Mass Effect 3 - Page 115

None of it happened, at the conclusion of the game Shepard is still in the rubble by the citadel. Thats why everything is up in the air still.

Now that I think of it, Sovereign didn't want to explain why reapers do what they do to Shepard because it was too complex, the same thing is told by the reaper on Rannoch. A bit weird that we get an explanation at the end, even if it makes little sense. Perhaps humans not being able to understand the reaper's motives and the weird ending are tied!

Tali commiting suicide after the Quarians were destroyed by the geth, Wrex's fury when he finds out that Shepard tricked him, Mordin getting shot by Shepard

- The starchild showing out of nowhere at the last 10 minutes of the game before the end, presenting a faulty logic and choices. His logic of "synthetics have to destroy organics because otherwise organics will eventually create synthetics that will eventually wipe out the organics" does not even apply to all the events that we have tackled with throughout the series. First there is the geth, which outside from the heretics and the times when they are controlled by the Reapers, does not even attempt to actively pursue and wipe out the quarian Migrant Fleet after the war even though they can easily do so. Then there is EDI. Hell, even the Reapers themselves,as the pinnacle of synthetics form, does not even follow this logic as they technically only wipe spacefaring organics rather than all. Heck, we don't even have anything more than something resembling a vague idea of what, why, how the starchild is. And also, why would Shepard, which has pretty much made unconventional and sometimes unpopular choices throughout the series, has to conform to the star child's choices? Why can't I just ignore him and just let the battle play out in the background between the Reapers and the coalition forces? Even if say, the Reapers finally wipe the coalition out, I'm sure many people would be more satisfied this way, as you aren't really forced to make choices by a nobody.

- Then there is the issue of choices itself. Anything you have done throughout the game serves no purpose whatsoever throughout the game, only pretty much increasing that virtual EMS bar and causing the so-called promised "wildly different endings" to have R/G/B beams and Big Ben getting destroyed or not. Many can probably agree that your choices made in ME1 and ME2 influence each of their respective endings more than ME3. If you fail to do certain upgrades, choose the unsuitable squadmate for the task, or gain loyalty of a certain squad member for example, you can lose some or even let your entire squad be slaughtered during the suicide mission in ME2. Heck, Shepard can even get killed. It's intriguing how seemingly minor choices made before the mission can have such detrimental effects towards your squad. Yet, in ME3 your choices barely have any effect at all at determining the course of a galactic-wide war against the most powerful entity the galaxy has ever known? What?

- Then there is the lack of closure, not to mention why would certain things happen in the ending sequences. We don't know what happened with the rest of the squads or the galactic armies. What happened with the rest of the squads? Why would Joker suddenly be jumping from a relay? Why are my 2 squadmates who were killed in final battle survive unscathed from the Normandy wreckage? What happened with the rest of the galactic force? There is no need to have a cutscene for everyone although that will be great. There is not even slideshow presentation ala DA:O of the fate of the squads or the rest of the gaalctic armies. Again, we do not ask for ideal happily-ever-after endings, but even well-made tragic or sad endings have a sense of closure. ME3 ending is not good nor well-made bad or tragic ending, nor is it a twist ending, it is an incomplete ending. The ending does not answer questions, it even creates more questions in the minds of players.

If the purpose of killing some organics every 50,000 years was to avoid them creating synthetics which would kill ALL organics, then why can't the reapers just wait for that to happen and step in? Killing them every 50,000 years assumes that they necessarily are going to create that synthetic which will kill all of the organics. For starters, we don't know if that is true (and obvious there is proof to the opposite, like the reapers and geth). Second, even if it is true, why not just wait for that to happen and then join the fight on the side of the organics to stop the synthetics if and when they try to wipe out all organic life? Are the reapers afraid they wouldn't be able to stop the synthetics? Seems unlikely.

I think the reapers killing off organic life can work story wise. It doesn''t make sense the way it was often put in this thread. But that's because it was just executed poorly.
Anyway, this whole story line was taken from an SF novel and the way it was explained there did make sense and one would never think about brining up this argument. For the perspective of humans it makes no sense to them to explain them they have to die so organic life doesn't die. I agree there kind of is a plot hole here but that's just because of 'lazyness' not to fill it.

In fact, I don't think it wasn't filled. It really seems to me the ending was completely rushed. One reason may be disagreement between th dev team and the management board who wanted to release it. Maybe the fast DLC was already a compromise because EA calculated Mass Effect 3 was going to lose them money
So I think basically Bioware tried to convince them to let them finish the game properly and EA said 'no'. So Bioware made them this ending to troll them.
It's just waiting for someone to say they weren't allowed to give the game their ending so they did this to please EA.

Because of this the whole indoctrination thing makes no sense. Also, it makes little sense to sell a DLC because people are going to be pissed off and just pirate it because they are right and moral to do so because in their mind EA stole from them and they are just taking what belongs to them.
This whole wage war on your customers because of pirates has never worked for any company/
The whole indoctrination thing was 100% made up by the players and surely never in the minds of the devs.
If they do redo the ending, which I think is very unlikely, they should apologize, say it was because of time pressure and that it was a mistake and that they are sorry and just remove the fake ending with the real one.
If they are really going to charge money, it will cause more backlash. It would be better PR to keep silent about it and just release other DLCs.
If customers really 'vote' to support devs from making fake endings, where will we go from there? Fake games? You buy a game and you have 75% it works and 25% chance it doesn't and you have to buy a new one. It makes no sense. If they need more money they need to charge more money. If they really make quality games they can ask more. If people don't pay they should make games with less production value. I remember SC2 cost half to market half to make and where half the costs were cinematics and half wes the actual game. Mass Effect has so much spoken dialog. If the game market has really shrunk that much, get rid of all that spoken dialog.
Then if you get outcompeted by devs who need less of a profit margin on their games, tough luck.

If the failed ending really makes EA more money than a proper ending, the decision of the devs to make this ending completely backfired on them and I don't know what at that point I can still say in defense of so called triple A games.

Still even with the ending ME3 storytelling is leagues ahead of SC2 in lack of plotholes. SC2 story is one big plot hole with cheesy dialog and bad voice acting.