Mass Effect 3 SPOILERS THREAD

I've said this before but I think we gotta give BioWare some credit and be a little more forthcoming with some benefit of doubt. They've given us hundreds of hours of gaming greatness and they are responding with some DLC in answering the backlash. Can't think of another time when a developer the size of BioWare did something like that. We're usually just ignored. I don't think BioWare's response has been bad at all. They could've easily told us to suck it.
 
MacLeod said:
I've said this before but I think we gotta give BioWare some credit and be a little more forthcoming with some benefit of doubt. They've given use hundreds of hours of gaming greatness and they are responding with some DLC in answering the backlash. Can't think of another time when a developer the size of BioWare did something like that. We're usually just ignored. I don't think BioWare's response has been bad at all.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? They've been caught telling half truths and outright lying to the fan base. DLC to fix the ending? Given that BioWare ripped off the ending from other games and movies should have allowed them to foresee that this cocktail of fail would go over like a duece in the fan's breakfast cereal. Instead of acknowledging that there was a problem they've been insulting and they've stood behind lame arguments about "artistic integrity."

Then their EA overlords pull this:

MarkettingBS.jpg


No. Just no. BioWare has earned NOTHING but the ire of it's customers. They should have done things right the first time. Everyone makes mistakes. I think that's fair to say that BioWare did. But how they've responded to that mistake is as bad if not worse than the mistake itself. BioWare has earned nothing but suspicion and skepticism. And as for the second part of your statement, Bethesda fixed the shittastic ending of Fallout 3. So other companies have done this before. BioWare isn't unique.

Yeah they've given us hundreds of hours of entertainment. But that's in the past. The quality drop in Mass Effect 3 vs. Mass Effect 2 is substantial. Fetch quests? Auto-dialog? No door hacking or terminal hacking mini-games? No vehicle combat, about a 3rd less missions (and an increased price I might add) and much more linear game play than the previous installments. All of this is on top of the half truths and lies BioWare spewed out during the devlopment of the game which told us we were getting something else.

In Mass Effect 2, specifically in the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC, you can access Legion's gamer profile. In it he plays a game called N7: Code of Honor Medal of Duty. Obviously poking fun of the CoD franchise. Yet Mass Effect is getting dumbed down to a corridor shooter with a shit ton of Michael Bay style explosions and you want to "trust them?" What the hell for? I've said it a hundred times. The DLC can't fix the ending. Without pulling the dream / indoctrination card or scrapping the entire final act, (which includes blowing that fucking Starchild trash out the airlock) I fear anything they come up with will be nothing more than the same garbage that made up the current ending we have now. Any course of action they take will leave something broken. If you pull the dream card then you basically cop to your game ending on a cliff hanger with no resolution. This tells us the game was never really completed and ME4 will most likely drop in two years. It will probably be ME3's assets recycled, more of the same things people hated about ME3, even shorter, just as expensive if not more so, more multiplayer focused than this game is, blah blah blah. Nothing good.

I don't have a problem with that outside of the fact that it goes against the way this game was marketed. If they don't pull the dream / indoctrination card, then it's quite clear that the endings have to be more or less taken at face value in which all the plot holes and bleak nature of it tell you all you need to know. It's possible that additional scenes may "provide clarity" which vastly changes our interpretation of the endings and how we feel about them, but it seems highly unlikely. Their Twitter statements are sounding more and more like back pedlling than anything. Yet they still won't admit that they screwed the pooch by ripping off Battlestar Galactica, Deus Ex and Star Trek the Motion Picture. So no. No benefit of the doubt here. They had plenty of chances to get this right and it seems like they rail roaded the guy who had all the talent on the writing team right out the door. BioWare and even the Mass Effect development team seem lost to us. It's EA now. Through and through. I'm not the type to objectify or deamonize a corporation just for being a corporation. Not even a large one. But EA is without scruples. They are without sole and heart. The worst part is all they do is buy promising and successful developers and turn them into husks. They are the Reapers of the video game industry to give you an analogy.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed 94% of Mass Effect 3. But in a lot of ways the series is getting dumbed down and devolving all the time. Look at the writing on the wall. When you do it will be hard to simply "trust BioWare" and give them the benefit of the doubt. They've been proving they are undeserving of that trust for some time now.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say trust BioWare just to give them a chance. All this nerd rage about never buying anything ever again from anybody and BioWare is the devil and should die in a fire, is getting out of hand. Now if the DLC is nothing more than a few cut scenes that really explain nothing then they will deserve the torches and pitchforks and I'll be right there beside you guys. But I think they've earned the chance with ME 1, 2 and 96% of 3 to try to make things right without being drawn and quartered. That's all I'm saying. Everybody relax, BioWare said they're going to try and fix thing, put down the long knives and wait and see what they come up with
 
Well I await the DLC. But I remain skeptical about how good it could be. Supposedly it won't change anything but then again their Twitter statements say otherwise. Then again you can't believe those because much of what Casey Hudson and crew said up until release was total bullshit.
 
Dan_D said:
But EA is without scruples. They are without sole and heart. The worst part is all they do is buy promising and successful developers and turn them into husks. They are the Reapers of the video game industry to give you an analogy.
Click to expand...

This is truth. They are even reaping the souls of their internal development teams. My brother used to program for EA and basically, he felt like it was eating his soul. IE: Pretty much the whole EA-Spouse story played out in my brother's life.

As for ME3. I enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as ME2. I started ME1, but due to it's controls and other specifics that I had taken issue with, I never finished it (though I did re-visit post ME2). ME2 sucked me in and had me play the whole way through from the start. ME3 felt husk-y and underdeveloped in comparison to ME2.

Then there was the ending...
 
BioWare still deserves benefit of the doubt, but this starts going out the window every time they open their mouths to say something stupid.

First, I absolutely hate when people call their own shit "art." That's so presumptuous that it makes my blood boil. Worse, when they discuss "artistic integrity" all the while having sold out to fucking EA.

Second, I don't think I've ever seen a company be so disingenuous toward its fans. BioWare needs to shut up. No more twitter. No more PR. Nothing. We shouldn't hear a peep from them until they've released the EC. Heck, BioWare has done little more than add fuel to the confused fire which continues to rage. Please, BioWare, tell the Twitter drones to STFU. Focus on the content. Make it super. I will love you again.
 
I kinda thought all along that the "control" ending was the best one simply because its the only one where the Citadel isnt destroyed. Thats gotta be something. But then the "destroy" ending is the only one where Shepard wakes up....or at least we assume its Shepard.
 
MacLeod said:
I kinda thought all along that the "control" ending was the best one simply because its the only one where the Citadel isnt destroyed. Thats gotta be something. But then the "destroy" ending is the only one where Shepard wakes up....or at least we assume its Shepard.
Click to expand...

Heh, apparently he liked Synthesis.
 
MacLeod said:
I kinda thought all along that the "control" ending was the best one simply because its the only one where the Citadel isnt destroyed. Thats gotta be something. But then the "destroy" ending is the only one where Shepard wakes up....or at least we assume its Shepard.
Click to expand...

Incorrect sir. The Citadel's destruction is merely implied. At no point do we see it explode. It certainly takes damage as secondary explosions do result from the energy discharge, but the scene cuts away before the Citadel could be seen exploding. The control ending doesn't force you to commit genocide or violate everyone on a DNA level. In that it's the best ending, but this assumes the Starbrat's statements can be taken at face value. I still contend that it shouldn't be believed.

The Starbrat opens up with: "I control the Reapers. They are my solution." It then later refers to itself and the Reapers collectively as "we." This isn't a coincidence. This kid basically proclaims itself to be the Reaper king. Which I believe to be Harbinger in disguise. Harbinger has a hard on for Shepard and said things in ME2 like: "Your mind will be mine." and "We will find another way." He even wants your corpse saying things like: "Preserve Shepard's body if possible."

It actively tries to dissuade Shepard from choosing to destroy synthetic life implying that Shepard would die as would the Geth. And if you look, both the control and synthesis endings, Shepard's eyes look exactly like the Illusive Man's eyes when he's being vaporized. The destroy ending is the only one in which this does not take place. The Starbrat also says that the Illusive Man couldn't control the Reapers because "we already controlled him." The Reapers already exhibited some kind of control over Shepard by making him shoot Anderson. It could be that Shepard is actually fighting indoctrination. And while people are often quick to bring up the "fact" that no one ever overcame indoctrination, they are all wrong. Shiala did. The influence of the Thorian and her connection to the Zhu's Hope colonists is stronger than the hold of indoctrination. She mentions being able to hear the Reapers, but that they can't control her anymore.

And for those who wish to dispute the fact that Shepard's eyes look like the Illusive Man's in the other two endings:

ShepwithIllusiveMansEyes.jpg
 
Last edited:
KatalDT said:
Mindraping people with your intense ME3 analysis!
Click to expand...

I can analyze the whole series given that I've got about 650 hours and counting into it, I know all three games exceptionally well. Example: I have detailed analysis of how people who claim Liara is needy in Mass Effect 1 are totally wrong. It is clearly Ashley that's the needy and high maintenence one. Liara is merely socially awkward. I wouldn't even call her immature because she doesn't resort to high school level (or below) name calling and talking smack behind someone's back. Ashley on the other hand does.

But that would get us off topic. :cool:
 
Dan_D said:
I can analyze the whole series. Example: I have detailed analysis of how people who claim Liara is needy in Mass Effect 1, when clearly that's Ashley that's the needy and high maintenence one. Liara is merely socially awkward. I wouldn't even call her immature because she doesn't resort to high school level (or below) name calling and talking smack behind someone's back. Ashley on the other hand does.

But that would get us off topic. :cool:
Click to expand...

Go on...
 
Dan_D said:
{snip}
Click to expand...

The Citadel is plainly destroyed in the synthesis and destroy endings but in the control endings it closes up and that's it. Its the only one where it does that. Plus I kinda think it is the best ending aside from Shep waking up in the rubble because it doesn't wipe out an entire race of Geth or force-rape synthetic mutations onto organic life. It just orders the Reapers to leave and never return.

And I just don't buy the TIM eyes theory. Yeah it looks like it in the picture you posted but when watching the video in-game, it just ain't there. I don't buy that they'd leave a clue but you can't see it during the game and you have to freeze 1 single frame and "enhance" it to even see it. I think its a touched up if not doctored picture. And like I've always maintained, TIM's eyes were like that before he was indoctrinated so it wouldn't prove Shep was indoctrinated as well.

It all falls onto if the AI was lying or not. If he wasn't then the control ending is the best because he said TIM was right and it was the way to go. The argument for him not lying is that if he just wanted Shep to kill himself, he could've just killed him right there or at least not brought him up in that elevator but instead left him to bleed to death on the floor. It had no reason to lie since all 3 endings leads to Shep's death, just leave him to bleed to death. Likewise, he didn't have to tell him about the destroy ending either if he didn't want to. If he was lying and wanted the control or synthesis options, he could've just told him those were the only 2 options. How would Shep know that shooting this control panel would destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy? So I don't see why be would be trying to trick Shep into a certain ending when he could've easily just told him that the ending he wanted was the only one available.
 
MacLeod said:
The Citadel is plainly destroyed in the synthesis and destroy endings but in the control endings it closes up and that's it. Its the only one where it does that. Plus I kinda think it is the best ending aside from Shep waking up in the rubble because it doesn't wipe out an entire race of Geth or force-rape synthetic mutations onto organic life. It just orders the Reapers to leave and never return.

And I just don't buy the TIM eyes theory. Yeah it looks like it in the picture you posted but when watching the video in-game, it just ain't there. I don't buy that they'd leave a clue but you can't see it during the game and you have to freeze 1 single frame and "enhance" it to even see it. I think its a touched up if not doctored picture. And like I've always maintained, TIM's eyes were like that before he was indoctrinated so it wouldn't prove Shep was indoctrinated as well.

It all falls onto if the AI was lying or not. If he wasn't then the control ending is the best because he said TIM was right and it was the way to go. The argument for him not lying is that if he just wanted Shep to kill himself, he could've just killed him right there or at least not brought him up in that elevator but instead left him to bleed to death on the floor. It had no reason to lie since all 3 endings leads to Shep's death, just leave him to bleed to death. Likewise, he didn't have to tell him about the destroy ending either if he didn't want to. If he was lying and wanted the control or synthesis options, he could've just told him those were the only 2 options. How would Shep know that shooting this control panel would destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy? So I don't see why be would be trying to trick Shep into a certain ending when he could've easily just told him that the ending he wanted was the only one available.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You see secondary explosions, but at no point do you see it come apart. I just watched this the other day, and I recorded it with FRAPS. I picked destroy as usual. Again it's destruction is only implied, not shown. And again Shepard's eyes are in fact like the Illusive Man's eyes in the two endings. I don't know how you can miss that, especially with all the screenshots out there. I saw it in the control ending the one time I chose that. As for TIMs eyes being that way prior, I realize that. But if it's a dream or a result of indoctrination, symbolically it makes sense. As for the AI wanting to kill Shepard, you assume a projection could do that. If it's Harbinger in disguise, he can't exactly shoot the Citadel to get to Shepard or risk destroying it. The Citadel is a trap for the next and all subsequent cycles. Again the Reapers wouldn't simply destroy it. Harbinger also only speaks in this game in Shepard's dreams and no where else. In ME2 he kept talking about Shepard's mind being his as I indicated earlier.
 
Last edited:
Having finally got the chance to beat the game last night, I can say that it doesn't feel that any ending is a "win." It will be very curious to see what Bioware does to try and "correct" the ending. I don't think it would have been terrible to at least have a better understanding of who the "Starchild" as Dan calls him is. I know if I were Shep, that is the first thing I would have asked. It is obvious that he seems to be a VI, but there has to be more there. I agree with Dan, it is like they were building to this great ending and then were just like, well, gotta ship this one. Protecting the missile trucks was teh toughest part of the final assault, I feel like there should have been something above and beyond after that.
 
Dan_D said:
No it isn't. You see secondary explosions, but at no point do you see it come apart. I just watched this the other day, and I recorded it with FRAPS. I picked destroy as usual. Again it's destruction is only implied, not shown.
Click to expand...

Ugh. OK technically you're right. We don't see it come apart and float away. But we do see a shit load of explosions all over the Citadel in 2 of the 3 endings. Control is the only one where the Citadel closes its arms and there are no explosions, implied or otherwise.

And again Shepard's eyes are in fact like the Illusive Man's eyes in the two endings. I don't know how you can miss that, especially with all the screenshots out there. I saw it in the control ending the one time I chose that. As for TIMs eyes being that way prior, I realize that. But if it's a dream or a result of indoctrination, symbolically it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah those screenshots do show Shep with TIM's eyes but that is something that you only see when you freeze a single frame and enhance the picture. BioWare may use that if they decide to go with IT when they redo the ending (or whatever they're calling it). However, I don't believe it was put there intentionally because its just way to tiny a detail in 1 frame out of a whole sequence.

As for the AI wanting to kill Shepard, you assume a projection could do that. If it's Harbinger in disguise, he can't exactly shoot the Citadel to get to Shepard or risk destroying it. The Citadel is a trap for the next and all subsequent cycles. Again the Reapers wouldn't simply destroy it. Harbinger also only speaks in this game in Shepard's dreams and no where else. In ME2 he kept talking about Shepard's mind being his as I indicated earlier.
Click to expand...

If he created and controls the Reapers, I'm sure he could control a turret or something to kill Shepard. Even if he couldn't, he could've just left him down there with Anderson to bleed to death. And again, why would he have to trick Shepard at all? Why not just say "yeah there is only one way to do this and that is to --insert desired option--".

I guess I'm coming at this from a point of believing BioWare intended this to be the ending and didn't have anything else lined up. Since these theories are all over the internet and popular, they make take some of them as a jumping off point and say "yeah, that's the ticket. Thats what we meant all along".

But even then, there are a lot easier ways to claim IT or the "it was all a dream" theory was there all along than pointing to a single frame or that the AI was smirking during the control option or something. Hell, they could just go with what I mentioned a few days ago. If you got a good enough EMS score then Shepard wakes up from the dream in the London rubble and the fight continues. If you did not, Shep dies and you need to replay the game or some such. I don't know exactly cause I'm not very creative but there are easier cues they could work off.
 
MacLeod said:
Ugh. OK technically you're right. We don't see it come apart and float away. But we do see a shit load of explosions all over the Citadel in 2 of the 3 endings. Control is the only one where the Citadel closes its arms and there are no explosions, implied or otherwise.



Yeah those screenshots do show Shep with TIM's eyes but that is something that you only see when you freeze a single frame and enhance the picture. BioWare may use that if they decide to go with IT when they redo the ending (or whatever they're calling it). However, I don't believe it was put there intentionally because its just way to tiny a detail in 1 frame out of a whole sequence.



If he created and controls the Reapers, I'm sure he could control a turret or something to kill Shepard. Even if he couldn't, he could've just left him down there with Anderson to bleed to death. And again, why would he have to trick Shepard at all? Why not just say "yeah there is only one way to do this and that is to --insert desired option--".

I guess I'm coming at this from a point of believing BioWare intended this to be the ending and didn't have anything else lined up. Since these theories are all over the internet and popular, they make take some of them as a jumping off point and say "yeah, that's the ticket. Thats what we meant all along".

But even then, there are a lot easier ways to claim IT or the "it was all a dream" theory was there all along than pointing to a single frame or that the AI was smirking during the control option or something. Hell, they could just go with what I mentioned a few days ago. If you got a good enough EMS score then Shepard wakes up from the dream in the London rubble and the fight continues. If you did not, Shep dies and you need to replay the game or some such. I don't know exactly cause I'm not very creative but there are easier cues they could work off.
Click to expand...

How is the use of the Illusive Man's eyes in two of the three ending sequences not intentional? I don't get that. Deny it all you like, but it's there. You can see it. I'm not 100% sure on the reason, but it has to mean something.

I'm not saying indoctrination theory is correct. It makes the most sense given what we know. BioWare's statements can't be trusted as they are all over the map. Especially with the crap they spout on Twitter. The Extended Cut could have very short sequences which change the context of the ending sequences completely.

And as I've also said, I'll bet that some of the ending footage was repurposed from the original ending and used to make this one. By their own admission the ending wasn't decided until very late in the development cycle. It was only written just weeks before the thing went gold. The dark energy ending may have used a lot of the Citadel and mass relay footage. Again repurposed for this garbage. That would also explain how nonsensical it is.
 
Yeah I totally agree. I think BioWare had a much better and different ending in mind and had started working on it but then the nazis at EA brought the hammer down and demanded they meet their deadline no matter how unfinished the ending was. Just throw some shit together and get it out there. Who cares of a few gamers complain?

The whole ending sequence has that feel. Almost all the segments "feel" like they were part of something else or that there was supposed to be more material before and after it.
 
MacLeod said:
Yeah I totally agree. I think BioWare had a much better and different ending in mind and had started working on it but then the nazis at EA brought the hammer down and demanded they meet their deadline no matter how unfinished the ending was. Just throw some shit together and get it out there. Who cares of a few gamers complain?

The whole ending sequence has that feel. Almost all the segments "feel" like they were part of something else or that there was supposed to be more material before and after it.
Click to expand...

I think it's more than that. I'd bet EA looked at the original ending and told them that they had to change it. The original dark energy plot didn't allow for any type of potential for meaningful contiuation. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they added the dream sequences so they could convincingly pull the dream card at the end and make sequels. Those felt like they were tacked on and almost all the audio in them is reused from other parts of the series. If you think about it, the map is tiny, and always the same. Repeating audio and added shadows wouldn't be all that hard or take any time.

Again I stand behind the idea that this wasn't done without some way to continue to make sequels, and even sequels that feature Commander Shepard as the main protagonist. Mass Effect has become too big a cash cow to let it end now. And Mass Effect without Shepard is like Halo without the Mastercheif. You just don't do it.
 
As slimey as it would be for them to do it to us, I shamefully have to admit I would be first in line, money in hand if there was a Mass Effect 4 that took up where 3 left off with Shepard being pulled out of the rubble by Garrus and realizing he'd dreamed the whole ending sequence and the battle was raging on.
 
MacLeod said:
As slimey as it would be for them to do it to us, I shamefully have to admit I would be first in line, money in hand if there was a Mass Effect 4 that took up where 3 left off with Shepard being pulled out of the rubble by Garrus and realizing he'd dreamed the whole ending sequence and the battle was raging on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd do the same. Many people feel that way which is why EA is probably going to go that route somehow.
 
Dan_D said:
I think it's more than that. I'd bet EA looked at the original ending and told them that they had to change it. The original dark energy plot didn't allow for any type of potential for meaningful contiuation. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they added the dream sequences so they could convincingly pull the dream card at the end and make sequels. Those felt like they were tacked on and almost all the audio in them is reused from other parts of the series. If you think about it, the map is tiny, and always the same. Repeating audio and added shadows wouldn't be all that hard or take any time.

Again I stand behind the idea that this wasn't done without some way to continue to make sequels, and even sequels that feature Commander Shepard as the main protagonist. Mass Effect has become too big a cash cow to let it end now. And Mass Effect without Shepard is like Halo without the Mastercheif. You just don't do it.
Click to expand...

Another little tidbit is the interviews long ago where they used to talk about how they could do things so much differently in ME3 because they didn't have to worry about importing it into another game. As a result they could do massive, complex things with the ending.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/mass-effect-interview-e3-embargo.ars

Houston shakes his head. "No, no, no, no. We are absolutely committed to ending Commander Shepard's story at the end of this. I am not going to go into any detail beyond that, but really we want players to feel like the investment they made over the past seven years or whatever it's been, it would have been a rewarding experience for them," he explained.

He said people should want more because they love the world of Mass Effect, not because there are any gaping plot holes or "lanterns left burning." He put it simply: "We want to tie up all the loose ends, put the trilogy to bed, and leave people with the feeling of satisfaction, like reading a really good book."
Click to expand...

Fast forward to more recently.....

When asked about the possibility of future Mass Effect games, Gamble explained that it might be a good practice to hold on to your save data after completing Mass Effect 3.

"It wouldn't be a bad idea to keep your Mass Effect 3 saves. Obviously I can't say anything but it wouldn't be a bad idea." The Mass Effect franchise has tailored each game around players who managed to hang on to their save data throughout the years. Saving important decisions that you've made across your time with the game, and shaping your story around it has been one of the major selling points of the Mass Effect franchise.
Click to expand...

Why would we need to keep our ME3 saves if there isn't going to be another game to import them that would use the same character and carry over the previous decisions?

Of course BW doesn't say it would feature Shepard, but with the shitstorm currently going on, this could be their one saving grace if they can pull it off.
 
Limahl said:
Another little tidbit is the interviews long ago where they used to talk about how they could do things so much differently in ME3 because they didn't have to worry about importing it into another game. As a result they could do massive, complex things with the ending.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/mass-effect-interview-e3-embargo.ars



Fast forward to more recently.....



Why would we need to keep our ME3 saves if there isn't going to be another game to import them that would use the same character and carry over the previous decisions?

Of course BW doesn't say it would feature Shepard, but with the shitstorm currently going on, this could be their one saving grace if they can pull it off.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it ain't over yet. EA can't walk away from the franchise. And frankly I don't want them to. As long as the games are good I'll keep buying them. At some point it will end up being played out. That point is almost certainly a fourth game. After that I doubt anything after that will be worth a crap. But you never know. BioWare should have kept their options more open than they did.

And again I'm certainly OK with Shepard's story coming to an end and picking up a new protagonist. I think most people are. But I wouldn't shy away from another Commander Shepard centric game.
 
I really wanted another game with Shepard + Liara + Tali + Garrus at first, but now would be happy with anything, basically. I just hate the thought of the ME universe being destroyed. As long as future games take place after the events in ME3, I'll be happy. I also don't want a MP-centric experience.
 
J W said:
I really wanted another game with Shepard + Liara + Tali + Garrus at first, but now would be happy with anything, basically. I just hate the thought of the ME universe being destroyed. As long as future games take place after the events in ME3, I'll be happy. I also don't want a MP-centric experience.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the rationale. I can understand the story maybe going that direction when it was all outlined originally, but they had 5+ years to straighten that out and come up with another option. Killing it, especially after the popularity of ME2 just seemd short sighted and retarded. But then again maybe they wanted to be artistic instead of thinking about revenue and the future. The problem is that sort of thing isn't possible anymore when you get in bed with EA. And I think this nonsense was the best they could do with the cinematics they already made and just had to ship what they had. EA wasn't about to tolerate more delays given the money they sunk into advertising.

It's hard to know what really happened or what they were really trying to accomplish. But this is what I think of it:
ME3EndingisShit.jpg
 
My guess is that there will be other games set in the ME universe and maybe your choices from ME 1-3 will affect how some elements pan out. Maybe Shepard is alive depending on what happened in ME3, but he may not necessarily be a playable character. Who knows, I guess we'll find out eventually.
 
Fix Me said:
My guess is that there will be other games set in the ME universe and maybe your choices from ME 1-3 will affect how some elements pan out. Maybe Shepard is alive depending on what happened in ME3, but he may not necessarily be a playable character. Who knows, I guess we'll find out eventually.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I could deal with either but the problem is that the endings as they are now leave too many obstacles for an ME4. The control and destroy endings wouldn't be hard to reconcile with each other and make minor changes going forward just like the Collector Base's destruction was a minor issue going into ME3. Synthesis screws that up completely. So unless they pull the dream card / indoctrination or decide on a specific "canon" ending, a direct sequel is nearly impossible.

Now the Extended Cut DLC may change things in one form or another even if they don't pull the dream bullshit. It's hard to know how they could do that but I suppose it's possible. I'll wager though that EA won't allow the DLC to put the nail in the coffin on this and it will make sequels possible.
 
That is true. If you chose the synthesis ending then everybody in the galaxy is a Borg. Gonna be hard to come up with something thatll take that into account and still be halfway believable.

It depends on what theyre going to come up with. If theyre just going to come out with some additional footage to explain what happens with each ending, the fate of everybody else, how your squad got onto the Normandy and all that. If thats what theyre going to do then none of this matters.

If however theyre going to come out with something thatll tie in to a ME4 then the only way to really do it would be for it to all have been a dream after Shepard getting the shit kicked out of him by Harbinger. Waking up in the rubble of London is something thats already there in the original cut so it wouldnt be too far a stretch for them to go. And even though we'd all see thru it, I dont think we'd mind so long as it gave us a proper end to the game and especially if it gave us some extra ME play.
 
Dan_D said:
How is the use of the Illusive Man's eyes in two of the three ending sequences not intentional? I don't get that. Deny it all you like, but it's there. You can see it. I'm not 100% sure on the reason, but it has to mean something.
Click to expand...

Reuse of assets. Maybe I'm crazy, but it doesn't seem that far fetched that somebody wanted Shepard to have glowy eyes while dissolving and stuck somebody with about an hour to make it happen, so they borrowed from TIM eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for there to be more to it, but it seems equally plausible that they were just reusing assets to save time.
 
soulsavior said:
Reuse of assets. Maybe I'm crazy, but it doesn't seem that far fetched that somebody wanted Shepard to have glowy eyes while dissolving and stuck somebody with about an hour to make it happen, so they borrowed from TIM eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for there to be more to it, but it seems equally plausible that they were just reusing assets to save time.
Click to expand...

It's too obvious for someone to reuse that. I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. You could accomplish the desired effect just as easily if not more so without doing that. Sorry but I don't buy that reason.
 
Dan_D said:
It's too obvious for someone to reuse that. I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. You could accomplish the desired effect just as easily if not more so without doing that. Sorry but I don't buy that reason.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense they'd use it for the synthesis ending then, if we're on the subject of making sense. The illusive man's eyes don't represent indoctrination. In fact, glowing eyes in general don't reflect indoctrination. The illusive man had implants and Saren had reaper cybernetics. No other indoctrinated person had glowing eyes to my recollection.

I think you're just being stubborn on this. I didn't say it was the only explanation. I said it was a plausible reason. To say it's somehow less plausible than some symbolic display (which, as pointed out, makes no sense in relation to synthesis) is just denial. If they were being that clever, your eyes should have glowed the way Saren's did for the synthesis ending, not TIM. I'm not saying there isn't something more going on. I'm just saying that the eyes thing isn't particularly strong evidence. There's plenty of other things that offer far better evidence, imo.
 
Is it possible that Shepard's eyes were artificial or implants just like the Illusive Man's, however he had slightly more advanced tech so it didn't show until his body was being broken down? Know what I mean?
 
Dan_D said:
It's too obvious for someone to reuse that. I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. You could accomplish the desired effect just as easily if not more so without doing that. Sorry but I don't buy that reason.
Click to expand...

I dont think it was a re-use, I just think it was a coincidence. There is no reason to make Shepard's eyes like the Illusive Man's because they were implants that were there long before he became indoctrinated. Shep's eyes being turned into implants like TIM's all of a sudden for some reason makes absolutely no sense. Thats the biggest reason.

I did go back and re-watch the control ending and it is easier to see than I remember but I still dont think its meaningful and just a coincidence that it looks like TIM's.

There are several scenes throughout the game where character's eyes seem all glowy. I noticed it a couple times and wondered if that character was possessed or something.

It is also possible that his eyes were implants done by Cerberus when they were resurrecting him. I mean the dude did re-enter a planet's atmosphere. Thats enough heat to melt down huge asteroids. Im sure it would wreak havoc on a set of eyeballs.
 
soulsavior said:
It doesn't make sense they'd use it for the synthesis ending then, if we're on the subject of making sense. The illusive man's eyes don't represent indoctrination. In fact, glowing eyes in general don't reflect indoctrination. The illusive man had implants and Saren had reaper cybernetics. No other indoctrinated person had glowing eyes to my recollection.

I think you're just being stubborn on this. I didn't say it was the only explanation. I said it was a plausible reason. To say it's somehow less plausible than some symbolic display (which, as pointed out, makes no sense in relation to synthesis) is just denial. If they were being that clever, your eyes should have glowed the way Saren's did for the synthesis ending, not TIM. I'm not saying there isn't something more going on. I'm just saying that the eyes thing isn't particularly strong evidence. There's plenty of other things that offer far better evidence, imo.
Click to expand...

Did I say it meant indoctrination? I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. And even if it did, it doesn't mean indoctrinated people have those types of eyes. That wouldn't make sense. But indoctrination or even just a dream which is meant to be symbolic could show the Illusive Man's eyes on Shepard as a way of showing that he's made the wrong decision, been indoctrinated, given up etc. Not that indoctrination does that in the physical world.

Frankly Shepard's eyes looking like that has to be symbolic. There can be no other explanation I can think of.

MacLeod said:
I dont think it was a re-use, I just think it was a coincidence. There is no reason to make Shepard's eyes like the Illusive Man's because they were implants that were there long before he became indoctrinated. Shep's eyes being turned into implants like TIM's all of a sudden for some reason makes absolutely no sense. Thats the biggest reason.

I did go back and re-watch the control ending and it is easier to see than I remember but I still dont think its meaningful and just a coincidence that it looks like TIM's.

There are several scenes throughout the game where character's eyes seem all glowy. I noticed it a couple times and wondered if that character was possessed or something.

It is also possible that his eyes were implants done by Cerberus when they were resurrecting him. I mean the dude did re-enter a planet's atmosphere. Thats enough heat to melt down huge asteroids. Im sure it would wreak havoc on a set of eyeballs.
Click to expand...

Shepard's eyes may in fact be cybernetic. If you don't fix the scars and get enough renegade points, Shepard's eyes look like the Terminator's, but definitely not like the Illusive Mans. Not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top