, and make good decisions? They get to survive the Suicide Mission. How do you feel about the Krogan? Those choices all come out and are resolved when you cure (or don't cure) the genophage. How do you feel about the Geth/Quarian conflict? All of that is resolved during that section of the game. The decision to save the Rachni is entirely contained within the first game. By the time you get to the final battle, all the major plot points are settled. There's nothing more to tell.

So, there's that, plus I'm real sucker for transhumanism stories. The rest of the themes, plot strengths and weaknesses, etc, I've gone into ad nauseum, so I'll just say that I didn't have a problem with them. Again.

I've got no issue with transhumanism stories, per se--heck, Alpha Centauri and it's Transcendence ending is one of my favorite games of all time--but ME3 only became a transhumanism story in the last five minutes and only barely so. There's no foreshadowing of Synthesis, no real understanding of what it actually means, and no resonance with the problems the games have actually been dealing with without the dubious and rushed explanation of Reaper motives dropped in those last five minutes.

And if we're taking the resolutions prior to the final battle as the culmination of our choices--and that's fairly defensible, sure, especially as regards the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs--and thus arguing that our choices didn't need to matter when it came to the Reapers--than surely, by the same token, we could have just had activating the Crucible defeat them as advertised? You could even break that up even further, and bring in your choices after a fashion by having low War Assets lead to the original ending where victory cripples the Mass Relay network, and galactic society will suffer a lot in the rebuilding process; moderate War Assets are clear victory at the cost of Shepard's heroic sacrifice, and perfect play across all three games allows enough War Assets that the battle went well enough that a rescue team is able to reach Shepard and revive them before they perish.

Because as far as I'm concerned--and I think a lot of people would agree with me--if the game ended with Shepard pressing the activation switch for the Crucible and then expiring next to Andersen, then playing the Destroy animation without the implication of genociding the Geth and EDI? It wouldn't have been a spectacular ending, it would have been rather cliche, but it would have been ultimately satisfactory. (And all the more so if ME2 had actually been designed around setting up the Crucible rather than the ultimately pointless Collector plot.)

[Lethologica]

Maybe you need more time to put forward any kind of defense for the ending? Maybe you'll come up with some kind of even passable defense.

Cause it absolutely was.

Even though I disagree with Psyren on a lot of things, one thing that is absolutely beyond dispute is that Psyren has spilled more ink producing various degrees of passable defense for the ending than you could reasonably require.

Anyway, count me among the people who were never super-invested in the grand overarching conflict with the Reapers and cared way more about stuff happening in the galaxy, and hence didn't think the ending tainted the rest of the series. I had more fun talking to Tali than I ever did talking to a Reaper, whether Sovereign, Harbinger, or the Starchild; I had more fun addressing interspecies conflict than fighting Reapers, too. This is why hearing that Andromeda's aliens were uninspired (or, more accurately, hearing absolutely nothing inspiring about Andromeda's aliens or civilizations) did more to kill my enthusiasm for the series than ME3's ending did. I'm going to spend a lot more time around those aliens than talking to Starchild, that's for sure.

[Psyren]

Who else- you?

Maybe make a defense and we'll see how it lands

Again, who is "we?" A bunch of random people on an internet forum? Why should I care what "lands" with such a group?

Even though I disagree with Psyren on a lot of things, one thing that is absolutely beyond dispute is that Psyren has spilled more ink producing various degrees of passable defense for the ending than you could reasonably require.

I had a lot more time on my hands seven years ago, it's true.

[Morty]

Myself, I considered the ending to be spectacularly poor back when it came out. I still do. I just really can't work out a fraction of the same outrage after all this time. It didn't stop me from replaying and enjoying ME2 and ME3 last year - though not ME1, because I can no longer stomach its gameplay. Yes, it was a bad ending. It happens. Maybe it helps that I've come to realize it was all three games in the making, I guess.

[Rodin]

Anyway, count me among the people who were never super-invested in the grand overarching conflict with the Reapers and cared way more about stuff happening in the galaxy, and hence didn't think the ending tainted the rest of the series. I had more fun talking to Tali than I ever did talking to a Reaper, whether Sovereign, Harbinger, or the Starchild; I had more fun addressing interspecies conflict than fighting Reapers, too. This is why hearing that Andromeda's aliens were uninspired (or, more accurately, hearing absolutely nothing inspiring about Andromeda's aliens or civilizations) did more to kill my enthusiasm for the series than ME3's ending did. I'm going to spend a lot more time around those aliens than talking to Starchild, that's for sure.

My enthusiasm for Andromeda was dented by the gameplay, but I intended to gamely press on for the characters. Then I met the friendly alien race, along with getting properly introduced to the villainous race.

I just...didn't continue. I didn't see any hint of the creativity that went into designing the Quarians or the Hanar. They seemed very generic, and I lost the will to dig in and find out if there was a compelling story beneath the surface. By what I've later heard, this was the correct decision.

It's just so frustrating. This was their chance to correct their mistake with the original trilogy and go in with a full Babylon 5 style "5 year plan" that builds the world and the major plot points going in, with an ending already written. Instead, they seem to have made it as basic as possible to do...something. Avoid pissing off fans of the OT, maybe. Make it as open as possible because they weren't sure if they'd get a sequel. Something.

I just really, really don't get what their plan was. Looking back at the game, it almost seems like they used it as a testbed for Anthem instead of their flagship series.

[Erloas]

The ending wasn't great, but as pointed out, the majority of the interesting sub-plots to the story were handled before the last 5 minutes of the game. The end wasn't great, but very few games ever have amazing endings, and this wasn't really out of line with expectations.

The main issue I have with the complaints, is that every "amazingly superior ending" that people put forth, is that they are just as bad, in fact, many are much worse because they completely ignore or would require fundamentally changing other parts of the story that made the games as good as they are. They seem to willfully ignore the actual setting.
Which isn't to say that the ending couldn't have been improved. The synthesis ending did have a lot of foreshadowing to it, and it does fit the setting, it just needed more exposition to really sell but that wouldn't have really fit in the situation. Even the name of the weapon implies this was probably the "canon" ending. They also put both other options as themes throughout the setting, they just don't simply state that "this choice is essentially the same as the choice X character made during their sub-plot."

The endings needed work, but the ends weren't a failure in theme/design they were just weak in implementation and execution of the story. As I see it, someone that says the endings didn't fundamentally work, weren't actually paying attention to what was going on in the rest of the story.

[Name_Here]

Again, who is "we?" A bunch of random people on an internet forum? Why should I care what "lands" with such a group?

Well it would be the first time either of us mention a "we" which in this context would be you and me.

As for why you would care you're the one who spouted some hot nonsense into the conversation.

[Serenity]

The ending wasn't great, but as pointed out, the majority of the interesting sub-plots to the story were handled before the last 5 minutes of the game. The end wasn't great, but very few games ever have amazing endings, and this wasn't really out of line with expectations.

The main issue I have with the complaints, is that every "amazingly superior ending" that people put forth, is that they are just as bad, in fact, many are much worse because they completely ignore or would require fundamentally changing other parts of the story that made the games as good as they are. They seem to willfully ignore the actual setting.
Which isn't to say that the ending couldn't have been improved. The synthesis ending did have a lot of foreshadowing to it, and it does fit the setting, it just needed more exposition to really sell but that wouldn't have really fit in the situation. Even the name of the weapon implies this was probably the "canon" ending. They also put both other options as themes throughout the setting, they just don't simply state that "this choice is essentially the same as the choice X character made during their sub-plot."

The endings needed work, but the ends weren't a failure in theme/design they were just weak in implementation and execution of the story. As I see it, someone that says the endings didn't fundamentally work, weren't actually paying attention to what was going on in the rest of the story.

What foreshadowing would that be? Joker having a romantic relationship with EDI? The Geth and Quarians making peace? Maybe if you squint, but those also run directly counter to the entire premise of the choice in the first place.

[Zevox]

Because at its core Mass Effect was supposed to be this epic space opera with you shaping the fate of the galaxy. So we spend a decade on these games and make dozens of decisions along the way and it's all built up to be important. Then you get to the end and none of decisions matter. Not. A. Single. One. How are you supposed to replay and enjoy the series when you know that the entire premise is a lie? It's a choose your own adventure book where every path leads to the same last page.

Much as I agree that the ending of ME3 was poor, I find myself confused by that argument for why. Because that's just standard Bioware. Your decisions over the course of the whole game never really change even your options, much less the outcome, once you reach the ending, they're mostly focused around how you resolve all the various sub-plots. I mean, just think of Dragon Age: Origins for example - once you get down to the nitty-gritty of fighting the Archdemon, your choices are either to go along with Morrigan's ritual or not, and if you don't you just get to choose whether it's you or Alistair/Loghain who sacrifices yourself to finish it off. Doesn't matter who you sided with all throughout the entire rest of the game, it always comes down to deciding either to let someone die or risk whatever may come of the Old God Baby.

Or in Mass Effect 1, where you always fight and kill Saren/Sovereign the exact same way, and the only choice you have at the end is the very tangential one of whether to save the Council or not.

ME2 is perhaps the only one where you can argue that your decisions earlier impact the ending, insofar as if you fail to secure the loyalty of various squad members or don't buy the appropriate upgrades for the Normandy, people die who otherwise don't. But ultimately the suicide mission's end results are the same aside from which members of your crew survive: you destroy the Human Reaper and either destroy or capture the Collector base.

It's not a surprise to me therefore that ME3's ending didn't hinge upon how many people you saved or who was or wasn't on your side at the end of things. It was just a surprise how poorly executed and written what we actually got was.

Myself, I considered the ending to be spectacularly poor back when it came out. I still do. I just really can't work out a fraction of the same outrage after all this time. It didn't stop me from replaying and enjoying ME2 and ME3 last year - though not ME1, because I can no longer stomach its gameplay. Yes, it was a bad ending. It happens. Maybe it helps that I've come to realize it was all three games in the making, I guess.

Same here, basically. Haven't replayed the series in a while myself, but that's partially due to my free time just declining as the years have gone on. Hard to find time to replay anything as long as the Mass Effect games.

[Psyren]

Well it would be the first time either of us mention a "we" which in this context would be you and me.

As for why you would care you're the one who spouted some hot nonsense into the conversation.

My point exactly - I already know what both of our responses will be, especially given your rather... descriptive language above. Ergo, I don't.

I just really, really don't get what their plan was. Looking back at the game, it almost seems like they used it as a testbed for Anthem instead of their flagship series.

Gameplay-wise it certainly was. But that's nothing extraordinary, every successive title has built on the refinements of the one before.

Narrative-wise, I'm sure part of the "Anthem's" status as do-anything magic was so they could provide oodles of guilt-free gunplay, without the awkward subtext of the Division or Andromeda, or the cliché dichotomy of Destiny and (to a lesser extent) Warframe.

The ending wasn't great, but as pointed out, the majority of the interesting sub-plots to the story were handled before the last 5 minutes of the game. The end wasn't great, but very few games ever have amazing endings, and this wasn't really out of line with expectations.

The main issue I have with the complaints, is that every "amazingly superior ending" that people put forth, is that they are just as bad, in fact, many are much worse because they completely ignore or would require fundamentally changing other parts of the story that made the games as good as they are. They seem to willfully ignore the actual setting.
Which isn't to say that the ending couldn't have been improved. The synthesis ending did have a lot of foreshadowing to it, and it does fit the setting, it just needed more exposition to really sell but that wouldn't have really fit in the situation. Even the name of the weapon implies this was probably the "canon" ending. They also put both other options as themes throughout the setting, they just don't simply state that "this choice is essentially the same as the choice X character made during their sub-plot."

The endings needed work, but the ends weren't a failure in theme/design they were just weak in implementation and execution of the story. As I see it, someone that says the endings didn't fundamentally work, weren't actually paying attention to what was going on in the rest of the story.

Pretty much that, yeah. Thanks for saving me the time.

[Kish]

What foreshadowing would that be? Joker having a romantic relationship with EDI? The Geth and Quarians making peace? Maybe if you squint, but those also run directly counter to the entire premise of the choice in the first place.

That they do.

The ending should have been something that upheld that biological and synthetic life could coexist--like everything in the games except the ramblings of that reaper on Rannoch supports. Not "oh no actually, your choices are: destroy, enslave, or merge with and cease to exist as distinct categories. You ungrateful peons want another option? Fine, we'll give you 'be destroyed by!'"

[Rodin]

Gameplay-wise it certainly was. But that's nothing extraordinary, every successive title has built on the refinements of the one before.

Narrative-wise, I'm sure part of the "Anthem's" status as do-anything magic was so they could provide oodles of guilt-free gunplay, without the awkward subtext of the Division or Andromeda, or the cliché dichotomy of Destiny and (to a lesser extent) Warframe.

What I mean by that is more than just refinements in gameplay. Dragon Age 2 decided to try out a more action oriented combat system and Inquisition rolled with that, and that's fine.

No, I'm talking about fundamental game design choices for a game in a different genre. Andromeda feels like a single-player MMO, which makes a lot of sense if you consider that they had Anthem in mind when they were designing it. And it simply doesn't fit - the game world feels incredibly empty and the combat disjointed, almost like you're supposed to be running around with a squad and encountering other players. I posit that they knew they were going to be abandoning the RPG side and going into the profitable world of looter-shooters, and decided to use Andromeda as a test bed.

I mean, it's more likely that they just tried to make an open world game and failed utterly. I still find the idea appealing, because otherwise the answer is that they were just that incompetent.

[Anteros]

Whoo! Double whammy!

Like I posted earlier, I challenge you to come up with an ending that actually did have meaningful choice in the final moments. Because 'activate the Plot Device to defeat the Reapers' was a pretty predicable ending that you could see coming right from the first mission of ME3. Even ME1 if I had really thought about it. So no, it didn't bother me when that was the only choice at the end, because what other choices were there?

Seriously, come up with something.

Because what I'm finding is a lot of people were quite frankly either deluding themselves or not thinking about it. Actually, sorry, I forgot that the hype did promise an ending like you described. I just never believed them. But anyways, I was not shocked or surprised or disappointed by the ending that was given me, because that was the logical result of the entire ME3 game. I mean, it wasn't great. There was a few stupid things, and yeah, they really could have expanded more on what happened after you win then a voice over. Give us a full, proper epilogue.

But the activation of the Crucible? That was just standard space opera right there. I'm not going to complain about it any more then I am about Star Wars having the Death Star blow up to a single

The ending shouldn't have a meaningful choice in the final minutes at all. It should be a culmination of your decisions over the course of the games. Of course any alternative anyone gives you is going to fall flat. They're working with bad material to start with. It's like asking someone to re-write the last 5 pages of twilight and then complaining it's not Hemingway. At the very minimum you would need to re-write the entire third game's plot to make something passable.

[Friv]

So, if I were going to redo the trilogy with minimal changes, just for the hell of it, here's the way I'd go:

Mass Effect 2

Honestly, most of the changes here would just be minor annoyances more than anything huge.

Change #1 - The attack on the Normandy is carried out by "Reaper Cultists". The Citadel is aware of them, but every species is concerned that Indoctrinated cultists have infiltrated the ranks of other governments, and that's why everyone is building up their own forces instead of joining together and helping out. "Harbinger" is the mysterious leader of the cult, and hates Shepherd with a ludicrous passion. The Illusive Man resurrects Shepherd to draw "Harbinger" out of hiding, because he thinks the cult leader will make more mistakes trying to kill them. But surprise! Harbinger is a Reaper, working on the backup plan since Sovereign died - turn worlds and societies against each other with minimal risk. You track him to the Collector world and kill him, but a lot of the damage is done. There are cultists all over and the Reapers are almost here...

Change #2 - Cerberus is called the Phoenix Foundation, and is otherwise identical. You find out that the Phoenix Foundation funds Project Cerberus late enough in the game to actually potentially like people. This fixes the disconnect between ME1 and ME2 Cerberus.

Change #3 - You start by recruited Morinth, who is being chased by a mysterious and implacable Asari Justicar because, she claims, of her bloodline. You only find out she's a killer after she's been on the ship long enough to have connections, making choosing between her and Samara an actual choice.

And done! Nearly the entire plot can stay the same, the gameplay can stay, all the cool side quests can stay.

Mass Effect 3

The information gained from the Protheans in the previous cycle has been studied and gives insight into Reaper technology. Combined with the Geth virus Legion gave you in Mass Effect 2 and the bioweapon research Mordin used against the Krogran, it could be turned into a networked virus to reprogram or destroy the Reapers by simultaneously attacking their biological and synthetic parts. Now you have to convince various planets to pour resources into this established superweapon while the Reapers are smashing the hell out of them. All the sub-missions can be the same, except that they add resources to the Crucible. Then Cerberus moves to take it over because they got too close to one of Harbinger's many traps from the previous game, and you have to take them out.

[5crownik007]

My view :
ME1
Excellent first entry in terms of story, gunplay isn't really anything to write home about.
ME2
Pauses the main storyline for an interesting extended sidequest. Characters are deeply explored. Reaper human at the end was completely ridiculous. Gunplay improved significantly, rpg elements disemphasized.
ME3
Couldn't bring myself to finish it so I watched someone else. Dissatisfying.
MEA
Never played.

[Name_Here]

Maybe you can make a more detailed accusation then just 'it was really bad' first? I mean, I defend the ending of ME3, but I still only give it a C grade wise. There is tons of room for improvement to actually make that ending shine.

I have of course done so. But okay. Starting with the biggest.

1. The fact that it just ends. No exploration of what any of the endings meant for the galaxy nothing just a still frame with a pointless narration. Nothing about how our actions panned out no vignettes about what became of the crew. At best you get a half second of your armor and a single breath. That's it. So it fails to be an ending outside of the fact that it ended.

2. The utter lack of any meaningful conversations with the crew. I can remember at least one conversation with every member of the crew over un each game that had real emotions and gravitas. The third game I can't remember one. They tried to cover it up by adding in some new characters but it didn't work for me when there were just long swaths when characters gave me the brush off.

3. The end choices are fundamentally silly. Control is obviously a terrible idea as proven by the conversation you had right before getting into the chamber. Synthesis is by far the stupidest scifi magic I've ever seen and such a pathetic pull from the writers that if the head writer had floated it by literally anybody it would have been laughed out of the room.

That leaves destruction as the only ending that isn't completely stupid. Which is a problem because as talked about previously is only an ending in the most technical terms. And then all of that's just laid on your feet from a character that you've never met or had any kind of information on.

4. The final confrontations. Kai Leng is a complete joke throughout the entire game having him be the final boss battle makes no sense. It's not fun it's not interesting nor did it work in any way. Next we had the final battle which was a dreary slog that was actively worse than the multiplayer matches that you had to do to get the best endings. Then the final confrontation against an indoctrinated TIM which even as a guy who liked TIM was a waste of time. The only thing at all interesting about it was the fact that you couldn't just shoot him which makes it a less emotionally charged and less interesting version of the colonist mission in the first game.

5. The way that the source of the conflict is a idea that hadn't been explored before. This is the grand finale not the time to toss out the themes that the rest of the game explored.

6. The war asset system. Solely put into the game to give some kind of closure on the choices.

[warty goblin]

I never bothered to play ME 3, since the first couple hours of ME 2 made it abundantly clear that they'd turned Shepard from competent soldier who saves the day through having the right skills and a piece of the puzzle that nobody else has, into Shepard: Space Assault Rifle Jesus. Also that, instead of characters being a thing I could pay attention to in measure to my interest, they were now a thing I pretty much just had to do. Since Bioware characters have an at-best 30% hit-rate for me, I did not find this an enticing prospect.

Also I was an annoying little contrarian twerp*, and since the entire world was acting like ME2 was like unto digital perfection, I had something of a grudge going in.


So I harbor ME3's ending no actual ill will. To me it mostly seems like a dumb choice, because even at the time, it had to be obvious that it would make writing sequels fundamentally really hard. Wetting the bed of one of your two franchises seems like bad planning both as a business and creative decision.

To give Bioware credit, Andromeda *almost* managed the nigh-impossible task of unwetting that particular bed with some level of grace via a fairly clever sort of reset button. Then it went and wet the new bed with, um, nearly everything it did. So woo.

Bottom line I guess, cough up another $100k a year for a sensible continuity manager sort of person with custodial power over the universe, and allow them to stomp on dumb ideas that will bork things up eternally.


*Now I'm an slightly larger contrarian twerp who's learned to shut up and therefore be less annoying.

[Sermil]

Looking back, Mass Effect 2 was a very early warning sign of what EA were going to do to Bioware.

The tone, theme, and intent of the work was very different, and it mostly carried itself on the strength of the party characters.

From the perspective of "fighting the Reapers" nothing in Mass Effect 2 mattered.

The whole thing was one giant sidequest, of which the outcome mattered not at all to the wider plot.

As opposed to, say, Baldur's Gate II? Which was definitely pre-EA.

What did Baldur's Gate II has to do with the wider plot of you becoming the new God of Murder? Nothing. Zilch. I don't think you even fight another Bhaalspawn in the game.

Within the game, was it a great plot? No, you had an (admittedly great, but short) first chapter about how evil Irenicus is, and then he disappears. Basically for the rest of the game. Sure, there's like 10 minutes in the middle (in Spellhold) where he shows up to make some evil villain speeches and do some completely arbitrary "the plot demands I do this stupid thing but I'll laugh evilly so you think it's part of a master plan" actions. And a final 10 minutes which was so boring I don't even remember them.

What do I remember? The side quests. The characters. The character-driven side quests. Minsc, of course. Nalia's keep and her unexpected family problems. Mazzy's heroism. The wonderful title theme. Fighting that **** beholder.

This has always been Bioware's Modus Operandi. Don't just blame it on EA.

[Forum Explorer]

I have of course done so. But okay. Starting with the biggest.

1. The fact that it just ends. No exploration of what any of the endings meant for the galaxy nothing just a still frame with a pointless narration. Nothing about how our actions panned out no vignettes about what became of the crew. At best you get a half second of your armor and a single breath. That's it. So it fails to be an ending outside of the fact that it ended.

2. The utter lack of any meaningful conversations with the crew. I can remember at least one conversation with every member of the crew over un each game that had real emotions and gravitas. The third game I can't remember one. They tried to cover it up by adding in some new characters but it didn't work for me when there were just long swaths when characters gave me the brush off.

3. The end choices are fundamentally silly. Control is obviously a terrible idea as proven by the conversation you had right before getting into the chamber. Synthesis is by far the stupidest scifi magic I've ever seen and such a pathetic pull from the writers that if the head writer had floated it by literally anybody it would have been laughed out of the room.

That leaves destruction as the only ending that isn't completely stupid. Which is a problem because as talked about previously is only an ending in the most technical terms. And then all of that's just laid on your feet from a character that you've never met or had any kind of information on.

4. The final confrontations. Kai Leng is a complete joke throughout the entire game having him be the final boss battle makes no sense. It's not fun it's not interesting nor did it work in any way. Next we had the final battle which was a dreary slog that was actively worse than the multiplayer matches that you had to do to get the best endings. Then the final confrontation against an indoctrinated TIM which even as a guy who liked TIM was a waste of time. The only thing at all interesting about it was the fact that you couldn't just shoot him which makes it a less emotionally charged and less interesting version of the colonist mission in the first game.

5. The way that the source of the conflict is a idea that hadn't been explored before. This is the grand finale not the time to toss out the themes that the rest of the game explored.

6. The war asset system. Solely put into the game to give some kind of closure on the choices.

1. Sure, I agree. I wish they did give us an actual epilogue.

2.That's not an problem with the ending. Also I do remember conversations, such as encouraging Kaiden to become a Spectre, rejecting Liara, ordering Grunt to sacrifice his squad to save the Rachini queen, Mordin's death, and talking to Wrex before the final battle.

3. Agreed. Destruction is the only logical choice, and thus they really should've just worked on fleshing it out more then throwing in Control and Synthesis which were either dumb or almost completely unexplored.

4. Kai Leng was a waste in general, but I wouldn't consider him a final boss. But maybe that's just because he is that forgettable. I liked both the final battle and the confrontation with TIM, so I just disagree with both of those. Oh, but I'm pretty sure I did shoot TIM.

5. Not entirely sure I understand, but yes, the entire Star Child thing wasn't very good.

6. Not an ending problem, also I disagree. It was more a way to give you context on if you messed up or not with your choices. The closure came from the immediate impact of those decisions earlier.

My enthusiasm for Andromeda was dented by the gameplay, but I intended to gamely press on for the characters. Then I met the friendly alien race, along with getting properly introduced to the villainous race.

I just...didn't continue. I didn't see any hint of the creativity that went into designing the Quarians or the Hanar. They seemed very generic, and I lost the will to dig in and find out if there was a compelling story beneath the surface. By what I've later heard, this was the correct decision.

It's just so frustrating. This was their chance to correct their mistake with the original trilogy and go in with a full Babylon 5 style "5 year plan" that builds the world and the major plot points going in, with an ending already written. Instead, they seem to have made it as basic as possible to do...something. Avoid pissing off fans of the OT, maybe. Make it as open as possible because they weren't sure if they'd get a sequel. Something.

I just really, really don't get what their plan was. Looking back at the game, it almost seems like they used it as a testbed for Anthem instead of their flagship series.

Andromeda is a classic example of a cash in. There are videos on youtube explaining exactly how it's a cash in, if you are interested. But for whatever reason EA likely pushed Bioware to crap out a game using the Mass Effect title for a quick profit. Which got them that quick profit, but has almost certainly killed the Mass Effect series, and likely alienated a good part of Bioware's fans.

[Psyren]

What was so bad about Control? The Catalyst tells you that it wouldn't work for TIM because he was indoctrinated. If it truly wanted you to fail or die, it could have just left you at the bottom of the elevator to bleed out.

As for Synthesis, literally the only downside is that nobody could choose to opt out. I don't really understand why anyone but a Luddite would choose to, but liberties are liberties.

[Forum Explorer]

What was so bad about Control? The Catalyst tells you that it wouldn't work for TIM because he was indoctrinated. If it truly wanted you to fail or die, it could have just left you at the bottom of the elevator to bleed out.

As for Synthesis, literally the only downside is that nobody could choose to opt out. I don't really understand why anyone but a Luddite would choose to, but liberties are liberties.

A couple of things. The first one is that I didn't believe anything the Star Child said. (Did it have control over the elevator? I'm pretty sure it didn't.) The second big one is a classic. Namely 'Today I'm a good man. Who knows who I'll be tomorrow?' Or if you prefer, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wouldn't trust anyone with that level of power.

Synthesis' biggest problem is it's really vague. Like what does it even mean to be Synthesized? Am I cyborg? Because Shepherd was already a cyborg by that point. Why would that magically get the Reaper's to stop attacking anyways? Or at least, make sure they don't one day resume attacking. But again, what is Synthesis anyways? I could be wiping out emotions for all I know. Or amplifying them. Or turning everyone into clones of one another. I have no frigging idea from the conversation.

Also yes, it is a massive violation of everyone's body.


As for why Destruction, I've been fighting and trying to kill the Reapers since game 1. They've done absolutely nothing to garner any sympathy, or suggest they can be redeemed. I'm not going to hold back at the final hour against a galactic genocidal monster.

[Douglas]

3. Agreed. Destruction is the only logical choice, and thus they really should've just worked on fleshing it out more then throwing in Control and Synthesis which were either dumb or almost completely unexplored.

Synthesis is silly, but I disagree about Control.

When TIM talks about it, yes it's stupid, but that's because of his motives and how he's gone about pursuing it. TIM is a supremely ambitious man, and allowed his greed to overrule his prudence, taking risks with poorly understood enemy technology to try to forcibly take control even though he should have known the risk of becoming Indoctrinated instead.

The Star Child is an entity that has you at its mercy, and offers you Control when if it wanted you dead it could have just let you bleed out on the floor below. It is an entity that gives you answers, for the first time giving you a reason for why the Cycle exists, a reason that, as flawed as its logic might seem, does fit and explain the Reapers' actions. And part of that reason is a motive, a reason for why it would be willing to accept transferring control to you. The Star Child has no need to lie to you, you are too injured and poorly armed to stop it from doing whatever it wants to, and the option of Control fits a cohesive picture of the whole Reaper situation that you knew had to exist but never had the information to see before that moment.

My Paragon Shepard chose Control, seeing it as a genuine option for the reasons I just described, and as a self-sacrifice that would achieve the best available outcome. Destroy would genocide the Geth along with the Reapers. Synthesis, even if you handwave the space magic involved, would be imposing a change on the bodies and even identities of an entire galactic population, and that's not a decision he felt he had the right to make. Control saves everyone, Geth included, vastly increases the resources available for rebuilding, and costs only his own life.

A couple of things. The first one is that I didn't believe anything the Star Child said. (Did it have control over the elevator? I'm pretty sure it didn't.) The second big one is a classic. Namely 'Today I'm a good man. Who knows who I'll be tomorrow?' Or if you prefer, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wouldn't trust anyone with that level of power.

I'm pretty sure it did have control over the "elevator" (which was more like a piece of the floor magically floating up), and brought you up specifically to have that conversation.

The second point, I don't have an answer for beyond fallible self-assessment of personal corruptibility.

[Kish]

As opposed to, say, Baldur's Gate II? Which was definitely pre-EA.

What did Baldur's Gate II has to do with the wider plot of you becoming the new God of Murder? Nothing. Zilch. I don't think you even fight another Bhaalspawn in the game.

It had as much, and as little, to do with "you becoming the new God of Murder" as Baldur's Gate I did. (In each game, the villain had a plan to become a god and you had both personal and global reasons to oppose the villain's scheme; in BG1 it was pretty clear that Sarevok's scheme would actually have led to his own death and Bhaal's resurrection.)

The question you should be asking isn't, "Why were the two vastly better games not on Throne of Bhaal's page?" The question you should be asking is, "Who the hell thought Throne of Bhaal was a good idea?"

[Forum Explorer]

Synthesis is silly, but I disagree about Control.

When TIM talks about it, yes it's stupid, but that's because of his motives and how he's gone about pursuing it. TIM is a supremely ambitious man, and allowed his greed to overrule his prudence, taking risks with poorly understood enemy technology to try to forcibly take control even though he should have known the risk of becoming Indoctrinated instead.

The Star Child is an entity that has you at its mercy, and offers you Control when if it wanted you dead it could have just let you bleed out on the floor below. It is an entity that gives you answers, for the first time giving you a reason for why the Cycle exists, a reason that, as flawed as its logic might seem, does fit and explain the Reapers' actions. And part of that reason is a motive, a reason for why it would be willing to accept transferring control to you. The Star Child has no need to lie to you, you are too injured and poorly armed to stop it from doing whatever it wants to, and the option of Control fits a cohesive picture of the whole Reaper situation that you knew had to exist but never had the information to see before that moment.

My Paragon Shepard chose Control, seeing it as a genuine option for the reasons I just described, and as a self-sacrifice that would achieve the best available outcome. Destroy would genocide the Geth along with the Reapers. Synthesis, even if you handwave the space magic involved, would be imposing a change on the bodies and even identities of an entire galactic population, and that's not a decision he felt he had the right to make. Control saves everyone, Geth included, vastly increases the resources available for rebuilding, and costs only his own life.

It's been a very long time, so maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure we got to the Star Child on our own power, and it is nothing more then a hologram. It can't actually do anything to stop you. (Which by the way, should've been an option. Literally walking through the Star Child, and ignoring it entirely)

I mean, I certainly can find a clip of Anderson fiddling with some sort of control panel earlier, even if I can't find anything saying what he's doing.

[Kish]

(Which by the way, should've been an option. Literally walking through the Star Child, and ignoring it entirely)

They added the "reject" option, you know.

It was such a blatant "asterisks you" to all the people who complained about the three choices they had that I'd call it the opposite of a selling point by far, but it's the option you want: refusing to go along with the Star Child. No Destroy, no Control, no Synthesis. The Starchild says "The cycle continues" and you get returned to Earth to watch the Reapers finish destroying it.

[Forum Explorer]

They added the "reject" option, you know.

It was such a blatant "asterisks you" to all the people who complained about the three choices they had that I'd call it the opposite of a selling point by far, but it's the option you want: refusing to go along with the Star Child. No Destroy, no Control, no Synthesis. The Starchild says "The cycle continues" and you get returned to Earth to watch the Reapers finish destroying it.

That's not at all what I want. Because you then walk away and stupidly let the Reapers destroy everything. No, I'm talking about ignoring the Star Child. It tries to talk to you, you don't reply and just walk through it. You still get either the Control, Destroy, or Synthesis ending. You just skip the whole dialogue beforehand.

Alternatively, calling it out. Rightly or wrongly saying that you don't believe anything it has to say, and proceeding to the ending of your choice.

[Psyren]

(Did it have control over the elevator? I'm pretty sure it didn't.)

It did. Shepard and Anderson didn't do anything at the console. (And even if they did, collapsing right on top of the bit of floor that would transport him/her is beyond coincidence.)

The second big one is a classic. Namely 'Today I'm a good man. Who knows who I'll be tomorrow?' Or if you prefer, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wouldn't trust anyone with that level of power.

That's just a sequel hook, much like giving Morrigan the god baby in DAO was. Sure it can turn out badly, but that's what the next set of heroes are for.

Synthesis' biggest problem is it's really vague. Like what does it even mean to be Synthesized? Am I cyborg? Because Shepherd was already a cyborg by that point. Why would that magically get the Reaper's to stop attacking anyways? Or at least, make sure they don't one day resume attacking. But again, what is Synthesis anyways? I could be wiping out emotions for all I know. Or amplifying them. Or turning everyone into clones of one another. I have no frigging idea from the conversation.

It's pretty obviously talking about triggering The Singularity in everybody. That's where we were headed anyway, it just jumped us all ahead a millennium or so.

As for why Destruction, I've been fighting and trying to kill the Reapers since game 1. They've done absolutely nothing to garner any sympathy, or suggest they can be redeemed. I'm not going to hold back at the final hour against a galactic genocidal monster.

Even if that means screwing the Geth and EDI? Never mind the next race of AI (and there will inevitably be one) that potentially discovers what you did up there. Are you trusting them to be understanding and forgiving of organic shortsightedness?

[Douglas]

It's been a very long time, so maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure we got to the Star Child on our own power, and it is nothing more then a hologram. It can't actually do anything to stop you. (Which by the way, should've been an option. Literally walking through the Star Child, and ignoring it entirely)

I mean, I certainly can find a clip of Anderson fiddling with some sort of control panel earlier, even if I can't find anything saying what he's doing.

Right here. Shepard collapses, having tried and failed to reach a control panel, then with him just lying there a column of light turns on and the piece of floor he's on floats up it. Shepard is just barely managing to shakily start getting up when the Star Child walks up to him. Shepard got as far as the floor below under his own power, but the Star Child brought him the rest of the way. And while the representation you speak to is a hologram, it is controlled by an AI that has some significant control over local Citadel systems (as shown by it bringing you up), and has complete control over the Reapers (unless you think it's lying about that too, but then what would be the point?). If it wanted to stop you, it had the resources to do it, the simplest being just leaving you where you collapsed.

[Forum Explorer]

It did. Shepard and Anderson didn't do anything at the console. (And even if they did, collapsing right on top of the bit of floor that would transport him/her is beyond coincidence.)



That's just a sequel hook, much like giving Morrigan the god baby in DAO was. Sure it can turn out badly, but that's what the next set of heroes are for.



It's pretty obviously talking about triggering The Singularity in everybody. That's where we were headed anyway, it just jumped us all ahead a millennium or so.



Even if that means screwing the Geth and EDI? Never mind the next race of AI (and there will inevitably be one) that potentially discovers what you did up there. Are you trusting them to be understanding and forgiving of organic shortsightedness?

I suppose I'll take your word for it, but a clip would be golden.


...That sounds dumb. I'm talking about giving Morrigan the god-baby. I never finished that game, so yeah, that sounds like a really bad idea. I don't even know what the god-baby is. It could even just be a shiny but otherwise normal baby. I still wouldn't trust Morrigan with it. Oh, and saying that it's a sequel hook sounds like a perfect reason for Shepherd to not pick that option.


Cool cool. And for all the gamers who don't know what the Singularity is, what is it? And why didn't we get that description in the game? Seriously, 'perfection through technology' is super vague.


The way I played, I would have chosen Destroy if it wiped the Sol system barren of life and set galactic technology back to the stone age with there being zero possibility of ever rebuilding the Mass Relays. Because hey, that's still better the genocide of every other race. And I legitimately didn't believe anything the Star Child said.

Right here. Shepard collapses, having tried and failed to reach a control panel, then with him just lying there a column of light turns on and the piece of floor he's on floats up it. Shepard is just barely managing to shakily start getting up when the Star Child walks up to him. Shepard got as far as the floor below under his own power, but the Star Child brought him the rest of the way. And while the representation you speak to is a hologram, it is controlled by an AI that has some significant control over local Citadel systems (as shown by it bringing you up), and has complete control over the Reapers (unless you think it's lying about that too, but then what would be the point?). If it wanted to stop you, it had the resources to do it, the simplest being just leaving you where you collapsed.

Thank you!

Okay, quick question then. Why didn't it stop you? Particularly if you don't have the ability to choose anything other then Destroy?