I bet Bioware was pressured by EA to finish the game early and they couldn't think endings.

They're on Earth. Earth is near Pluto. Pluto has a Mass Effect Relay. When Relays go "boom," life in their system goes "blargh!" The Mass Effect Relay near Pluto went "boom." Ergo, those factions, plus everyone else on Earth, are now "blargh!"

Except for your ship's crew. In the few minutes between charging the death beam and you wiping out all life on Earth + more solar systems, they found a working teleporter. It took them to the Normandy, which itself teleported several light years to the Relay, which in turn shot all of them to some unidentified jungle world.

They were then eaten by a grue.

While I don't think the ending is the best possible, at least it wasn't predictable. To me, the ending successfully portrayed the desperation and ultimate futility of the struggle, as well as the baffling alienness of the Reapers compared to the relative kinship of the citadel races.

The way I see it, some folks are mad that it doesn't spoon-feed some neat ending in which the hero thrashes the enemy, gets the girl and everyone lives happily ever after; which would be the laziest writing possible and would deservedly draw ire.

In fact, I don't believe many folks actually stopped to ponder the subtleties of the ending before reaching for the internet hate machine. So the ending is not fantastic, so what?

This is a continuation of a discussion from the OT. Excuse the non-sequitir. But then, if you've seen the ending, you're used to that.

*bad-um-tish!*

*ahem*
________________________________________________________________________________________

yo_john117 said:

Well I liked the twist at the end and I think it made more sense then just having the crucible fire and you never really knowing who was behind the cycles and why it happened every 50,000 years or so. I just wish that the ending would have contained more background on the race of the little boy. The whole ending got me thinking and wanting more (which is good). After the credits came up I got the "wow that was really cool" feeling that is so rare in video games.

I would love for someone to make a Mass Effect book explaining that race and their decision to make cycles. (It would be much like the Forunner books for Halo)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

You're actually putting a finger on one of my issues with the ending. Simply put, we DON'T know who was behind the cycles, or why it happened every 50k years. All we know is that some starchild, who resembles some kid you may have been hallucinating since the start of the game, tells you that he's in charge of the Reapers, and that every 50k years they (synthetic machines made from organics) slaughter all the advanced organics in the galaxy because they don't want synthetics to slaughter all the organics in the galaxies.

We don't know who this kid really is, what prompted him/her/it to think that synthetics will inevitably wipe out organics (making peace with the Geth, who've existed peacably in their corner of the galaxy for over 300 years, is just hand-waved away), or much of anything, really.

Stop and ask yourself the following: is the kid a machine? An AI? A VI? Something else? This is relevant, because he's sat inert, in the Citadel, since at least the time of the Rachni Wars. In that time, the Geth (and other AIs) have been created and have established themselves. If the threat of synthetics is really the problem, why has he done precisely nothing? For that matter, what evidence do we have that synthetics will eventually wipe out organics in every galaxy if left unchecked? The only hostile AIs we've seen, in three separate games, are the Reapers and a rogue AI on the Citadel that wanted to escape Citadel space because it wanted to live. On the flipside we have EDI, Legion, and the Geth. We're told at the last seconds of the final game that there's a problem, but we've spent the past two games being told the exact opposite.

Now, let's expand on this lack of closure. You say the end got you thinking, and wanting more. Well, we've been told the series will never chronologically advance beyond this game. So tell me, what happened after the end to anyone or anything in the galaxy?

By the looks of it the reason why so many people disliked the ending is the same reason why I liked it. It pretty much opened up the doorway to a whole new Mass Effect experience (much like Halo 3 to Halo 4, 5 and 6). I know they say there won't be any more Mass Effect but I know in some way, shape or form there will be more. The ending did tie up Shephards story but opened up an opportunity for a whole new story line.

As for the bolded: For all we know whoever the race is that is in charge of the cycles may be in other galaxies as well and have seen it happen countless times or it almost happened in our galaxy and they just managed to stop synthetics before they wiped out organic life and created the cycle as a safeguard so that can never happen again.

Uh, if you want to get personal about it,  you are clearly begging to be spoonfed all conclusions rather than using your imagination. And your grammar clearly shows why.

I loved the game as I played and probably got the most enjoyment from the Mass Effect series with it.

When I got to the ending and saw it for the first time, I was like ok, not great but not terrible. Though I hoped for something a bit more epic, but my expectations were pretty low by that point as I had already heard all the internet fuss about how bad it was.

Anyway, seen as I had a quick save right at the end I decideed to load it up and choose the other two options to see how the ending panned out. Then it really hit me as how bad it was.

It does feel like all the decisions made leading up to that point were pointless and had no effect on the turn out, all the endings were basically the same, and when that hit me it put me off playing the game again which till that point I had planned. But whats the point, if no matter how I go through the game and the choices I make basically have no impact on the final turn out?

EDIT:

Some good points in there, and many I agree with.

If Shepard lives, what happens after that? presumably he died a slow painful death seen as everyone fled and left him to burn(sarcasm). Which like you say, they simply wouldnt have done. But before that point and the final mission when you go around talking to those you met during the series they all seem to be saying farewell to him as if dying is a foregone conclusion.

Yup what you said is just another problem with it. Think I forgot to mention the large amount of plot holes. The squad that are right with you somehow magically appear in space urggg. The only possible explanation is the indoctrination theory however that would be an even worse ending as it would mean the game simply doesn't end at all but rather ends just before the ending of the story. 

The relays is another HUGE problem. In ME2 it made it pretty clear that destroying a relay set off a VAST explosion capable of wiping out an entire system. Yet Shep never questions that all his choices will result in this. That is part of it being out of tone with all the games. 

I swear if a proper ending comes out as DLC that has to be paid for I will be pretty angry about it. The ending I choose doesn't even properly end the game! 

Actually, my post was merely Part 1, Section 1 of why I don't like the ending. I entitle Part 1 the "Not At All Set Up" portion of my answer. Section 2 of Part 1 was going to mention the fact that, if Starchild is correct and synthetics from other galaxies would eventually come here to do what he claims, it logically should have happened already, since there are a ton of galaxies and everything indicates that the Reapers only operate in ours.

Of course, all this raises the bigger issue, namely that we have to guess and hypothesize with next to zero data, because in three separate and lengthy games the possibility we're told about in (just) the ending is never set up, but oft-contradicted. At the very least, this goes counter to the old adage of "show, don't tell." We've been shown A, but at the final moment we're told it's actually B. It's poor storytelling, and it was not at all necessary to set up any sequels.

Now, if you'll answer the question I asked at the end of the last post, we can transition to Part 2, "What's closure?" I've started that conversation with Zim, although we've also bled over into Part 3, "Watch the Plotholes!"

I think it was actually just, "Your kids will make synthetics one day and this shit will happen all over again." Not to take up for Bioshit's godawful writing or anything.