Mass Effect 3 SPOILERS THREAD

[Litfod]

In the other cases of indoctrination I can think of (which isn't many because I haven't scoured the games for every mention of them) there was an extended and close proximity to Reaper tech involved (Saren and Sovereign, that thing in Arrival). How is it supposed to have worked in Shepard's case?

I think IT is quite a likely candidate for the "explanation" DLC, but that doesn't mean I like it, or that the ending of ME3 doesn't suck regardless, or that people aren't giving Bioware way more credit than they deserve by not only pointing out some convincing plot clues, but also reading far too much into endless meaningless details.

 

[Dallows]

In the other cases of indoctrination I can think of (which isn't many because I haven't scoured the games for every mention of them) there was an extended and close proximity to Reaper tech involved (Saren and Sovereign, that thing in Arrival). How is it supposed to have worked in Shepard's case?

I think IT is quite a likely candidate for the "explanation" DLC, but that doesn't mean I like it, or that the ending of ME3 doesn't suck regardless, or that people aren't giving Bioware way more credit than they deserve by not only pointing out some convincing plot clues, but also reading far too much into endless meaningless details.

Shepard has had plenty of exposure to reaper tech. It's been covered already.

Honestly I don't give a shit at this point. What's done is done. You can't change it and you'll never change it for the future. EA will do as they please. I just want my fucking closure. I don't care if it costs me $10. If that makes me the bad guy, or part of the problem, then whatever.

 

[Litfod]

Shepard has had plenty of exposure to reaper tech. It's been covered already.

So have any number of people who haven't been indoctrinated. (S)he wasn't living on a Reaper like Saren, or in a science base using an artifact as a garden ornament like in Arrival.

 

[WBurchnall]

This is a really good video that convinces me of the indoc theory. I really encourage you guys to look at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck&feature=player_embedded

This makes a very compelling case. I also feel the idea of the technological/organic merging ending (blue//paragon) would if anything make it even easier for Reapers to harvest new 'species' as the 'species' are already technological in nature and might not need indoctrination.

Overall, I enjoyed the ending of Mass Effect 3 and the idea of Sephard having been controlled the whole-time is not a terrible ending imo. It leads to a reasonable conclusion that makes you think deeply/rethink everything you thought you knew about the series. Almost making a second-playthrough through the triology where you feel your being controlled worthwhile. Looking for signs/symbolism of the indoctrination.

It does seem like a classic sci-fi ending akin to the Matrix ...2? or 3? where Neo is told that the 'one' is part of the 'system' designed by the Architect and that he's part of the system and that most 'Ones' are suppose to choose to be re-integrated into the system. That choice is an illusion in a system where the system has all the cards. Really, Mass Effect 3 just told the Matrix 2's ending in the architect room where Neo is given the option of choosing between the two doors. One that leads to re-integration and the other that leads to saving trinity.

Except -- you get to see all possible ending this time(albiet, theres 3 doors were 2 lead to integration) and it takes place in space rather than a virtual world.


To an extent, I have to give credit to Bioware for making an ending that causes us to debate/discuss the metaphysical/psychological implications of their ending and one that makes us search the game for clues/justification to backup our theories long after we've gotten 40ish hours of gameplay out of the game. A lot of games, just give us an ending and we never think twice about it, never ask questions and just go 'yup, ok. We win. We get the girl. Hurray!!!' like "NFS: Anything Recently", "The Witcher 2", "Two World's Two" and a few other games I can think of.

If you think ME3's ending sucked harshly, I think The Witcher 2's ending was equally bad. Alternatively, Two Worlds Two's ending was absolutely horrible. The end boss fight really lame. In the end, I think people feel the ending sucked with ME3 because you feel they promised many endings and only gave 3. That your choices didn't matter; In the end though, theoretically, your choice is the ultimate-choice between indoctrination or free will. Between surrender or freedom of mind.

Really though, if you feel there's only one true-ending, the red ending where the other two are just indoctrination. Don't be too surprised. Great authors who have wrote screenplays for movies, books, comic book storyboards and other forms of media have always offered the viewer but one single ending. That which the author chooses or no ending where your left to think for yourself what happens next. I bit, I'd say Bioware went with the later, no?

 

[Dan_D]

So have any number of people who haven't been indoctrinated. (S)he wasn't living on a Reaper like Saren, or in a science base using an artifact as a garden ornament like in Arrival.

OK, you really don't know what you are talking about here. If you pay attention you'll find that all the individuals who spent any significant time near Reaper technology ARE in fact indoctrinated. In the Arrival everyone associated with "The Project" including Amanda Kenson were indoctrinated because they were all just hanging out around that artifact. In fact this is where Shepard probably got the most exposure to the Reaper indoctrination signals. In fact, a device like that one can be found in an N7 mission earlier in ME2. It's guarded by husks. You have to destroy the device to end the mission. So that's not even the only one Shepard has encountered. Shepard has also had conversations with three Reapers by the end of the third game. He's been near countless husks, Cerberus agents, Saren, Matriarch Benezia, etc.

 

[Dan_D]

This makes a very compelling case. I also feel the idea of the technological/organic merging ending (blue//paragon) would if anything make it even easier for Reapers to harvest new 'species' as the 'species' are already technological in nature and might not need indoctrination.

This would assume that the ending can be taken at face value in which synthesis is even possible. The blue/paragon ending simply sends a signal to the Reapers sending them away.

Overall, I enjoyed the ending of Mass Effect 3 and the idea of Sephard having been controlled the whole-time is not a terrible ending imo. It leads to a reasonable conclusion that makes you think deeply/rethink everything you thought you knew about the series. Almost making a second-playthrough through the triology where you feel your being controlled worthwhile. Looking for signs/symbolism of the indoctrination.

He hasn't been controlled the whole time. He's simply fought the indoctrination for years, and finally by forcing despair and doubt into Shepard's psyche, Harbinger has finally caused Shepard to suffer the ill effects of indoctrination. If the theory is right then all of the ending from the time the beam strikes the team onward is nothing more than a representation of Shepard's internal struggle to resist indoctrination. If so, then it's brilliant in the sense that we see and feel the struggle strongly, and some of us were genuinely fooled by it as Shepard could be and some of us weren't. It's certainly thought provoking but it's not what we were essentially sold on when we all bought the game. We expected an ending to Shepard's story, and the indoctrination theory sort of precludes the idea of this being a real ending unless you want to the story to end in failure.

It does seem like a classic sci-fi ending akin to the Matrix ...2? or 3? where Neo is told that the 'one' is part of the 'system' designed by the Architect and that he's part of the system and that most 'Ones' are suppose to choose to be re-integrated into the system. That choice is an illusion in a system where the system has all the cards. Really, Mass Effect 3 just told the Matrix 2's ending in the architect room where Neo is given the option of choosing between the two doors. One that leads to re-integration and the other that leads to saving trinity.

Except -- you get to see all possible ending this time(albiet, theres 3 doors were 2 lead to integration) and it takes place in space rather than a virtual world.

Honestly, it may be classic, but such endings I feel are lazy and a bit of a cop out. Rather than attempting to satisfactorily conclude, they end up being vague and open to far too much interpretation. They confuse dark, vague and shitty with profound and thought provoking and great. Well done (assuming for a second that this is indeed indoctrination) in this case, but again not a real ending. And if the ending is actually to be taken at face value, then it's total shit. Yeah it may follow the classic science fiction pattern but throwing something like an Aurther C. Clarke or Phillip K. Dick ending onto something more like a Star Wars or Star Trek novel is a huge let down. It doesn't fit well with the material presented earlier.

From a literary stand point, there is a video which highlights the problems with the Mass Effect 3 ending. I hadn't thought about it in that regard, but when analyzed that way the ending is about as far from literary genius and quality as you can get. Again assuming it can be taken at face value. Things like altering the central conflict and introducing a new character in the last 5 to 10 minutes of what is basically a 100+ hour saga is horse shit.

To an extent, I have to give credit to Bioware for making an ending that causes us to debate/discuss the metaphysical/psychological implications of their ending and one that makes us search the game for clues/justification to backup our theories long after we've gotten 40ish hours of gameplay out of the game. A lot of games, just give us an ending and we never think twice about it, never ask questions and just go 'yup, ok. We win. We get the girl. Hurray!!!' like "NFS: Anything Recently", "The Witcher 2", "Two World's Two" and a few other games I can think of.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's a stunt. Whether the indoctrination theory holds true or not, BioWare had to know this response was likely. So either it's to create additional controversy, because man sechs isn't enough for more than one or two news articles anymore, or it's a money grab for DLC.

If you think ME3's ending sucked harshly, I think The Witcher 2's ending was equally bad. Alternatively, Two Worlds Two's ending was absolutely horrible. The end boss fight really lame. In the end, I think people feel the ending sucked with ME3 because you feel they promised many endings and only gave 3. That your choices didn't matter; In the end though, theoretically, your choice is the ultimate-choice between indoctrination or free will. Between surrender or freedom of mind.

Well now, if it really is indoctrination then yeah, we get two choices, but they leave the fate of the galaxy, the Normandy, our crew and friends, all up in the air. The so called renegade or destruction ending leaves Shepard alive, but again we don't know how the story ends. So again we end up with an ending that may be thought provoking in a positive or negative way, but it's not satisfying because it's not an ending. It leaves us with more questions than answers. A good story should leave you wanting for more, but the end of a trilogy shouldn't leave you hanging like this.

And the fact is that most games have shitty stories to begin with and their endings are worse. Deus Ex Human Revolution, Fallout, etc. all had shitty endings. For some reason, shitty stories (Call of Duty, most Battlefield games) and endings seem to be perfectly acceptable if the medium is games. Regardless of what is the norm for gaming, Mass Effect has always (until now) elevated itself FAR above the rest in terms of presentation and story. The writing is solid, voice acting is usually solid, your choices are interesting and the variables give it unusually high replay value. It's like eating fillet mignon, quality steaks, chicken, etc. and in general quality meals for five years, and then all of the sudden getting Spam shoved down your throat whether you like it or not. Much of what we like about the Mass Effect series is discarded and forgotten in the final moments of the third game.

Really though, if you feel there's only one true-ending, the red ending where the other two are just indoctrination. Don't be too surprised. Great authors who have wrote screenplays for movies, books, comic book storyboards and other forms of media have always offered the viewer but one single ending. That which the author chooses or no ending where your left to think for yourself what happens next. I bit, I'd say Bioware went with the later, no?

And again I say that an ending which leaves it totally up to the imagination of the viewer / player, etc. is BULLSHIT. It's the laziest form of authoring out there. Assuming the indoctrination theory is correct, I'm still pissed off because it's not an ending. The game is incomplete. Yeah, I'm willing and ready to pay my $10 for more DLC. I'm far too invested in the series not to. However, I shouldn't have to when the game's advertisements say things like "Finish the fight", "Take back Earth", "Decide how it all ends." The truth is none of that is really what we get. Whether indoctrination theory proves to be true or not. What was expected and what was delivered are certainly not in line.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

You know, up till now I've been thinking that the whole indoctrination theory was pretty much crap - not because the evidence presented was faulty (although some of it is certainly debateable), but more based on the fact that it would be totally insane for Bioware to pull such a stunt and not provide a "real" ending.

However, there are 2 pieces of evidence that really make it hard to ignore the possibility of the indoctrination idea being accurate.

1) The fact that the Paragon/Renegade choices are flipped in terms of color, i.e. TIM's choice of controlling the Reapers is blue even though he's the "bad guy" and Anderson's choice of destroying the Reapers is red even though he's a "good guy." I really don't see any possible reason why Bioware would do this aside from playing into the whole "messing with your head"/indoctrination idea. The entire trilogy beats into our heads that blue = Paragon and red = Renegade, and then suddenly it's weirdly flipped.

2) The way the "red" ending is the only one with Shepard "alive" at the end. It makes zero sense because the Star Child tells you that each choice will result in Shepard's death (specifically it says that Shepard is part synthetic and so destroying all synthetics would kill Shepard too)... so why the heck would Bioware put that random clip of Shepard waking up if each ending was a perfectly valid choice and the Star Child says Shep's supposed to die regardless? It can only be one of two things, either Bioware just decided to randomly select one of the endings to stuff in a clip of Shepard waking up, just to stir up some controversy, OR it really is a hint at some planned update/patch/DLC/whatever explaining "what really happened."

Now, all that being said... the one piece of evidence that is MOST strongly AGAINST this indoctrination idea, is the synthesis ending. If you don't have enough war assets at the end of the game you don't even get the choice for synthesis. That implies, if we follow conventional gaming wisdom, that that is the "best" ending since it is the one that requires the most "work" to achieve. Why on earth would Bioware put in the extra reward of an ending that functionally (in terms of the "indoctrination story") is no different than the others? If Bioware's plan all along was to have 3 endings but only one of them had Shepard fighting off the indoctrination and waking up, why make one of the "bad" endings the one you had to work hardest to unlock?

 

[Dan_D]

You know, up till now I've been thinking that the whole indoctrination theory was pretty much crap - not because the evidence presented was faulty (although some of it is certainly debateable), but more based on the fact that it would be totally insane for Bioware to pull such a stunt and not provide a "real" ending.

However, there are 2 pieces of evidence that really make it hard to ignore the possibility of the indoctrination idea being accurate.

1) The fact that the Paragon/Renegade choices are flipped in terms of color, i.e. TIM's choice of controlling the Reapers is blue even though he's the "bad guy" and Anderson's choice of destroying the Reapers is red even though he's a "good guy." I really don't see any possible reason why Bioware would do this aside from playing into the whole "messing with your head"/indoctrination idea. The entire trilogy beats into our heads that blue = Paragon and red = Renegade, and then suddenly it's weirdly flipped.

2) The way the "red" ending is the only one with Shepard "alive" at the end. It makes zero sense because the Star Child tells you that each choice will result in Shepard's death (specifically it says that Shepard is part synthetic and so destroying all synthetics would kill Shepard too)... so why the heck would Bioware put that random clip of Shepard waking up if each ending was a perfectly valid choice and the Star Child says Shep's supposed to die regardless? It can only be one of two things, either Bioware just decided to randomly select one of the endings to stuff in a clip of Shepard waking up, just to stir up some controversy, OR it really is a hint at some planned update/patch/DLC/whatever explaining "what really happened."

Now, all that being said... the one piece of evidence that is MOST strongly AGAINST this indoctrination idea, is the synthesis ending. If you don't have enough war assets at the end of the game you don't even get the choice for synthesis. That implies, if we follow conventional gaming wisdom, that that is the "best" ending since it is the one that requires the most "work" to achieve. Why on earth would Bioware put in the extra reward of an ending that functionally (in terms of the "indoctrination story") is no different than the others? If Bioware's plan all along was to have 3 endings but only one of them had Shepard fighting off the indoctrination and waking up, why make one of the "bad" endings the one you had to work hardest to unlock?

Actually, on that last part, I'm going to call bullshit. While you need a certain EMS to achieve the synthesis ending, you need an even higher EMS to see Shepard waking up in the rubble in London even if you choose the destroy ending. This one truly takes the most work to achieve. With an EMS of around 3930 I believe, I had an option for synthesis, but I didn't get Shepard waking up in the rubble when choosing the destroy ending.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Are you 100% positive about that? I'm genuinely curious, I hadn't heard that before so if that really is true, than yeah, it wipes out my major doubts about the indoctrination theory

 

[Dallows]

Are you 100% positive about that? I'm genuinely curious, I hadn't heard that before so if that really is true, than yeah, it wipes out my major doubts about the indoctrination theory

Yes it's true and confirmed. Shepard only wakes up with the destroy ending.

 

[Dallows]

There's a reaper growl just before Shepard takes his breath. Not sure if it's been mentioned directly, but it sounds like one.

 

[Drown Babies]

Are you 100% positive about that? I'm genuinely curious, I hadn't heard that before so if that really is true, than yeah, it wipes out my major doubts about the indoctrination theory

You definitely need a higher rating for the wake up ending. Both times playing through I've had enough for the synthesis ending, but not enough for the wake up after the destruction choice. I had around 3900 the 2nd time, I think you need above 4000 to get the wake up ending. I think you need to have your readiness rating above 50% to get that high.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Yes it's true and confirmed. Shepard only wakes up with the destroy ending.

That's not what I meant, I was asking if you need even more EMS rating to get the scene with Shepard waking up in the Destroy ending than you do for the Synthesis ending. If that really is the case than it invalidates my own argument that the indoctrination theory is improbable because the Synthesis ending requires the most "work".

You definitely need a higher rating for the wake up ending. Both times playing through I've had enough for the synthesis ending, but not enough for the wake up after the destruction choice. I had around 3900 the 2nd time, I think you need above 4000 to get the wake up ending. I think you need to have your readiness rating above 50% to get that high.

Cool, than that answers my question. I guess I really am starting to believe in the indoctrination theory, of course that may be a moot point depending on what Bioware does now. Either they come up with a totally new ending (either in a free update or paid DLC) or they say sorry, those really are the endings and this is all just a bunch of fun "fan fic".

 

[KenG10]

There's a reaper growl just before Shepard takes his breath. Not sure if it's been mentioned directly, but it sounds like one.

And we all know that a growl = failed indoctrination attempt.

 

[WBurchnall]

Things like altering the central conflict and introducing a new character in the last 5 to 10 minutes of what is basically a 100+ hour saga is horse shit.

Ugh...what new character in the last 5 to 10 minutes? I hope your not referring to the Boy that was present 40 hours earlier at the start of the game, appeared throughout the game and plays a role in the IT. I also hope you don't feel that Anderson is a new character. I'm sure you are aware of the illusive man's presence throughout the second game and the third game. You definately do not mean Shepard. Those are the only four people in last 5-10 minutes of game -- so honestly, I don't know who you are referring to. I'm sure you don't mean Hackett's voice over the radio...

Well now, if it really is indoctrination then yeah, we get two choices, but they leave the fate of the galaxy, the Normandy, our crew and friends, all up in the air. The so called renegade or destruction ending leaves Shepard alive, but again we don't know how the story ends. So again we end up with an ending that may be thought provoking in a positive or negative way, but it's not satisfying because it's not an ending. It leaves us with more questions than answers. A good story should leave you wanting for more, but the end of a trilogy shouldn't leave you hanging like this.

Regardless of what is the norm for gaming, Mass Effect has always (until now) elevated itself FAR above the rest in terms of presentation and story. The writing is solid, voice acting is usually solid, your choices are interesting and the variables give it unusually high replay value. It's like eating fillet mignon, quality steaks, chicken, etc. and in general quality meals for five years, and then all of the sudden getting Spam shoved down your throat whether you like it or not. Much of what we like about the Mass Effect series is discarded and forgotten in the final moments of the third game.

Here is where I am going to have to politey disagree with you. Mass effect's story and presentation was great --only-- in the FIRST game.

Mass effect 2 imo was pretty sloppy. Let's face it, the end boss battle felt terrible tacked on. The game's choices were rather limited and very linear. The game pretty much goes like this:

"Main Story Mission. Want to go on the next main story mission? Sorry, you can't. You need to wait for the bad guys to show up. In the meantime, you are froced to do Friendly Team Mate A has problem. Friendly Team Mate B has problem. Friendly Team Mate C has problem." What happens after you get 1 more main storyline mission "Friendly Team Mate D has a problem, Friendly Team Mate E has a problem, Friendly Team Mate F has a problem". Repeat, repeat, repeat, Terrible boss battle.

If you counted the main storyline without the side quests, the game is about 1 hour and 30 minutes long. The whole 'Sephard dies' at the beginning was a bit ...corney too.

Mass effect trilogy is like a fine first course, a ok-second course and your left feeling you shouldn't have had that desert after all(for some people who don't like chocolate) but others enjoyed greatly (IT fans).

And again I say that an ending which leaves it totally up to the imagination of the viewer / player, etc. is BULLSHIT. It's the laziest form of authoring out there. .... However, I shouldn't have to when the game's advertisements say things like "Finish the fight", "Take back Earth", "Decide how it all ends." The truth is none of that is really what we get. Whether indoctrination theory proves to be true or not. What was expected and what was delivered are certainly not in line.

I'd disagree personally. A lot of fairly-great media have open endings to them. "Happily ever after" that ends the majority of fairy tales for example is entirely open ended. Even if you look at movie like "Pirates of the Caribean", all three endings are left partially complete in that the immediate storylines are all neatly tied up and the ending is always the same. The pirates sail of into the open with no tale of what happens next". -- Till the next movie/book. However, any one of the movies could have been their own ending.

With regards to the whole Finish the Fight, Take back Earth, Decide how it all ends advertisements.

It's somewhat true. Depending on your readiness score, you decide what happens in the final video. Whether shepard breathes that final breath and frees himself of the Indoctrination or whether he loses to it via trickery or via being completely indoctrinated and ultimately sides with the Reapers. Yes, you do form the largest armada the galaxy has ever seen and take it to earth. Engage in direct ground combat to finish the fight against the reapers and ultimately at the end you effectively decide how it all ends. Indoctrination or freedom. Whether Shepard dies or breathes that last breath(based of your actions that generation your readiness score).

 

[Maplehamwich]

There's a reaper growl just before Shepard takes his breath. Not sure if it's been mentioned directly, but it sounds like one.

I've not noticed that. Going to have to check it out. Very interesting.

 

[Drown Babies]

I'd disagree personally. A lot of fairly-great media have open endings to them. "Happily ever after" that ends the majority of fairy tales for example is entirely open ended. Even if you look at movie like "Pirates of the Caribean", all three endings are left partially complete in that the immediate storylines are all neatly tied up and the ending is always the same. The pirates sail of into the open with no tale of what happens next". -- Till the next movie/book. However, any one of the movies could have been their own ending.

With regards to the whole Finish the Fight, Take back Earth, Decide how it all ends advertisements.

It's somewhat true. Depending on your readiness score, you decide what happens in the final video. Whether shepard breathes that final breath and frees himself of the Indoctrination or whether he loses to it via trickery or via being completely indoctrinated and ultimately sides with the Reapers. Yes, you do form the largest armada the galaxy has ever seen and take it to earth. Engage in direct ground combat to finish the fight against the reapers and ultimately at the end you effectively decide how it all ends. Indoctrination or freedom. Whether Shepard dies or breathes that last breath(based of your actions that generation your readiness score).

I agree that an open ending is not always bad or just lazy, a lot of stories are well suited to an open ending. But in general, and in big budget movies especially, that kind of ending is usually just an opening for a sequel, like you said, since they are never quite sure if there will be another one. In this case though, there wasn't supposed to be a sequel. At least that was my understanding. I thought Bioware said from the start that this was meant to a be a trilogy, there might be more games in the same universe, but the Sheppard vs. the Reapers thing was supposed to be done by the end of the third game.

I would have thought that all of us would be cynical enough by now to know never to trust advertising. And that includes game previews and pre-release developer interviews. It's all advertising, and it's all untrustworthy. Not that news about upcoming games doesn't have any value, but it's usually easy enough to figure out if they are just trying to build up hype for a game, or if they are just trying to make you aware of a game's existence.

Mass effect 2 imo was pretty sloppy. Let's face it, the end boss battle felt terrible tacked on. The game's choices were rather limited and very linear. The game pretty much goes like this:

And yeah, ME2 had a pretty weak plot structure. The game was fun, and the characters and their backstories were interesting, but there wasn't much to the main plot-line. And there wasn't much connection to the first game and the choices you made. I thought that was the most disappointing part.

 

[KickAssCop]

So they charging for the real ending?

 

[DJS4000]

slightly relevant: in case some of you have missed it, one of blizzard's april fools items was this. while hilarious in itself, check out the feature list. genius

 

[Dan_D]

Ugh...what new character in the last 5 to 10 minutes? I hope your not referring to the Boy that was present 40 hours earlier at the start of the game, appeared throughout the game and plays a role in the IT. I also hope you don't feel that Anderson is a new character. I'm sure you are aware of the illusive man's presence throughout the second game and the third game. You definately do not mean Shepard. Those are the only four people in last 5-10 minutes of game -- so honestly, I don't know who you are referring to. I'm sure you don't mean Hackett's voice over the radio...

Well now, if it really is indoctrination then yeah, we get two choices, but they leave the fate of the galaxy, the Normandy, our crew and friends, all up in the air. The so called renegade or destruction ending leaves Shepard alive, but again we don't know how the story ends. So again we end up with an ending that may be thought provoking in a positive or negative way, but it's not satisfying because it's not an ending. It leaves us with more questions than answers. A good story should leave you wanting for more, but the end of a trilogy shouldn't leave you hanging like this.



Here is where I am going to have to politey disagree with you. Mass effect's story and presentation was great --only-- in the FIRST game.

Mass effect 2 imo was pretty sloppy. Let's face it, the end boss battle felt terrible tacked on. The game's choices were rather limited and very linear. The game pretty much goes like this:

"Main Story Mission. Want to go on the next main story mission? Sorry, you can't. You need to wait for the bad guys to show up. In the meantime, you are froced to do Friendly Team Mate A has problem. Friendly Team Mate B has problem. Friendly Team Mate C has problem." What happens after you get 1 more main storyline mission "Friendly Team Mate D has a problem, Friendly Team Mate E has a problem, Friendly Team Mate F has a problem". Repeat, repeat, repeat, Terrible boss battle.

If you counted the main storyline without the side quests, the game is about 1 hour and 30 minutes long. The whole 'Sephard dies' at the beginning was a bit ...corney too.

Mass effect trilogy is like a fine first course, a ok-second course and your left feeling you shouldn't have had that desert after all(for some people who don't like chocolate) but others enjoyed greatly (IT fans).




I'd disagree personally. A lot of fairly-great media have open endings to them. "Happily ever after" that ends the majority of fairy tales for example is entirely open ended. Even if you look at movie like "Pirates of the Caribean", all three endings are left partially complete in that the immediate storylines are all neatly tied up and the ending is always the same. The pirates sail of into the open with no tale of what happens next". -- Till the next movie/book. However, any one of the movies could have been their own ending.

With regards to the whole Finish the Fight, Take back Earth, Decide how it all ends advertisements.

It's somewhat true. Depending on your readiness score, you decide what happens in the final video. Whether shepard breathes that final breath and frees himself of the Indoctrination or whether he loses to it via trickery or via being completely indoctrinated and ultimately sides with the Reapers. Yes, you do form the largest armada the galaxy has ever seen and take it to earth. Engage in direct ground combat to finish the fight against the reapers and ultimately at the end you effectively decide how it all ends. Indoctrination or freedom. Whether Shepard dies or breathes that last breath(based of your actions that generation your readiness score).

It seems pretty clear that the boy is a hallucination earlier in the game. I wouldn't say the projection AI starchild thing at the end is necessarily the same character. And appearances earlier in the game with little to no dialog is hardly an introduction. There is no development of that character. What we really see and hear of it is all in the last few minutes at best. I'll agree ME2 was the most structured of the three games, but I wouldn't say it was a bad game, The game is about building your team and getting ready to do a job. While the main story is relatively short, it's more than an hour and a half long. And given how all the side plot lines are woven into the third game, many of them in a huge way, I'm going to disagree with you again about the story. You did a lot of side crap in ME1 and ME3 as well. Much of it didn't seem necessary or relevant until you got to Mass Effect 2. All the Cerberus missions in ME1 were like that. I'm not a huge fan of the final boss fight, but I liked everything else about the game. I thought Shepard dying at the beginning was rather interesting myself.

 

[polydiol]

So they charging for the real ending?

of course they will - itll be downloadable via Origin and people will buy it and they'll use it to generate more revenue.

EA has to recoup the cost of TOR somehow.

 

[J W]

There's a reaper growl just before Shepard takes his breath. Not sure if it's been mentioned directly, but it sounds like one.

I've been wearing a tin foil hat for a while now, but I don't buy this. I think that noise is actually metal making a moaning sound under weight.

You can clearly hear it here at the ~8 minute mark :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7swKCdM9jvo

 

[Dallows]

I've been wearing a tin foil hat for a while now, but I don't buy this. I think that noise is actually metal making a moaning sound under weight.

You can clearly hear it here at the ~8 minute mark :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7swKCdM9jvo

I'll have to see if I can watch that on my phone as it's blocked at work. Maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear. But it's really the only sound other than Shepard's breath. All reapers seem to have e unique voice, so maybe it's Harbinger's groan or something.

There also didn't seem to be a lot of metal around, although there is an interesting metallic futuristic like structure you can barely see in the very beginning as it pans to the left. I'm also not sure about how much actual metal there is in that area of London. A lot of the buildings seemed like just concrete. Going off memory though.

Edit: I listened to it again a few times just now. The very first sound is a low rumble. That could be the rubble. But the second sound after that is too high pitched and sounds too much like a roar.

Now I haven't been in too many situations with crumbling wreckage around me to really know. But, in my opinion it wouldn't make sense to just have rubble-type sounds in that Shepard lives scene. Either you have no real noise except Shepard breathing, or you have something that's really important to the scene. Rubble sounds aren't important.

 

[MaZa]

I've been wearing a tin foil hat for a while now, but I don't buy this. I think that noise is actually metal making a moaning sound under weight.

You can clearly hear it here at the ~8 minute mark :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7swKCdM9jvo

Listened it with my headphones. Its definetly just metal moaning and not even close to Reaper sound. Overall the sound reminds me of submarine movies, with deep rumble and all.

 

[MacLeod]

Yeah I think its metal as well. Just listened to it a few times. I haven't finished the game yet so I had to fast forward just to the 8 minute mark cause even tho I've already read what happens, I havent watched any videos yet so I wanna have something to look forward to.

 

[mas]

Here is where I am going to have to politey disagree with you. Mass effect's story and presentation was great --only-- in the FIRST game.

Mass effect 2 imo was pretty sloppy. Let's face it, the end boss battle felt terrible tacked on. The game's choices were rather limited and very linear. The game pretty much goes like this:

"Main Story Mission. Want to go on the next main story mission? Sorry, you can't. You need to wait for the bad guys to show up. In the meantime, you are froced to do Friendly Team Mate A has problem. Friendly Team Mate B has problem. Friendly Team Mate C has problem." What happens after you get 1 more main storyline mission "Friendly Team Mate D has a problem, Friendly Team Mate E has a problem, Friendly Team Mate F has a problem". Repeat, repeat, repeat, Terrible boss battle.

If you counted the main storyline without the side quests, the game is about 1 hour and 30 minutes long. The whole 'Sephard dies' at the beginning was a bit ...corney too.

Mass effect trilogy is like a fine first course, a ok-second course and your left feeling you shouldn't have had that desert after all(for some people who don't like chocolate) but others enjoyed greatly (IT fans).

the dossier and loyalty missions were not mandatory at all to unlock the story, and whether or not you chose to do them they could still be completed in any order. however simplistic the storyline was, the part they got right here was capturing the journey, and having the player direct the flow of the game in any way they see fit. this is how people develop connections to certain characters. when you choose to recruit and gain this squadmates loyalty on your time, instead of them telling you where and when to go, it changes the player's mindset completely.

I hated the story in me1 tbh. terribly shallow imo, you're introduced to a villain right at the start, then spend the rest of the game building evidence against and defeating an antagonist you have already uncovered. "boo hoo, nobody believes me, shepard against the world!". its only saving grace was learning about this world and meeting characters along the way to back your cause, much like me2.

notice something in common here that was lacking in me3? it may seem the same, but in the previous 2 games it's a real and engaging experience, while here you're just getting shoved around the galaxy to fill out an imaginary spreadsheet, that yields no real connection to the game. do these missions and meet some old friends, the more friends you have the more points you get! don't worry if you're missing some, you can buy them later! they could barely manage to throw together a few cutscenes at the end for your efforts.

With regards to the whole Finish the Fight, Take back Earth, Decide how it all ends advertisements.

It's somewhat true. Depending on your readiness score, you decide what happens in the final video. Whether shepard breathes that final breath and frees himself of the Indoctrination or whether he loses to it via trickery or via being completely indoctrinated and ultimately sides with the Reapers. Yes, you do form the largest armada the galaxy has ever seen and take it to earth. Engage in direct ground combat to finish the fight against the reapers and ultimately at the end you effectively decide how it all ends. Indoctrination or freedom. Whether Shepard dies or breathes that last breath(based of your actions that generation your readiness score).

it's a 2bit scam. "play mp or shep dies". what does the game do to show you the result of your efforts? what do you get to decide? the sum of this number that determines the possible color of your final choice?

cutscenes? story? nope, everything plays out exactly the same. I brought this huge army including every race, but it seems only a few of them even bothered to check in with joker during this epic warp in. we got 1 sad looking troop of a dozen krogans standing around like jackasses, while they get a pep talk from wrex/wreav. nothing that can't be fixed by another turret defense amiright? don't forget to talk to the comms engineer and say goodbye to everyone, sheps gonna die cause he didn't play mp! then a retarded cinematic of asari and salarian commandos spamming their peashooters at some reaper, after repeatedly getting annihilated by them all game. maybe it will work this time? nope, they all get fried, and you're supposed to be sad.

but now we have javelin missiles! the last 2 missiles in existence, on the whole fucking planet! time to fight the kitchen sink, while we wait for the game to trigger a switch. where's my army? oh it's a dlc and mp promo spreadsheet, they don't actually exist.

 

[lopoetve]

it means alot to the overall story, but worthless in terms of gameplay for me2 and 3. the story is either wrex succeeds clan urdnot and unites the krogans with eve, or wreav uses the genophage cure as an opportunity to take over and vow revenge. in me2 it's only the difference between a rude or warm greeting when you reach tuchanka, in me3 it's the difference between how you go about achieving the most war assets. storywise it's probably part of the most significant and convoluted plot flags in the game during the tuchanka arc.

the only important thing to know is that if wrex is alive, you gain the most forces by curing the genophage. if wreav is in charge, you gain the exact same assets by fooling them out of the cure and convincing mordin to go along with it (since wreav is an idiot and will not realise what you've done). it's not possible to save mordin unless wreav is in charge, giving him a valid reason to deny them a cure instead of either dying to prevent the sabotage or getting killed by you.

Interesting. I didn't have mordin, he died at the end of ME2, so I had Paddock Wix instead That one wove in perfectly the transition there - glad to see that actually mattered.

 

[J W]

To me, the biggest things that point to something else going in the game are as follows:

1. The ending is out of character for BioWare.
2. The ending scenes before the godchild are reminiscent of the dream sequences earlier in the game.
3. The kid may have always been a hallucination. This one's important. The game's presentation makes us believe at first that the kid is real and is representative of all the innocent people Shepard can't save. However, given the kid's role later in the game and the ambiguity -- viewed in hindsight -- of the opening scenes, it's not hard to argue the kid's overall legitimacy. Of course, if the kid is a trick employed by BioWare, what else is?

I don't think any of this proves the Indoctrination Theory. Nothing can definitively prove that theory, regardless of the many minor details we dig up. Indoctrination may be a clever way of addressing this stuff, sure, but I'm not that attached to it. I think BioWare has something up its sleeve -- indoctrination or something else -- and I hope Bioware does not decide to change whatever it is because the people want to see something specific.

 

[Monkey God]

and I hope Bioware does not decide to change whatever it is because the people want to see something specific.

The only thing people want to see is an actual ending, not three choices of explosion colors. ME3 didn't end...it stopped.

 

[Dan_D]

The only thing people want to see is an actual ending, not three choices of explosion colors. ME3 didn't end...it stopped.

I have to agree. Once you are on the Citadel (supposedly) the game feels uncomfortable and abrupt. This AI child thing hits you with this information so fast it's hard to process. The first time I heard my choices I wrestled with their implications, and had to try and sit back and make sense of them, but then realized I really needed the AI kid to go back over the information because it feels like you are hit with a lot at once. Then you make a choice, and that's pretty much it.

As much as I've tried to bring meaning and sense to the ending, I need to remember that my initial reaction to it is really how I feel about it. You shouldn't have to work to make sense of the ending, you shouldn't have to try and force yourself to like it, or create convoluted explanations which will hopefully add meaning to something that is nonsensical to begin with. I only hope that the indoctrination theory proves to be correct because it will add meaning to the ending and hopefully make having suffered through that part of the game worth while. There are lots of parts to all three games I don't necessarily like, but you do them for the overall payoff, and because they are necessary. In the past I've always felt like the parts of the games I didn't really like all that much were worth going through so I could keep a character alive, complete the game, pickup items, or whatever. With this ending there has been absolutely ZERO pay off. The story is left hanging and I don't like that.

 

[J W]

The only thing people want to see is an actual ending, not three choices of explosion colors. ME3 didn't end...it stopped.

I hope that happens. I do think BioWare has had something planned all along. What it is I have no idea. I just hope BioWare doesn't feel it needs to change its plans -- if they don't happen to deal with indoctrination -- because of people's adoration for the Indoctrination Theory.

I think it would actually be hilarious if BioWare came out with something that completely rocked our socks off, and also spoofed the IT stuff while doing so. I can't imagine that happens, though

 

[Dan_D]

I hope that happens. I do think BioWare has had something planned all along. What it is I have no idea. I just hope BioWare doesn't feel it needs to change its plans -- if they don't happen to deal with indoctrination -- because of people's adoration for the Indoctrination Theory.

I think it would actually be hilarious if BioWare came out with something that completely rocked our socks off, and also spoofed the IT stuff while doing so. I can't imagine that happens, though

Seems unlikely.

 

[J W]

Seems unlikely.

I'm probably guilty of giving BioWare way too much credit.

There are some pretty big logistical problems with the "BioWare planned it from the beginning" stuff. Like, how will BioWare get "the truth" out to those console players without internet connections?

What this probably means, I think, is that BioWare planned to charge for "the truth" all along. Either that, or BioWare planned for the ending of ME3 to basically be one big cliffhanger for ME4 or ME3: Episode 1.

 

[Ritorix]

In the Arrival everyone associated with "The Project" including Amanda Kenson were indoctrinated because they were all just hanging out around that artifact. In fact this is where Shepard probably got the most exposure to the Reaper indoctrination signals. In fact, a device like that one can be found in an N7 mission earlier in ME2. It's guarded by husks.

Playing through the series again with indoc theory in mind really changes how you view some of the conversations and events. In ME1, there are indoctrinated salarian operatives in Saren's base and they had only been there a few weeks. In ME3, at the hospital the PTSD soldier tells about the indoc'd famers who got that way by just being prisoners of husks and a banshee.

And then there is Arrival. I think that is really where it starts. There is that giant progress bar for Object Rho, which is more of a threat than the guys shooting at you. If you survive to the end of it, Rho knocks you out and you get to spend two days under its influence regardless.

Anyway, this time through the series I went the mission-first, 'kill em all' route. No, Miranda, I'm not helping you find your damn sister, we have a galaxy to save. I had a pretty impressive line of coffins at the end of ME2...Garrus, Tali, Thane, Jacob, Jack. Then those guys just get replaced by new characters in ME3, most of which also die. Sold Legion to Cerberus, left Grunt in his tank (no mention of the tank in ME3 so far), saved Morinth and Mordin by taking them with me to the Reaper larvae. I think the series works better with party member deaths along the way, the series becomes less 'Space Friends' where the good guys always win and nothing ever goes wrong until the end.

Funny thing is, during my grimdark second playthrough I will actually have a far higher score than my first try doing all loyalty and being diplomatic. All thanks to multiplayer promotions and readiness%.

 

[Dan_D]

I'm probably guilty of giving BioWare way too much credit.

There are some pretty big logistical problems with the "BioWare planned it from the beginning" stuff. Like, how will BioWare get "the truth" out to those console players without internet connections?

What this probably means, I think, is that BioWare planned to charge for "the truth" all along. Either that, or BioWare planned for the ending of ME3 to basically be one big cliffhanger for ME4 or ME3: Episode 1.

Well everything BioWare says is suspect these days. I give little credence to their statements. They've said things which simply weren't true like not needing to touch the multiplayer to get the better endings. But supposedly this was to be Shepard's last game and the conclusion to his/her story. They didn't discount the possibility of future games in the universe, but not with Shepard. So Mass Effect 4 seems unlikely, but they may choose to expand the shit out of ME3, well beyond what they did for ME2. Mass Effect 2 has almost 6 or 7 hours of added content via DLC updates. They may continue the development work on Mass Effect 3 for some time, while in the background preparing for Mass Effect 4. Possibly with moving to a newer, more advanced engine.

If I were BioWare, that's what I'd do. I'd continue to release Mass Effect 3 content over the next year, then I'd tap UE3 / 3.5 (or whatever it's called now) and really work on bringing the next Mass Effect game out for the next generation consoles and computers which will be available by it's projected release. I'd try to stick to a 3 year development cycle for future games. Which technically that's what BioWare already did. Mass Effect 2's development started before Mass Effect 1 was released, and Mass Effect 3 cut corners by being worked on prior to ME2's release. And to further shave time Mass Effect 3 makes use of many Mass Effect 2 assets. Shuttles, gunships, crates, terminals, textures, weapon models, character models, and a lot more got carried over from ME2 to ME3. Some items just saw slight texture changes, but were really carried over from ME2.

And I suspect some assets were actually carried over from ME1, although not much and certainly retextured if brought over. But some crates and character models, etc. look virtually identical to items in Mass Effect 1. Case in point, I think some characters were carried over from ME1 like Ashley, who really looks exactly the same. She seems less detailed in ME2 than most other characters. If you look at Mass Effect 2, you'll notice that some characters are slightly less detailed than the rest. Ashley being one of them. Some generic Krogan and background characters I'm almost positive are recycled. Shepard's heavy armor from ME1 makes a lot of appearances in ME2, albeit with coloring changes. But if you look hard enough, you'll notice that many of the characters in ME2 have lower resolution textures than the rest. Some even have facial animations which are more like those of Mass Effect 1. Though if you go back to ME1 and play it, you may notice that charadcter models was actually one of ME1's strong points graphically.

In Mass Effect 2, Tali and Garrus got new models. In fact I think all the major returning squad mates, even those with only cameo appearances got new models in ME2 save for Ashley and Kaiden. Liara's model change is the most obvious as her boobies got bigger in ME2. Shepard was certainly updated as were many others. Going into ME3, Shepard has been updated, Anderson was updated, Ashley / Kaiden got seemingly entirely new models. Legion, Tali, Thane, Mordin, Grunt, and many others were simply carried over.

 

[Dan_D]

Playing through the series again with indoc theory in mind really changes how you view some of the conversations and events. In ME1, there are indoctrinated salarian operatives in Saren's base and they had only been there a few weeks. In ME3, at the hospital the PTSD soldier tells about the indoc'd famers who got that way by just being prisoners of husks and a banshee.

And then there is Arrival. I think that is really where it starts. There is that giant progress bar for Object Rho, which is more of a threat than the guys shooting at you. If you survive to the end of it, Rho knocks you out and you get to spend two days under its influence regardless.

Anyway, this time through the series I went the mission-first, 'kill em all' route. No, Miranda, I'm not helping you find your damn sister, we have a galaxy to save. I had a pretty impressive line of coffins at the end of ME2...Garrus, Tali, Thane, Jacob, Jack. Then those guys just get replaced by new characters in ME3, most of which also die. Sold Legion to Cerberus, left Grunt in his tank (no mention of the tank in ME3 so far), saved Morinth and Mordin by taking them with me to the Reaper larvae. I think the series works better with party member deaths along the way, the series becomes less 'Space Friends' where the good guys always win and nothing ever goes wrong until the end.

Funny thing is, during my grimdark second playthrough I will actually have a far higher score than my first try doing all loyalty and being diplomatic. All thanks to multiplayer promotions and readiness%.

With that theory in mind I started replaying ME1 and ME2. Now again I'm not sure the theory is 100% correct. I think it brings up a lot of valid evidence which can certainly back it up. Then again we may simply lack the proper context to know what it means. In ME2, I wasn't sure how rewriting the Geth, or savign Maelon's data would play out. Other choices like saving the Rachni Queen in ME1 seemed shaky in ME1, but in ME2 I was certain that going into ME3, I made the right choice. Speaking of that, after really reviewing all the evidence in the indoctrination theory I could find, and then replaying ME1, some events are almost eerie and of course they have additional weight. Specifically the Rachni Queen's conversation in ME1 and a lot of the indoctrination talk in the first one sounds like what Shepard is going through. And again I think that Shepard's will is what makes him/her unique and that challenge attracks Harbinger's interest in Shepard. In ME3 I think we finally see the events of ME1 and ME2 start to take their toll, but seeing Earth and the child die, are what add the doubt. This is the key that allows indoctrination to work it's way into Shepard's mind.

And remember, indoctrination can be fast or slow. The slower the indoctrination though, the more insidious it is. I think the slow approach is what's needed for Shepard. But I think Shepard's experience in the Arrival is what opened the door to allow Harbinger to work on breaking Shepard's will.

As far as deaths go, I think the Ashley / Kaiden thing was one of the best. Of course Wrex can die as well. In ME2, I was actually pleased you could complete the game without losing anyone. But you spend so much time getting attached to these characters because of ME2. Then in ME3 the loss of some of them is almost inevitible. In a way you have to choose between Mordin and Wrex, though until you've reached a certain point you won't know that's really the case. It's not as obvious as the Ashley / Kaiden situation. Also, keeping Mordin alive requires very specific circumstances to be in place. Legion's death is unavoidable. Tali's is very avoidable, but then again depending on what you decided in ME2 you may be stuck between choosing to lose the Geth or the Quarian people, which will include Tali's suicide. Though again you may not know this until after it happens.

Honestly keeping everyone alive in ME2 made the deaths of those I couldn't save in ME3 much more powerful. I wouldn't care about the deaths of generic or replacement characters in ME3 who stood in for them. In some cases, there isn't even a stand in. A Quarian admiral stands in for Tali, but she's not a real squad mate. She doesn't go anywhere with you. She handles the dialog via comlink. If Wix died, I couldn't give a shit. Kirrahe on the other hand had more impact, but not like Thane's does. Apparently most people have a hard time saving Miranda and some had trouble saving Grunt. So when they didn't die in my ME3 playthrough I was shocked.

All that said, I think the Normandy's trip through the Omega 4 relay in ME2 is more dramatic if you don't do some of the upgrades and you do lose squad mates as a result. No doubt the feel of losing a squad mate in ME2's ending does add something additional emotionally. I won't deny that, but I prefer being able to get everyone out alive for once in the series. And again I think it adds additional impact if you got everyone through ME2 just to watch people die in ME3.

 

[Drown Babies]

I'm probably guilty of giving BioWare way too much credit.

There are some pretty big logistical problems with the "BioWare planned it from the beginning" stuff. Like, how will BioWare get "the truth" out to those console players without internet connections?

What this probably means, I think, is that BioWare planned to charge for "the truth" all along. Either that, or BioWare planned for the ending of ME3 to basically be one big cliffhanger for ME4 or ME3: Episode 1.

We might be able to get at least a hint about their original intentions based on when they release a new ending, if they do that is. If they release something in 6 or 8 weeks we can probably assume they've been working on it since before the game was released. But if they take a year or 8 months, or something along those lines, it might be safe to assume they started from scratch.

 

[Dan_D]

We might be able to get at least a hint about their original intentions based on when they release a new ending, if they do that is. If they release something in 6 or 8 weeks we can probably assume they've been working on it since before the game was released. But if they take a year or 8 months, or something along those lines, it might be safe to assume they started from scratch.

Well the Shadow Broker DLC wasn't integrated into the game very well, but it did use a lot of recycled assets from the existing game. It came out only a few months after Mass Effect 2 was released. So even if they do start from scratch with the ending, I'd think 3-6 months would be about as far off as it could reasonably take to do it. The game was released about a month ago, and yet here we are with no additional DLC. While the day 1 DLC certainly was developed either as part of the original game, or in parallel, whatever we get now probably won't be such an example. And BioWare did say that they would announce plans in April concerning the next DLC. If it was for an April launch or earlier I'd agree, it would have been a simple money grab and nothing more.

I'll tell you this, the more I know about Mass Effect, the more I'm convinced that everything was done in the series on purpose. Including this terrible ending we have now. This is part of the story. Be it the actual ending or indoctrination. I'm not 100% sure either way. The level of integration we see with the next DLC will be more telling, but at this point, the game has been out for a month and BioWare is keeping their future plans pretty close to the vest.

There is some telling information out there already, but we still lack context. Mass Effect 3 was delayed to ensure "that it exceed's all expectations and maximizes commercial success." Well what does that mean? Parts of it could have been cut to be used as DLC. From Ashes is a good example of that. Like the Normandy Crash site DLC which was ME2's day one DLC, I think the mission may not have been finished prior to the game going gold and being approved for manufacturing, but the high level of integration concerning From Ashes tells you that it was part of the original game to be sure.

It could be that the game's ending was cut to be used as DLC to extend the game play and maximize revenue. It could be that the ending we have now is simply part of the final act of the game and that more was always intended. Essentially Shepard's despair, doubt, and indoctrination must be overcome. We've had a free pass in earlier games with regard to its effects and were simply told by characters in teh game that Shepard's will is unusually strong. But it never meant anything because it was an aspect of the character that we couldn't really see, we were just told and had no control over it. This could be a way to personalize that struggle. Mass Effect 2 was hugely successful with DLC and Mass Effect has never been a stranger to controversy. I think maximizing commercial success is a huge part of what EA wants, and this may all be part of their plan to do so. So the game was modified. While controversial, people tend to give ME more slack because it's so damned good.

 

[Ritorix]

All that said, I think the Normandy's trip through the Omega 4 relay in ME2 is more dramatic if you don't do some of the upgrades and you do lose squad mates as a result. No doubt the feel of losing a squad mate in ME2's ending does add something additional emotionally. I won't deny that, but I prefer being able to get everyone out alive for once in the series. And again I think it adds additional impact if you got everyone through ME2 just to watch people die in ME3.

ME2's ending is definitely intense. If you skip loyalty missions its like a scene out of Aliens with marines dieing left and right. Tali eating a rocket in the face (lol), Garrus shot moments later, Thane died escorting the crew members, Jacob carried away screaming by bugs. I only had four squadmembers left to 'hold the line' at the end, what a disaster. Amazingly, three of them lived. Jack died as she yelled "Your mission has gone to shit! I'm going to kill you Shepard!"

That is definitely the high point in the series along with the burning of Palaven, imo.

 

[Dan_D]

ME2's ending is definitely intense. If you skip loyalty missions its like a scene out of Aliens with marines dieing left and right. Tali eating a rocket in the face (lol), Garrus shot moments later, Thane died escorting the crew members, Jacob carried away screaming by bugs. I only had four squadmembers left to 'hold the line' at the end, what a disaster. Amazingly, three of them lived. Jack died as she yelled "Your mission has gone to shit! I'm going to kill you Shepard!"

That is definitely the high point in the series along with the burning of Palaven, imo.

Their deaths are actually variable depending on what assignments you give them. You can also avoid the loyalty missions of a couple squad mates and still have them survive. I didn't really think the burning of Palaven was all that intense. Honestly what happened to Earth or Thessia was far more impactful. Mainly because we never go to Palaven. Just it's desolate moon. Hard to give a damn about that moon.