The Inside Story of Mass Effect 3's Endings, Finally Told

[@PeopleMakeGames]

You might notice that we did, in the end, use the thumbnail mentioned at the end of this episode! Patrons do still get access to the video I made back in 2012, however, plus all sorts of extra goodies, depending on their tier: www.patreon.com/PeopleMakeGames

[@dominateeye]

Funnily enough, now the old thumbnail is showing up for me.

[@JohnDoe_69_420]

@@dominateeye they probably changed it back again to see if it brings more views 🤷

[@Scampcam]

I still 100% stand beside Indoctrination theory. If ME4 doesn't go that route; they're missing an amazing 'twist' that they 'totally planned'. Also that guy who says it doesn't make sense is the kind of problem that caused the ME3 ending. It does make sense. The trilogy has been telling us that control and snythesis *does. Not. work*. also, bragging that gamergate came after you is perhaps not a good take. p.s: I LOVE all three games, even enjoyed Andromeda. And the remake helped with some of the lingering feelings of no closure. But I cannot accept Me3's ending... It flies in the face of everything the trilogy did.

[@CoDjunky]

You guys should get former DICE developers to talk about BF and what the fuck is going on with that series since BFV as DICE has been fighting fans and underdelivering for years now and we never really get to hear their side, outside of like the heads of the projects who do not know how to handle internet people. Talking to Blizz devs would also be amazing to hear

[@clugzo]

This was a terrible video , should have just had the writers and have them explain why they went in the direction they did .

[@JacobGeller]

One of the toughest things to do in an essay is find an engaging balance of interview and narration, and y'all make it look easy every time.

[@tonightscake4127]

Idk, it can be pretty difficult talking about door textures for half an hour.

[@spiritandsteel]

Hey look! It's Jacob. Hi Jacob! You're one of my favorite video essayist. thanks for the amazing work. Nice to see you out in the wild.

[@F-aber]

I mean you also make it look easy from time to time, your video about infinity is still one of my favorites. I also started piranesi (which I really love) because of you

[@littledramaboy]

@@F-aber you've probs finished it by now, did you like it?

[@F-aber]

@@littledramaboy yeah it's great

[@BozingarHoots]

In retrospect, the biggest disappointment for me was that they didn’t need any of these high-fantasy deus ex machina endings. In fact, they had been setting up a much cleaner, easier, and more satisfying ending during the first two games. In ME1, not only did Shepard and crew stop Sovereign from initiating the planned Reaper-backdoor Citadel attack, but it was established the Protheans had prevented this for centuries via the keepers (Sovereign biding time for the Citadel attack per Vigil). This means the Reapers lost a crucial and brutal element of their strategy, as well as let the intelligent races advance an unspecified number of decades beyond what they intended. In fact, ME1 took place in 2183. If the Reapers had attacked as they intended, humanity would have likely been somewhere in the 1900s. The Reapers then try to recover their advantage in ME2, but Shepard and the gang slap them down like Mutombo. This seems to mostly hinge around eliminating humanity as a threat, as well as further their infiltration via indoctrination. Basically, they set it up masterfully to create an ending where, when united by Shepard, the galaxy could have believably destroyed the Reapers with their own power. The ‘Crucible’ seemed like it was introduced to symbolize the combined efforts of a united galaxy, but it could have just been that: the combined efforts of a united galaxy. This would also reinforce the true power Shepard had. Yes, they were a badass, but they were still a single soldier. Instead of a hard left turn into ‘galaxy synthesis chosen one,’ they could have remained what they always were: a figure inspiring enough to bring the galaxy together. It seems like they were so focused on having a massive choice at the end of the game that they introduced a bunch of unnecessary macguffins and worked backwards from there. But we had already made the massive choices. It could have been just like ME2s ending, where the same thing happens regardless, but the ramifications are profoundly different depending on how you played all three games. I don’t know… I think more ‘does this need to be here?’ questions asked during storyboard edits would have saved the team a lot of effort and heartache in the end; as well as fans.

[@MKTakeru]

Yeah, I agree. It feels like Bioware early on made the decision to have a big choice at the end and then never really questioned if that was even a good idea. In my opinion, just a plain old battle victory by activating the crucible and making the reapers go boom would have provided a much more satisfying ending. Rather than the big choice between 3 colours at the end, I would have just stuck with the military readiness point system to determine just how much gets destroyed. Maybe have the previous choices actually impact that score more, so that e.g. renegades get a higher score than paragons, but paragons obviously have the more just world. After that bombastic cinematic ending, I would then include a sort of epilogue, which would be another cut scene, but a much simpler one, so sort of slide-show like instead of fully animated. That epilogue could tell you how the world developed after the war, which would offer plenty of space where all your choices from across the series could come in to shape the kind of legacy that you are leaving. The paragon/renegade thing could come in there as well, renegades might get higher military score and therefore win the war with fewer losses, but their post-war world might be a lot darker, whilst for paragons the losses would be big, but the galaxy is a lot more just and hopeful

[@HellbirdIV]

This is what I've been saying ever since the game came out. It isn't just a flaw in the ending, but in the entirety of ME3's storyline - the Reapers had always relied on their ability to control FTL in the galaxy to slowly and methodically exterminate the galactic civilizations, and without controlling the Citadel they instead have to contend with enemy fleets able to move around, reinforce each other, and cooperate - and the Citadel races could even figure out control of the system and selectively shut down Mass Relays to inhibit Reaper fleet movements. One big mistake in the story was the idea to focus on Earth - who gives a shit about Earth in the Mass Effect universe? 2/3rds of Shepards aren't from Earth and the ones that are had a horrible life there. The players themselves have no connection with Earth because we've never been there in the games, we can only transpose our real feelings of home to this fictional place, which doesn't really do much when all we see of it is the generic city in the intro and then a blasted black landscape that might as well be Tuchanka at the very end. The Citadel, on the other hand, we've spent 3 games getting to know, exploring it all over and meeting all sorts of people on it - and it is central to the story in all ways. The Reaper's end goal should be to take control of the Citadel again, since that *is* their win condition - once they have it, they can shut down the relays and mass forces against isolated systems, continuing the cycle. Players would care about the Citadel being attacked - Bioware obviously knew this, because the Citadel _does_ get attacked _twice_ in ME3, but the Cerberus attack is just nonsensical, and the finale is... well, what it is. ME1 set an incredibly strong foundation for what a Reaper invasion should be like, but they didn't care to adhere to their own continuity - so now the plan had no purpose, the Reapers just zerg rush dreadnoughts in a way that completely negates not only their original menace as secretly being more than just "RAWR BIG MONSTER SHIP" but it ALSO contradicts their new lore of building *one* Reaper per cycle to "preserve species" (which is... lol) because they lose far more Reapers than they make.

[@alecross5255]

@@HellbirdIV I agree 100%. I feel like ME3 was written and created with new players in mind (hence the Earth angle). Therefore, the story was reduced, continuity wasn't at the forefront of the development.

[@mattd5240]

@@alecross5255 I mean the reapers were basically controlling Cerberus at that point. Though if they intended to use Cerberus to take over the citadel, then the reapers did a mass effect ending level job of trying to secure it.

[@EcchiRevenge]

I feel like someone who didn't play videogames or someone who only plays casual games decided on the ending. Like rian johnson directing starwars movie. Because you're expected to select something at the end(so you can load a savefile right after the ending to see a different ending immediately) instead of seeing the culmination of all of your decsions throughout the trilogy. Not sure if that was done for convenience or something but that's probably what made the 3-color colorswap so jarring(because they're being seen back-to-back). The "massive choice" at the end invalidated most if not all of your decisions that got you that far(especially destroy ending - "so nice of you to make peace between quarian and geth, now geth dies anyway because fuck yo"u), and thus killed off relevance of the best part of the trilogy(story decisions that kinda mattered). One big final choice at the end is a massive copout move that belonged in linear games where choices didn't matter. If they had just taken out the choice and showed ending based on what players picked during gameplay(geth alive - control, quarian alive - destroy, peace between both - synthesis; for example, and I like to think that was at least considered during development)

[@Xitoshi]

The biggest issue here seems to be managerial. The ending was not given the appropriate resources and priority, resulting in a terrible disappointment that, I imagine, was an economical threat for the company. But then, to solve that issue as soon as possible, the company abuses its workers _after_ having abused its workers to make the first release. Which is terrible, but I wouldn't blame this on the fans. And, somehow, they seem to have gone through all this without barely being mentioned.

[@cryofpaine]

BINGO! As with most situations like this (see Cyberpunk 2077), it's not the fault of the devs, and it's not the fault of the fans (although as in every fandom, there's always a group of fans that take it way too far). It's the management. Rushed timelines, not enough resources, cut corners. And EA is one of the worst for this kind of thing.

[@prich0382]

If I remember right, it was literally all down on one guy, one guy was given full control over the ending and he fucked up big time

[@Shvabicu]

ME3 was rushed just as much as DA2. EA put BioWare under insane pressure with the deadline and BioWare management isn't the most competent either as we know from Andromeda+Anthem which were more of a BioWare management disaster than EA interference.

[@CrimsonOptics]

I've lost count at how many games flopped or were disappointing because of mismanagement. Almost as if game dev hierarchies are toxic af...

[@DynamiteGazelle]

Totally agree. When i got to the section where the guy was talking about "sticking with the artist's vision", I'm like...is that really the artist's vision tho?

[@eva1777]

"We donated all the cupcakes. Which is great." "Did they put poison in there? Are these safe?"

[@Lonnloven]

The cupcakes were baked by a local bakery, delivered straight to BioWare as far as I remember (I wasn't involved, just read the forum thread about it at the time). So it wasn't physically harmful, and to be honest I think most of the participants had mostly just expected BioWare to eat them and kind of have a laugh about it.

[@embargovenom9948]

....good point.

[@CodeMorseMusic]

I reckon that backlash, valid or not (mostly not) sent a shockwave through multiple industries and has really damaged entertainment and artistic expression in the long run.

[@Cavemanner]

@@CodeMorseMusic lol Star Wars, Game Of Thrones would disagree

[@CodeMorseMusic]

@@Cavemanner I think Star Wars sequels in particular are actually a really good example of made by committee and tick box checking

[@MajestyLyrael]

I feel the discussion around the Mass Effect ending(s) often overlooks one critical thing: The marketing for the game and how the entire trilogy was sold to the audience. The entire pitch of the series was a sci fi choose your own adventure story. A lot of emphasis was put on "Your Story, Your Sheperd, Your Ending". Even during the discussions from the developers about Mass Effect and ending the series, that same thing was said. A lot of about how this was Your Adventure, Your Story, and would be Your Ending. A few mentions of how its not going to be simply A, B, or C... and the initial ending ended up being precisely that, A, B, or C. "Choose your own Instagram filter for the cutscene". I'm all about honesty in these things. A large part of the discussion I saw was about how this wasn't what they had promised (see above). Making a vegan burger is just fine. You do you, man. But just tell me its a vegan burger. Taking said vegan burger and selling it to me as a cheeseburger with cow meat and dairy cheese is not okay, and wondering why I would complain about you doing so is... very odd. The critiques about the writing, themes, etc. I feel are valid, but I feel the above needed to be pointed out.

[@1977Yakko]

Well put. I feel the same. They always sold us on "player choice"... except for the choice to have a happy or ideal ending for Shep as it turns out. I got every galactic resource I could and played the MP of the game to have the maximum galactic readiness possible for the most optimum ending and.... I walked into an exploding tube that I was shooting with a gun for some reason.

[@migzrub7114]

@@1977Yakko Exactly this, I think the reason people were so angry was because for two whole games we were made to believe our choices mattered, that our decisions would have an impact on the world, only to find out that in the end none of it really mattered.

[@psimitry]

@@migzrub7114 and it wasn't just the ending (though that was the worst of it). There were choices as far back as ME1 that echoed through ME2, that when it came time for ME3, they were inconvenient, and thus ignored. Choose to destroy the Rachnii queen in ME1? Well... It's inconvenient for us now because we have an enemy that is based on the Rachnii. We can't just toss it aside for the players that destroyed the Rachnii queen, so... THE REAPERS CLONED her! It makes perfect sense and it won't piss anyone off at all! When you create a decision tree that branches and branches and branches, you can't just have all those branches come back together for the same result and expect nobody to get pissed.

[@joerf1188]

13:00 mate

[@IIIIMavIIII]

Chris does address the marketing in the video

[@Skund79]

I think what is really overlooked is that this is not about ME3, this is about ME as a whole. Your personally investment among the trilogy is immense. I remember talking with friends about ME1 and then ME2 and so on, it was part of our life. And then you get an ending where it can't keep up in any shape or form with the personal bond and investment you build up. I love games where I can invest myself like in the ME series, but it stings the more the closure is just not there

[@derFeef]

For me the Citadel DLC was the perfect closure. I know this is a silly view, but it really was.

[@MorinehtarTheBlue]

@@derFeef I've heard many of people have dealt this way but I only got Leviathan so I didn't have that luxury.

[@solsystem1342]

I love when games rather than having a few specific endings take a more fragmentary approach. Like, instead of giving you a choice about the future right at the end the game logs a huge amount of things throughout the game and then gives you a bunch of small scenes exploring how things turned out for specific characters. You can also add in specific endings that only trigger under certain conditions but they're layered on top of the more personalized smaller sections so it feels like a culmination of everything you've built up to. Obviously you need to start with this in mind and realistically it will never work for a multi-game series but that style of ending always leaves me more satisfied than something like frostpunk stamping a "good job" marker on you after having to do a bunch of horrible things because you didn't quite do as bad as you need to to get a "bad job" sticker 😓

[@MementoMorrigan]

I love that they were all mad about the cupcakes, not because someone had sent them purely to spite them, but because they couldn’t eat them 😂

[@GallowayJesse]

Reminds me of the episode of the office where their old boss who was horrible to them came back to apologize as part of his 12 step alcohol rehabilitation and brought cupcakes

[@wppb50]

When life gives you sarcasm cupcakes, eat them.

[@KTheBoi]

To be fair, considering the death threats, it wasn't crazy for them to be careful since they very well could've been poisoned

[@roryscott2941]

See if I thought the cupcakes maybe poisoned I wouldn't have donated them

[@fritzophrenia3146]

"NO NO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO TASTE THE SARCASM FLAVORED CUPCAKE"

[@neon-kitty]

Tbh, the Extended Cut didn't fix any of the issues I had with the ending which were mainly centered around it not making much sense from a narrative perspective. It felt like comparatively bad writing (in a series that was known and loved for having good writing) and was simply an unsatisfactory explanation for the reapers (imo). That being said, obviously nobody should have ever received any kind of harassment over it, let alone death threats.

[@23Scadu]

Same here. I never even bothered to play or look up videos of the new endings because I completely lost interest in the series after finishing ME3. Honestly I thought the entire game was severely lacking, but that may be because I played it without the precursor (or forerunner or whatever, I forget) character that was only included in premium editions. It still boggles me that they entirely cut out a living member of the legendary ancient species around whose mystery the trilogy revolved just to charge a couple of extra bucks for it.

[@neon-kitty]

@@23Scadu Oh yeah, I forgot about that.The funny thing is, I actually had the code for that DLC included in my purchase but I didn't realise that it hooked into the main storyline and assumed that it was just post-game DLC so I figured I'd just redeem it once I was done with the main story... Thanks EA!

[@nickllama5296]

Obviously. The extended cut at least gave you some minor insights into what happened to your companions etc, which has always been pretty much a staple of RPGs.

[@Zeph101theoriginal]

Yeah my problems with ME3 weren't just the ending but the writing in general. The Star Child saying peace between synths and organics wasn't possible, despite having Just brokered peace between the Quarians and Geth, and not being able to bring that topic up to the Star Kid, made me realise we were at Fallout 3 levels of writing now. Tbh, people complaining about just the ending made me realise I was in the minority with my own complaints though, and I quickly stopped being a part of that discourse when the harrasment happened.

[@rickbear4722]

@@Zeph101theoriginal "The Star Child saying peace between synths and organics wasn't possible, despite having Just brokered peace between the Quarians and Geth, and not being able to bring that topic up to the Star Kid," I think this is exactly the biggest issue. There is a huge disconnect between all the work you did in the games and the ending.

[@andrewmcclean823]

My main issue with the endings had nothing to do with execution. They just felt narratively bad. Everything in the story told us Controlling the Reapers wasn't possible but apparently now it's super-easy barely an inconvenience. The death of the Geth and ED-E to finally kill the Reapers in Destroy would feel like a great sacrifice but considering the other 2 endings are objectively better it ends up being pointless. The synthesis ending just comes out of nowhere and feels weird for the sake of being weird.

[@GhostRiderLSOV]

"The synthesis ending just comes out of nowhere and feels weird for the sake of being weird." "Now, sir, I want you to get all the way off my back" - ME3 Pitch Meeting

[@nickgutierrez83]

I do wish they had referred to it more throughout ME3, but synthesis was basically what Saren wanted to do all the way back in ME1

[@ericquiabazza2608]

That IS the diference they ignore here, the first game USES a thime to tell a story. The second was using a Thime badly. The first is a choice of the component, the second is the EXECUTION.

[@FlakAttack0]

@@nickgutierrez83 Synthesis was Saren's goal and Control was the Illusive Man's goal. Those were key parts to the indoctrination theory lol.

[@DaiShiHU]

@@Leunenkoenig I absolutely agree with this. The one thing I really missed about the original endings is a slideshow with the consequences afterwards. ... You know what every RPG does since ... probably since computer RPGs exist. (And I imagine it would have been comparatively cheap to do as well.)

[@Toporshik]

To me the biggest problem with the endings was not the lack of presentation. It was that the choice was not properly forshadowed and that options were not established in the game world. Moreover, the entire argument that precedeed the need for this choices had clear logical flaws. No amount of presentation could've countered that the entire sythetics vs organics conflict was very artificial and options given in the end arbitrary. Space magic is a good way to generalize the first draft of the first idea of the ending, but in at least half-logical common sence sci-fi world of Mass Effect it should not have been the final explanation for it. Having said that, I do not blame the developers for making the endings the way they did. I'm just disappointed in general that this ended up being the case.

[@HunterVanguard]

I bristle at the idea that the "Extended Cut" fixed the ending. It didn't. It didn't address the reasons the ending was and IS so hated, it's not consistent with the story. It leaves all the most interesting plot threads to die on the vine. In Mass Effect 3 the developers made a game with a story in it rather than what they had made twice previously, a story told via game. That's what needed correction back then and hopefully we'll get that with ME4.

[@CodeMorseMusic]

To be honest, most of the games wasn’t consistent as an ending. I think ME3 was, is and always will be a huge missed opportunity.

[@MorinehtarTheBlue]

I think most people agree that the Extended Cut didn't really fix anything. It's just that the fervor died down and at least BioWare had listened and made an effort.

[@thatotherguy8138]

What the Extended Cut did was give the fans Closure. If we had gotten the Extended Endings to begin with, this video would not have enough of an audience to warrant being made - we would still hate the endings, but like with LOST, we would have gotten over it. Perhaps the biggest problem with the original 3 endings was that they were so abrupt that there was no time for closure. Yeah, we had that Rah Rah Rah scene on Earth just before charging into the Teleporter Beam where we said Goodbye to everyone, but no one expected that was going to be literally the last time we saw most of them (we would see one of them in the end cut scene, where the Love Interest would exit the Normandy with Joker - that's it) as a Player. So when we got to the end and there was NOTHING, there was no release to the tension that had been building up. And that tension had to be released somewhere... If the Extending Endings had been the Original Endings, we would have had most of that tension released. "Oh, Jacob is... fine, whatever. Ashley is... oh, that's nice. Garrus is doing what? Huh. Liara and Tali are doing what? Well, okay." etc. etc. It would have been unsatisfying, and we wouldn't remember the ending fondly, but most of the Hate would be defused before the console was turned off. In that way - and ONLY that way - the Extended Cut "fix" the endings.

[@MetalGamer666]

Yeah, I didn't even bother playing the extended cut when I realised it didn't do anything to address the issues I had with the ending. The whole deus ex machina macguffin stuff that could have happened no matter what had happened before or who was present in the end was the issue I had.

[@jo-flowbmoonsmell8564]

A huge disappointment for me was the fact that no major decision from a previous game prevented or enabled any of the endings. Not even the big decision at the end of ME2 to save the collector ship or give it to Cerberus to study it. The Ranchni queen didn't matter, either did replacing the justice with an evil doppelganger. Then we had to beg them for an even cursory explanation for the really abstract ending they gave. They didn't seem to realize the fridge logic of the og ending meant the crew was doomed as well as a lot of the exotic species that fought in the final battle because they had no way of surviving away from home. I laughed when the stranded ship was suddenly fine and just took off -we fixed it! To be clear, I didn't ask for them to crunch. They should have taken their time in the first place and not rushed out a very fractured and thematically confusing ending that didn't honor player choices or even present any sense of agency in the final moments.

[@RStarbuck13]

The big problem with Mass Effect 3's ending was that from the very beginning of the franchise BioWare worked hard not only to say that the player's choices had value, but treated the player as a co-creator of the story. They routinely used the language "your Shepard" and made comments that reinforced the notion that the player had agency in the path the story took. And then, at the last minute, they took the reins away from the player and said "Actually, your choices don't really make a difference here." Chris Hepler gets it when he says that he includes the audience in the creation of the story. BioWare didn't have to provide players with a sense of ownership over Shepard, much less the story they were telling, and yet they did. It shouldn't come as a surprise to BioWare, then, that players want to continue the ownership of the character and narrative that they were sold all along. They can make the "authorship" argument all they want, but they included the player as co-author from the beginning. There were other problems as well. The biggest I can currently think of being the ME2 DLC that basically said blowing up a Mass Relay destroys the entire star system...and then having Shepard blow up all of the Mass Relays in every single ending. That was fixed in the Extended Cut - the Mass Relays no longer exploded, but broke apart instead. But initially it smacked of inattention or indifference to their own details, and when some at BioWare then called players entitled, it just fueled the fire and suspicion that they didn't actually care. I think the fact that the Extended Cut exists and was released as quickly as it was went a long way towards addressing that, and I'm sad that there were folks who had to crunch to get it done, but I don't think it's reasonable for anyone at BioWare to put that on players being unhappy with the ending, when it's BioWare's fault for creating the problem to begin with. BioWare and EA brought it on themselves.

[@lvl99paint]

The problem with the ending wasn't the tinted cutscenes or the illusion of choice or entitled fans or any of that. It's not even that it was ambiguous or 'not happy'. It was just the wrong ending for the story the games had been telling for the past 2.9 games.

[@linkenski]

Exactly this. On a literary level, this is an invalid ending to this story. It just doesn't fit.

[@MrSnaztastic]

I feel like I should plug Shamus Young's epic "Mess Effect" book which compiles his multi-year essay series on the absolute story collapse of the franchise as a whole. I still love the trilogy, but it's undeniable they didn't know where they were going, or how to wrap it up, and just sort of threw their hands up at the last minute leading to the mess we got.

[@linkenski]

@@MrSnaztastic ME2 did have missteps... but ultimately it's just too good of a game and standalone experience for me to decry it like he did. Mass Effect 3 was forced to end, SOMEHOW, at its final sequence. It wasn't going to be easy given the narrative missteps it already had, but ME3 course-corrected so well despite of it, that it managed to put forth a thesis for the trilogy: "Unity through diversity." In whatever way it ended, there should've been an adversary to that theme (and there was: Illusive Man and the Reapers) and an ideological conflict coming to a culmination at the end between what Shepard and our cycle wants, and what the Reapers want, and a resolution. Introducing the Catalyst as some kind of proxy to all the Reapers was fine in theory... but to project the entire narrative's worth onto the topic of "Organics vs Synthetics" was such a fundamental misread, that it simply ruined the story at the 11th hour. They neglected the central conflict for something it never was, but they could've salvaged the story in spite of any missteps it previously had, by just having a final confrontation of some kind, and a plausible explanation of how the Crucible kills every Reaper (using the Relays, thus disabling them and leaving us in a dark age! NOT BAD!) but unfortunately, we were forced to dwell on the "what ifs" about "Synthetic life" instead of just driving home the theme of unity in spite of differences. To combat the Reaper homogeneity and bigotry with our common pursuit of freedom as organics, synthetics, whatever! Just give us peace, and explain what goal of the Reapers was against it... so that Shepard could say "No, that is your goal, not ours. Your Reaper Harvest was WRONG." And that's the issue at the end. They justify the Reapers with a fake conflict, and allow the entire trilogy to conclude on a false premise, rather than simply driving home the themes and ideas that already made it so good and popular.

[@wppb50]

@@linkenski Also I think that "diversity breeds inevitable destructive conflict, so forcibly homogenizing everyone is the ideal path to peace" might be the worst messages I've ever heard.

[@Klijpo]

@@linkenski 'Organics vs Synthetics' is literally the first conflict introduced in the prologue of ME1. It's clearly one of the main themes. Just because ME2 kinda forgot about it doesn't negate that it needed to be addressed in the finale. The concept wasfine; the execution was garbled.

[@amduil8168]

My biggest issue with the endings was that they didnt seem to flesh them all out fully. Synthesis, how does that even happen? Nanobots? Biotics? Dark Energy? What is fusing all these robots and people? Weve been given so much made up science for so many tiny things in the series but they dropped the details for that ending. Also why would i pick that when that was exactly what saren wanted? He was indoctrinated when he wanted that. I fought him on that idea and won already. Control, I'll just suddenly control all reapers with no repercussion? The illusive man had been trying to and failing to do just that. He became indoctrinated trying to control them. How do i know they arent just saying "oh yea shepard just disintegrate your body and control the reapers. Trust me." And even if he does control them will the star child just be there whispering into shepaards ear essentially? How long until shepard is convinced the reapers are a good thing then? And then destroy, we get told all synthetic life will be destroyed. They even point out that shepard is partly synthetic. In what way? Synthetic cause he was lab grown and repaired in two? Or synthetic because of computer implants? Define synthetic in this particular context. Why does he survive if you have a certain amount of readiness? Were they able to focus the weapon to only kill reapers? If not then what happens to the quarians who have computers connecting them to their suits? Does that make them partly synthetic? What about biotics and their implants? They set all these ending up and dont answer any of the questions that their own world building established. World building that we spend at least 60 hours living in and have been thinking about. I can live with the color changes, i just wanted more answers.

[@mononoke721]

It's almost like the writers didn't think the endings through, or at least didn't have the chance to because they rushed the ending choices altogether.

[@mononoke721]

It's almost like the writers didn't think the endings through, or at least didn't have the chance to because they rushed the ending choices altogether due to perhaps a rushed development.

[@MasterVycen]

My biggest issue was that all the little choices I had made over the years weren't present in the final endings. I barely saw the Geth I saved, the alliances I created, or the people I saved, aside from some pretty generic comic-book slides in the Extended Cut. I needed more cinematics, like I had seen many times thoughout the series already, to reflect in a cinematic way all of those choices. And, of course, seeing the endings side-by-side and how similar they were after didn't help. But for me it was always pretty obvious the issues were due to a lack of time. The whole game had a slew of little issues that just screamed "rushed" to me. Issues that were not really present as much in the earlier two games. So, I never got that upset because I knew it was basically an accident. Perhaps I could blame EA for not giving them more time, but I didn't see any of the actual developers as really at fault.

[@GallowayJesse]

I always thought the green ending was so absurd. The characters with circuit boards in their skin is so stupid (why would anyone want that) but everyone is happy with this thing that was forced upon them and it's wonderful because... the writers say so. Great example of something that fits perfectly thematically but makes zero sense in any other kind of way.

[@Carakav]

Same. That was the first ending I got, and I remember thinking: "This makes no sense, scientifically. Also, people are happy about this no-consent transformation?"

[@Zeeno]

I agree with you. Technically, your nervous system is your circuit board. You literally send and receive electrical signals so you don't need an extra circuit board

[@justinwhite2725]

@@Carakav I think it was more of a mass universe-wide thing that happened that you have no explanation for and have to live with. Remember,the person who made the choice doesn't survive so no one is told that they made that decision. This thing happened and life goes on.

[@TheRedAzuki]

It makes no sense on any level and gives rise to so many more questions. Like "Is all stuff now this synthesis? So even bugs? Bacteria? viruses? Did we just kill evolution as a function ? (Since Viruses are a big deal of spreading mutations between species) What's to stop these synthesis creatures from making more synthetics in the future? How did metal become part organic? What happens then to like computer systems? Is my HD drive now also a new life form?

[@kudosbudo]

@@TheRedAzuki Haha some of the stuf you wrote is daft haha. " Did we just kill evolution as a function ?" That was teh point of synthesis, to allow both type sof life to evolve further. "How did metal become part organic?" Like its already part of organic life NOW haha. You know iron, mineral etc. "What happens then to like computer systems?" Its wasn't affecting computers. JUST AI life and organic life. you can still have computers. "What's to stop these synthesis creatures from making more synthetics in the future" Nothing. Its an issue anymore though. Synthetic creatures or life is compatible with the hybrid life. Would like to point out i've never playe dteh game and only had to watch teh endings and a few wiki reads to glean this.

[@twilightgeneral777]

From scene one of Mass Effect 3, the little kid/"Star Child" just absolutely annoyed me. It felt like they just showed a kid dying for cheap sympathy points, and then they force you to see this kid haunting shepherd's nightmares even though the importance given to the child feels completely unearned. Shepherd had seen so many people die up to that point and lost so many friends. Seeing those people, the innocents and friends Shepherd had failed to save, would have had far more emotional and thematic impact.

[@blakeharris787]

Yeah, I could imagine my "Paragon" being bummed by seeing the kid die, though he had seen similar things over his career it would feel odd that seemed to give him PTSD or something. If it caused him to remember a past event, that would have made sense. My more "Renegade" Sheps would have not noticed the kid but for a moment, since they would have been thinking in terms of the transport itself being destroyed, so why they would have dreams about him would be OOC.

[@marloncebo242]

I never finished the game, but me seeing the kid seemed so out of place like Shepard was hallucinating. Obviously there weren't any children in the universe plus no other character acknowledged the child's presence and it was so jarring. It actually made me think that the indoctrination theory made more sense with intentional subtle writing choices fit into it overall.

[@NoirRaven]

This is why the indoctrination theory has merit. It explains why this rando-child exists and matters to shep, plus why they're everywhere and no one else sees it. I'm not sure how people can shit on the theory as hard as they do; none of the arguments I've seen have been able to replace it with anything better. :/

[@katea6721]

shoulda replaced the ghost child with whichever crewmember you left behind on virmire, that would have had far more impact.

[@mnaimi2964]

It's so cheap when they introduce all the main story elements in the last bit of the game. And even cheaper when it's done terrible. First off you have to chase the kid at a painfully slow speed all throughout the game while learning nothing about him. Then at the end when you find out leviathain was actually there before the reapers that was pretty cool. But then at the very end to say that there was someone here before the reapers, before leviathain, and that this creature is just gonna take the shape of that random kid. Like now they just have me thinking there is something there before the kid too lol. And then he gives you the dumbest options. COMMON this kid can control everything but all the options are exactly the same. WORST TRILOGY ENDING EVER

[@Silvertip_M]

I think that the whole "artistic integrity" thing is a bit of dodge. Mass Effect not the product of a single vision, nor was the ending an artistic choice that the dev team felt strongly about. It was a collaborative process from dozens of people...with different lead writers and directors having singular impacts to the game. Beyond that, art is often edited by the customer, DaVinci created some of his greatest works on commission...basically he painted what some rich people wanted rather than what he wanted to paint...and he had to deliver up to their expectations. This happen in pretty much every medium, especially when you're talking about mass market products. Meeting expectations is a key factor in satisfying customers...and Mass Effect 3's ending simply failed to live up to expectations. My biggest disappointment with the ending isn't the "3 colors" but rather that none of the choices I had spend hundreds of hours making simply didn't impact the ending. In the end, I just put the game away and didn't look back. I didn't replay the game or get any of the DLC until the Legendary edition came out...and I must say that it was more satisfying the second time around...but definitely not worth the pain and harassment that people suffered. The biggest lesson shouldn't be that games need to cater to their fans...but that cutting corners isn't likely to make a project successful. So taking the time you need to make the best product possible without abusing your staff is probably a better goal than meeting some arbitrary deadline.

[@Cavemanner]

I think this is the perspective that gets missed in this discussion, at least from what I've seen. It's that this wasn't a blow to casual gamers who picked up ME3 because hype, it was a blow to those of us who spent countless hours roaming the galaxy in ME1 and 2 to make sure we ran down every lead, prepared every planet, researched every technology, and talked to every character we could. We had been promised since day 1 that the choices we made in the first two games would hold relevance later, only for that relevance to be a couple of side missions and loyalty quests that ultimately had no effect on the massive ending. I can respect creative vision and an artist having their own ideas on story resolution, but what we got didn't feel inspired at all. I was lucky enough to still be young enough to thoroughly enjoy the game, even the Control ending I got that very first time (since I hadn't touched the multiplayer for synthesis), but looking back now it rings so hollow. The words of these devs, too, ring hollow when you realize they have a vested interest in not shit-talking upper management considering those upper managers are still around and have the power to blackball anyone they deem "problematic".

[@manwiththemachinegun]

Artistic integrity as a defense only works when its, you know, *art*. We have a lot of information on how ME3 not only had a short development cycle, but also the original Dark Energy ending was changed, at least partly due to bad fan reaction of leaks. So saying "we should have stuck to our guns" doesn't hold water because the ending itself was changed multiple times throughout development. I'm all for defending the line workers of Bioware, 95% of ME3 and its writing is a truly excellent game, and has some of my favorite moments in the whole series. The ending is unfortunate, but the ending not being "happy" wasn't people's biggest problem. The ending was a disaster of 00s era mismanagement of vital story information DLC like Javik and Leviathan, cut off from the main story and sold piece meal. Between that and "lots of speculation," not to mention the fact the writing team didn't co-develop the ending (it was thrown together in about a week between two people with no other team review) people were angry because the ending was exactly what its first impression gave: it was rush, rushed, RUSHED.

[@Scerttle]

Absolutely this. I'd have rathered they gotten it right the first time and not have to do the extended cut at all. Hell, I still haven't played the extended cut cause I wasn't on board with the idea myself. Was still very disappointed with the ending though. Mass Effect 3's ending as a whole felt like it swerved in another direction than ME2 was taking things.

[@Silvertip_M]

@@Scerttle Definitely, even in the game statements by Javik were clear that what happened in ME:3 had never been accomplished before. No previous cycle had managed to unify effectively all races in the galaxy both organic and synthetic against the Reapers. I would have liked to see an option for self-determination. IF you got all the species to work together and IF you maxed out your forces...you could unlock an ending where you don't need to make a deal with the devil to survive...but instead requires basically the sacrifice of the majority of the Universe's forces. SOMETHING which pays off for those who spent countless hours and days trying to do everything perfectly. Heck after all the times you convinced the baddie to off themselves; maybe the Catalyst sees all races in the galaxy both biological and synthetic...including their own creators (Leviathan) united against it, and reaches a conclusion...that for the first time in untold millions of years; there is a new way forward. The Catalyst decides that its mission is done, and leaves the galaxy in order to seek out its place in the universe. It was a series of missed opportunities, and I don't blame the people working on the game as much as the publisher who just wanted it out the door. ME3 could have been an all-time great game with an extra year added to its development cycle. As it was it was a stunted game that was made somewhat better over time with DLC...but still not up to its potential.

[@ari54x]

@@manwiththemachinegun ME absolutely is art, games in general are art, but they are a type of art that is hugely reliant on audience participation and protagonist identification. (where there is a protagonist) The problem in storytelling terms is that both the gameplay mechanisms, the press statements, and the story up to that point had been leading us to expect our choices would add up to affect the ending and the game wouldn't be on rails but baloon outwards towards the end encompassing many of our important choices and maybe even some unimportant ones in aspects of the ending, and that the ending as delivered is NOT a decision that demonstrates "artistic integrity," no matter whether you are proud of what you made or not. What you say to the audience explicitly and implicitly matters, (regardless of whether games are art or not) and they have a right to think the product you made is inconsistent with what you were telling them in its beginning, especially in an episodic medium like a three-part game series. Whether you like the actual endings (I don't mind them, in fact I think the earlier versions described would've been pretty great if expanded upon the way the extended cut ended up doing) or not that's still undeniably true. And I say this as someone who's absolutely on team "the workers at bioware were probably treated horrendously, deserve better, and should never have been harassed or made to feel harassed."

[@ecanus-3605]

Tbh ME3s orignal ending wasn't hated because it was "streamlined" it was hated because they decided to throw a major game mechanic out of the window..... and I quote one of BW leaddesigners of that time "....in ME3 all your choices matter.....the ending will be just as personal as your play through (through the series)" What people got was nothing in the realm of "personal" neither a "choice" that mattered....

[@linkenski]

I believe that the "Choices Matter" is a complete strawman. Most of the initial outbursts were from the most critical fans, myself included, that the story just didn't add up. The fact that the promise of choices and amazingly different outcomes was broken was a disappointment, but the game IN GENERAL, had underperformed there. Anderson/Udina didn't matter. The Rachni Queen didn't matter. The Collector Base didn't matter. By the time I got to the ending there was already no way that it would live up to the hope I once had, because the game had already dropped the ball there. So why do people GENERALLY accept ME3 but NOT the ending? It's because the ending itself is a bad wrap-up to this STORY.

[@ecanus-3605]

@@linkenski well it's what they were selling the game as... I can remember that I thought ...okay they won't end most of the lose ends during the game so there has to be a big epilogue like thing, referencing choices made....didn't happen obviously. So yes it wasn't just the end but ME3 as a whole, but most like myself where hoping for a good ending atleast.....so we could overlook the inconsistencies, the bloat, the bad GD and the lack of reference.

[@geroni211]

@@linkenski exactly, if the rest of the game had been better until that point, the ending wouldn't have sparked the hatred that it did.

[@FlakAttack0]

@@linkenski Geth/Quarian/Both didn't matter. Samara/Morinth didn't matter. The Krogans didn't matter. Saving the council/letting them die didn't matter. Renegade/Paragon didn't matter. Nothing fucking mattered. ME3 is generally a bad game and the ending is just the turd sprinkled on top of the garbage fire.

[@zotaninoron3548]

7:15 - *"If you only went through once, you had a pretty satisfying ending."* Respectfully, no. I carried character from the original ME all the way through to Three (having purchased three on release). I achieved the synthesis ending and was deeply disappointed with how it played out from the obviously inconsistent narrative of the 'Star Child' and everything after. The 'extended cuts' gave more context that was appreciated, but the end choice felt *really* dumb and *really* shallow and went against the themes that seemed to have built up over the course of the three games.

[@josephtanner750]

The original ending was 2 choices. All AIs die or Shepard dies and takes control of the reapers I think. Red or Blue. Then you got a matte painting of your crew crash landed somewhere else. With a short message. That was it, after 120-200 hours of gameplay and story, choices and hard decisions. This was before the "middle" option was even added in the first few weeks. Don't make a choice or attack the dude? Game over, Reapers win. Its one of the greatest betrayals in all of storytelling and I've never been able to bring myself to return to the series to even see the "fixed" ending. And I loved those games, played the first one so many times.

[@ParkaPal]

@@josephtanner750 I personally really like the failure ending. Probably in part cause i stuck with Liara the whole series, and the scene near the end where she helps you make a message to the next cycle with even more warnings than the Protheans gave you becomes the key element in contextualizing the end horizon storytelling bit. Humanity and the rest failed, but they succeeded in letting the next cycle win.

[@zotaninoron3548]

@@josephtanner750 *"The original ending was 2 choices. All AIs die or Shepard dies and takes control of the reapers I think. Red or Blue."* No, 'Green' Synthesis Ending was achievable on release. Because I managed it before the extended cuts happened or any DLC (besides the day one dlc Javik, which I refused to buy and ultimately ended any further purchases of EA games or DLC.) To get the Green ending you either needed to have imported through all three games, weaving a pretty particular path to get enough warscore (which I did by accident) or farm the co-op mode. Before the extended cuts the end was just EDI and Joker crawling out of the Normandy with their synth eyes. Guess Joker's bone-itis got cured.

[@scrpld7111]

@@josephtanner750 I understand. I have played lot of Mass Effect and when ME3 was released I was so disappointed about the ending. The whole game you gather up some army and I thought maybe in the end you get some scene where you control that army and defeat the reapers. was so confused with the star child thing. felt so out of the context. But after all the dlcs and extended cut and if you gather 8500 army readiness and take renegade ending it's ok for me but there is potential to better. but the other endings I don't like I always take renegade ending even though I'm playing paragorn Shepard.

[@linkenski]

Good video. However, to this day this still seems to elude BioWare what the validity of the issue is. I believed and still believe that the fundamental problem with ME3's ending was just the storytelling itself and its themes. This was a LOST-tier or BSG-2004-tier, Game of Thrones tier finale to the plot itself, and that would've been the same no matter what. As they discuss here, there was no point where there was any truly branching ending, it was all inevitably the way we got it because it had to resolve the preceding plot of all 3 games and especially ME3, and the real issue is actually that ME3's story in its entirety was a big slippery slope. It allowed for excellent moments like the scenes with the Krogan and Quarians/Geth, but the actual plot, its premise and the Crucible, wrote them into an ugly corner on top of rushing it out the door, so we got a confused end-scene that suddenly shifts the themes of the entire storyline in ways that doesn't apply to the rest of it, and misses the point of the entire narrative so far. "Organics vs Synthetics" was confusedly made into the central topic of the entire franchise at the last 10 minutes, and from that point it does not matter what you do with regards to how many choices or which outcomes there are, because all of its runs with the assumption that it is "Organics vs Synthetics" that is the root of all evil of the whole trilogy, and that this needs to be resolved. In other words, the ending was not EARNED. It felt phony and out of place.

[@RStarbuck13]

Yeah, making the entire focus organics vs synthetics felt very out of the blue.

[@ryanodoherty4090]

Nail on the head.

[@Ultimataco]

That’s my big issue with the ending, well one of many issues. The whole organic vs synthetic is out of no where, also how can the star child make that argument when it’s very possible to get the quairans and geth to make peace in that game. If they wanted to make it this overarching plot of organic vs synthetic then the entire trilogy should of been about that. But that’s what happens when you rush a game to meet a deadline, you release an underwhelming mess and ruin the trust the fans had in you

[@QuiGonGlenn]

@thoth81 Drew? He turned Revan into a dipshit. He is capable of good work, but don't make more of him than he is - Holden Caulfield would call him a prostitute.

[@Legion12Centurion]

@@RStarbuck13 True but it was one of the topics of the first game aswell. AI vs organics was a theme that pulsed trough the other games aswell. When you look at how Saren tried to find a compromise between AI and organics without realising he was a tool to end the very universe he sought to protect (despite being very ruthless). And then you see the threads about Geth (some of them) seeing the Reaper as the pinnacle to there own evolution almost like gods helping the reapers to start the harvest of the galaxy. Mass Effect drew some of these plot points already in its first game. But I do agree that the endings ended on a sour note due to not being more different and taking account of many of the choiches we made. :)

[@MrSnaztastic]

I just wanted to have a conversation battle to end the series. Talking your way into saving the universe was something I think could have worked and what I was really hoping for. Imagine actually reasoning with the reapers. LOOK at what you can accomplish during ME3, reunifying the Geth and Quorians showing the synthetics and organics can still co-exist without being surgically grafted to each other. Having a synthetic crew member, etc. etc. The choices you make at least during ME3 itself should really have played into these final moments and given you ammunition to "win". ME3's endings didn't feel earned based on what had gone before. Extended Cut and the Leviathian DLC especially helped smooth things out, but the game still feels like it glosses over the core events of its own story which undermine the finale. It's like fridge logic on a cosmic scale.

[@notthemusewere]

Large, large parts of ME3 are railroaded in a way that removes the "talk" option. I was actually surprised that I could talk TIM into killing himself, Saren style, because the later you got in the game, the more you were funneled into not having any choice about what happened. The whole Star Brat sequence was nothing but an idiot lecture. It didn't matter what you said; you'd get the canned dialog from the Brat until you got bored and picked a cupcake. Or blasted him...but even that didn't show up until the extended cut.

[@kshadehyaena]

Yeah, basically the Captain Picard ending. Totally wrote a few paragraphs on that back then where the reapers would admit that this cycle was different and simply retreat to deep space, like the cosmic horror they should be.

[@notthemusewere]

@@kshadehyaena I had an alternate; a Bolivian Army ending. Shepard gets to tell the Reapers off, telling them "this time it is different. This time we are all united against you. We know your tricks and we are READY." And then gives a rousing speech and you see -- cockpit reaction shots or ships in space, but at least you SEE -- all the assets you have gathered. ALL of them, Rachnii and Geth and all...if possible, right down to Elcor tanks and Krogan riding dinosaurs. "All forces...Attack!" Fade to black, cue end titles.

[@hedgehog3180]

The game sorta tied renegade decisions to gathering a larger fleet and paragon options usually meant choosing the morally right choice. It would have been nice if at the ending you could either make reference to all of the paragon choices you made in order to convince the Reapers to back off or in the best case work together with everyone else, or a large enough fleet would just be able to beat the reapers in this battle outright with some help and coordination from you. Perhaps the longer you distract the Reapers with conversation the more the battle would flow in your direction. It could also be similar to the ME1 ending where you could make choices in the battle to either do the morally right thing or choose more effective battle tactics, like maybe not giving room for a heavily damaged ship to retreat or even firing through allies.

[@AlbertoGarcia-wd7sc]

@@notthemusewere People would've also hated that.

[@emdeo]

The guy who's like "it boggles my mind" needs to be shown that overview of the cutscenes being the same, in the ending to their massive trilogy based on "choices". The big conclusion should be that the management was at fault here, for crunching the developers and still having not enough time to make a proper ending the first time around!

[@sodadrinker89]

Yeah, whatever choice we made in the game did not matter, and it sucked.

[@twills_8452]

Yea that guy, I don’t quite think he understood where a lot of people where coming from. Sure some people wanted an ending that suited them and only them, and for sure those people were dumb. But when it came down to it, there was an overwhelmingly large amount of people that thought the ending didn’t make sense. It wasn’t just “people were mean to artists!” No, people were disappointed in the artists for not giving arguable the most pivotal moment in the trilogy an ending that was so random, so unexplained, so empty. It wasn’t just some dumb people demanding this or that. It was a HUGE amount of people who thought the ending just wasn’t up to par with the rest of the trilogy.

[@kudosbudo]

@@sodadrinker89 BUt thats life though. None of the choice matter at the END. They only matters during the journey!

[@Biouke]

@@kudosbudo So life is a BioWare game ? :p

[@TheMightyNovac]

I feel like something as simple as a post-ending Obsidian-style slideshow narrated by one of the surviving characters would've been plenty to give the fanbase. Fallout: New Vegas is cherised for its valuable player choice and expression, and it achieved that not through big budged, crunch-fueled cutscenes, but just by giving all your smaller decisions the attention they deserved. Everything accounted for and addressed. Mass Effect 3 meanwhile felt clogged by budget and poor resource management. They felt the need to fork out for these big shiny explosive ending cinematics that disappointed precisely because they were so limited by their budget. Call it an unreasonable demand to expand such expensive content, but I don't think anybody was interested in that expensive side of the content to begin with - just the narrative.

[@luisemoralesfalcon4716]

That is actually what the Extended Cut is really about.

[@redmagebr]

I'd have been happier with a text-only ending that actually took everything into account, rather than 3 endings based on a simple score rating. I know it's kind of pathetic, but back then I actually went through all 7 stages of grief. "This can't possibly be the real ending, I probably fucked something up", etc. Like at that point I probably had close to 800 hours combined through the three games, and the ending was just ... "comes in, paints everything blue, doesn't elaborate further, leaves..." imo the "extended cut" even made things worse. I used to replay the series once a year but I only tried to once after 3, and I just dropped it upon getting to the beam. "Shepard died to the beam, this is my canon, no more".

[@luisemoralesfalcon4716]

@@redmagebr I was in AIT on Fort Lee Virginia while all the BS was going on and after doing CQ duties (mopping and things like that) as well in the afternoon after training I saw KZbin videos of the game and while I avoided the majority of the game I couldn't wait to get home and experience it for myself. I got home, saluted my family in my ASU at 0200 ish and went to play the game on the 360 until I got tired, I managed to beat the game and my brother was watching attentively so I replayed the last section and he just stood there when I asked him to spot the difference, and while I chose Control and Synt and then Destroy) he told me that they were the same piss poor endings.

[@ComMaxil]

Mass Effect is like the Game of Thrones of the video game world, a massive era-defining cultural behemoth that was both critically lauded and enormously popular that then presented an ending so bad that it just undid itself from all its cultural cache, shedding it like a coat. That's it, nobody cares anymore, House of the Dragons will be GoTs Andromeda, an attempt to recapture what people loved about a world long after people have stopped caring. It might be good, people might like it but it can never rereach the heights it once occupied. Playing the original trilogy was some of the best experiences i have ever had in gaming, there is still plenty i haven't done (only did a paragon run with a male shepherd and only had a couple of the DLCs) yet i cannot ever imagine going back and playing any version again, as i know what is coming. I carried my save through all three games, saved the Racnoss Queen, so excited to see what the impact will be, it gets teased in ME2 that there is still soemthign to come, then in ME3, oh it is just a war asset...

[@Peniche94]

Yes but... after knowing that they were on crunch on the whole dev time... I appreciate it more. I mean, with more time and EA don't being a coorporate ass company, we might get something different. Hpe with ME4 they change that.

[@Wourghk]

Over-promise, under-deliver, blame your customers then complain about work being difficult. That's quite typical of a teenager at their first job coming to grips with the fact that they aren't superheroes and that they work for a really shitty boss. What a shame to see adult act like this.

[@fnord3125]

lol i love how one of the guys says "indoctrination theory" would have been terrible, awful storytelling, and the other guy is like "i kind of wish that's actually what we'd done." I'm with the second guy, personally. it's one of my favorite video game fan theories ever, because i actually think it makes a lot of weird, dumb shit in the story make sense.

[@aaronchapin9331]

I think they're both right. It would have been better than what we got...but it's still not great storytelling. It just emphasizes how bad the ending really is, that indoctrination theory sounds okay.

[@j4ckblade]

@@aaronchapin9331 I personally like the indoctrination theory but if it was told lightly, it could sound like “the hero was just dreaming these adventures all along” kind of scenario, which is terrible. But if they decided to explain how Shepard’s indoctrination is verrryyy slow and has multiple faces, that could make sense. They could explain that they indoctrinated certain figures in the universe to interract with Shepard and alter his choices ever so slowly towards a massive standoff in front of the Citadel. They could have indoctrinated the reporters to somehow ‘pressure’ Shepard into taking massive actions against the reapers. They could have instructed Saren to somehow discreetly sabotage Sovereign to make the galaxy believe the reapers could be destroyed. The collectors basically aggravated settlements across the galaxy to further stir them into a massive action; again ending with them getting destroyed to make the galaxy believe they could be defeated. And come the actual standoff, depending on how prepared we are, we could either actually kill them (pyrrhic victory - meager ending), or we could get decimated easily (bad ending), or maybe we could get the crucible to work and turn this indoctrination ‘signal’ to work against the reapers and make them kill each other (victory).

[@Tengila]

I feel the first guy there meant that the whole indoctrination concept was terrible writing in the first place, more than the theory. But that's just my read, I may be wrong. But I do agree with that read - mind control is a pretty trite storytelling device. Seems more a tool of convenience rather than actual compelling storytelling in most cases I've seen it.

[@spaxxor]

@@aaronchapin9331 As is, the indoctrination theory is bad storytelling. However as an idea to Tee off of, it's an excellent starting point. From ME 1 and 2 we were basically proving humanity to the galaxy. All the while a subplot would be Shephard's grapple with the indoctrination that could have started in 1, and is now starting to get to him. It invites some interesting ending points too. Renegade could be just completely falling for the reapers like the elusive man, and paragon could be what we were doing already in the game with uniting the known galaxy. But I'm just a half drunk failed writer lol

[@ToveriJuri]

Thank god it wasn't anything of the sort. Indoctrination theory is a horrible coping mechanism by fans who could not cope with how bad the original ending was so they imagined an even worse one. ME3 original ending is effin Dostoevsky in comparison to the indoctrination theory.

[@Superninfreak]

Tbh the storyboard ending you showed might be better than what we got. I think one key thing you glossed over a bit here was that whether it was intentional or not, the original endings were incredibly bleak. One key example of that is because Arrival, the ME2 DLC that set up ME3, was based around the idea that if a Mass Relay is destroyed, it creates an explosion large enough to destroy the entire system it’s in. The original endings had every Mass Relay explode. One reasonable interpretation based on what we’d seen earlier in the series was that everyone or at least almost everyone in the galaxy died, with the only hope being that in the future new life might evolve free of the Reapers.

[@Mafia18822]

Not every system has a mass relay, you can clearly see that in Mass Effect 1 when going to different systems in the same "general area" you had the Normandy going super fast instead of the cutscene where it jumps into a relay. If we consider that the destruction of the relays from the crucible really was the same type as the one on Arrival, then yeah a good chunk of the intelligent life in the galaxy is likely dead, but there would still be dozens of systems that wouldn't be affected by it, and they would continue on living all isolated from each other without the possibility of traveling between themselves anymore. And that's considering that the destruction was on the same level and not like a smaller explosion caused by whatever method the Crucible used to damage the relays. But I do like the idea of a gigantic sacrifice of life on the galaxy to give a chance for the next intelligent lifeforms to have a chance to evolve without the threat of the reapers. It's not a good ending seeing as everything we fought for in the games is.. dead, but life will go on because of that sacrifice. It's neat. I particularly still prefer the indoctrination theory, I thought it fits pretty well and it hurt me to see that one guy being so against it.

[@lawsonrg01]

THANK YOU!!! This is one of my biggest issues with the ending and they didn't even touch on it. You killed to galaxy to save the galaxy....yay?

[@bossfight1]

After playing through the Legendary edition recently I still found myself loathing the ending, even with the Extended Cut and Leviathan content; the whole "organics vs synthetics" angle, while definitely present throughout the series, didn't feel nearly as central to the plot as Star-Child would have you believe. AND YES I WANTED TO EARN AN ANIMAL HOUSE STYLE "WHERE ARE THEY NOW" ENDING AND RETIRE HAPPILY WITH TALI ON HER HOMEWORLD.

[@snakesnoteyes]

The idea that people who want their awesome space badass who retook the Citadel from the Geth to allow Sovereign to be defeated, waged a one ship war against the Collectors, ended the Genophage (the Shep shoots Mordin timeline doesn’t exist to me), reunited the Quarians and the Geth to have a happy ending or just possible happy ending are somehow silly babies is just poisoned fucking thinking. Fuck that garbage broken ending. My Shep is chilling on a beach with her mates and her girl having some drinks with a couple of dead Reapers on the horizon. Cheers

[@keppakappa5033]

@@snakesnoteyes that's the biggest issue imo: the games had advertised themselves for YEARS that their story was all about player choice and agency, and people spent 3 full games getting to know their Sheperd and fleshing them out as a protagonist they like/have a personal stake in. why, then, is it such an outrageous idea that people would want a happy ending for that character, should they choose to pursue it? obviously no one should be harassed or sent death threats over something like this, but people are also 100% allowed to be disappointed for not having the happy ending they worked for years to achieve. like, if I wanted to have the experience of putting time and effort into something only to get an unhappy/unsatisfactory result out of it, I wouldn't be engaging in escapism by playing video games - I'd just go back to real life lol

[@embargovenom9948]

Sounds like the endings were shit from the very conceptual stage, and that the promise player choices would matter since the first game was always a lie. This video doesn't really defend these endings, it just shows the three endings weren't the result of a lack of time or resources, but always planned to ignore all player input except the very last choice.

[@NozomuYume]

As a point of comparison, consider Star Ocean 2. It has 100 endings. These are not 100 wholly unique endings, but 100 combinations of what can happen, with different changes in your decisions affecting how the endings play out. The various endings reuse and combine assets, but each ending reflects what happened in the game, giving you satisfaction that your actions mattered.

[@hedgehog3180]

I would have expected something more similar to FNV where you get snippets about how each of your major choices affected the world after the end of the story.

[@junde410]

Lol 100 endings. It would literally double the amount of time to produce the game just to generate that many endings

[@cryofpaine]

Bioware was my favorite developer, and I feel bad for all those who put in so much effort. Especially since I know what it is to crunch like that, and wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's horrible - and it needs to stop. Especially since ultimately it makes everything worse, and in this case, it didn't serve any purpose - the ending still sucks. My problem with the ending was never that it was just a recolor. Honestly, if they had written a good ending that made sense, a recolor would have been ok. But instead, they were built on a fundamentally broken premise that completely fails once you think about it for more than half a second. For starters, what is the greatest weapon the Reapers have? Indoctrination. Which is basically just forcing people to believe the Reapers' lies. They're a race of liars. Next, you have starbrat. A child that no one knows anything about. There's no record of this kid, no visual recording, nothing that ties him to Shepard. There is no way the Reapers could know anything about him. So... how do the Reapers know about him, and know about his connection to Shepard, and know that appearing as him would have any impact on Shepard? The only options are that they're reading Shepard's mind, or the kid was never real and they implanted the kid in Shepard's mind in the first place. So right away, there's some kind of mental connection going on. Then we get to the explanation the Reapers give for their actions - that synthetics will always rebel against organics and destroy them. Ok, well, we saw the synthetics of this cycle rebel. Because they didn't want to be slaves. And as soon as the Quarians left, they stopped. War over. So at best, Reapers are mistaken about this cycle, and at worst, they're lying completely about the whole thing. Finally, the options. Option one - electrocute yourself somehow lets you take over the entire Reaper civilization. Shepard, one person, controlling the remnants of tens of thousands of races. Sovereign describes each Reaper as a civilization unto itself. But sure, zapping yourself will make you a Reaper god. Option two - somehow blowing yourself up will cause an energy wave that propagates throughout the galaxy. One that's smart enough to only target sentient technology, and not toasters or VIs or any other technology. Option three - disintegrate yourself, and you create another intelligent energy wave that can magically transform into matter (despite energy to matter technology like transporters not existing in this universe). And not just matter - but genetic material or circuitry that somehow seamlessly integrates with the existing circuitry or cells of all living creatures, without any defects or bugs. So in short, the endings all boil down to Shepard committing suicide to achieve magical outcomes based entirely on the say-so of the leader of a race of liars. It's just so dumb. It doesn't matter how much work they do to try and polish it - the entire premise is completely broken.

[@feministadentata4041]

You perfectly summed up why - regardless of BioWare's denial - I still take Indoctrination Theory as the canon ending. The extended cut being the DMT dream of Shepherd before they died.

[@Win32Neptunia]

Hilarious summary and so true.

[@crazyrabbits]

That's my biggest problem with Synthesis. It's touted as the toughest ending to get (you only achieve it if you have high EMS, with the explanation that it's only possible because you brought enough resources to the battle that the Crucible wasn't damaged as much, and could therefore calculate "new possibilities") -- nevermind how the pitch as described in this video claims it was supposed to be the _easiest_ ending to get -- but it's basically Saren's goal writ large. You unintentionally help the nemesis you spent the entirety of the first game pursuing and stopping with his goals, and this is somehow presented as a euphoric, positive ending, with Joker and EDI looking out adoringly at the sunrise. Nevermind the obvious logistical and practical challenges this causes to the galaxy: 1) Husks have been somehow turned into semi-intelligent hybrid beings; 2) There's the Mack-truck sized problem of forcibly converting every individual in the galaxy into a synthetic being, and apparently having everyone just be fine with it, nevermind how similar works that attempted this kind of idea (i.e. Deus Ex: Invisible War) only excusing it by claiming that everyone was interlinked by a hivemind and needed to have clear consensus); 3) The "hybridization" amounts to people getting glowing green veins on their skin; 4) It doesn't explain how synthetic beings (like EDI) have become organic (have they been given organic components?): 5) It answers nothing of the Catalyst's main problem -- that synthetic life will be developed that wipes out its creators, which necessitated the need for the Reapers in the first place 6) How is society supposed to procreate? In the pitch, the designer describes an Asari child with circuitry on her -- is that implying babies will be born with this stuff on them already? Are all these "upgraded" people in the galaxy just functionally immortal? In recognition of all that, it's not surprising at all to me that there are players that would rather treat the entirety of the ending as a fever dream, because it causes so many problems and discrepancies with the world the creators built up over three games that treating it as legitimate is patently absurd.

[@joshbored15]

I noticed at 15:05 you credited them with their current, post coming out name, rather than the one actually listed on destructoid & wanted to say that's really cool of you

[@PeopleMakeGames]

100%!

[@LameytheClown]

Fundamentally for me what breaks the ending of ME3 is the purpose and origin of the Reapers that the "starchild" gives. It contradicts everything established about the reapers up to that point - and doesn't even make sense internally. Complex biological lifeforms are conglomerations of simpler lifeforms, various organelles in our cells were once independent organisms. Reapers are a form of life an order of magnitude greater. The climax of ME2 is the reveal that the reapers reproduce by fusing together the consciousnesses of millions of sapient life forms. ME3 retcons this into some sort of cataloging process. There are countless other breaks in the logic of the story and setting that cascade from there. (And the ME3 ending's explanation of what the Reapers are is just completely senseless)

[@thunderr0736]

I know I’m over a year late, but I just finished the legendary edition and want to add my two cents here. I personally felt that, meeting the catalyst, you as the player were supposed to realize that this AI is twisted and unreliable as a source of information. Especially if you talked with Leviathan first. It’s directive was to preserve life, but the solution it came to was wrong in the way an AI can’t see. In my mind, it tries to manipulate you into furthering it’s twisted logic, which is why it doesn’t make sense. The Geth and EDI showed that synthetics and organics can coexist and I came to the conclusion that the catalyst is the root cause of the problem, just as the leviathans said. Anyway, I‘m happy with the destroy ending I got with Shepard still breathing at the end. Have a good day!

[@hedgehog3180]

The major thing that disappointed me was that in ME1 it was being implied that the reapers mainly existed to slow down the spread of entropy but then that sorta just got dropped.

[@supreme1572]

​@@thunderr0736this is why people believe in indoctrination theory. It makes more sense to believe the child is actually trying to finish the process of indoctrination.

[@stevep9177]

So the endings, at their core, were more or less carried out as intended, but the presentation was lacking. Interesting.

[@ReachStudioPro]

Yeah. This really sucks. I played the remaster and for the first time ever I got physical pain from the ending (didn't matter which ending I got). I have never felt PHYSICAL PAIN from an ending before. No matter what would have happened, ME3 would always end up as the worst ending in gaming history.

[@freedantheeternal]

@@ReachStudioPro And the fact it has that kind of reaction still, even with the Extended Cut dlc, even with the Leviathan dlc trying to bandage up the out of nowhere Deus Ex Machina with supporting lore, etc. People hated it right out of the gate. There was no wait or people working themselves up, we HATED these endings from day 1. And the biggest insult, to a lot of us back then, was the fact once the credits roled, it loaded the final save from before the last mission, and gave the message to be sure to continue expanding Shepard's legacy by buying DLC. That message was, and I still feel rightully, recieved as "Don't like the ending? Buy a better one!" The message was removed pretty early, if not with the first post-release patch, then when the Extended Cut was released. The Extended Cut then did fix a lot of plot holes, like how the squad got back on the Normandy and how squad members who were with you (and implied vaporized by the Reaper attack at the end) were both alive and on the Normandy in the final shots. But the biggest thing, I think, that made it really blow up, was the EA PR people, and game journalists, then defended it, insulted people who didn't like it, and spent pretty much the months leading up to the Extended Cut trying to prop up the original ending with weak arguments that basically amounted to "shut up and say thank you regardless of what you get." They threw gasoline on the smolders which turned it into the full on fire. No, if there's any positive to come out of ME3's whole mess is a permanent and prominent lesson to the game industry and consumers about overpromising and overhyping far too long in advance.

[@LunaticLK47]

@@freedantheeternal Too bad NO ONE from the industry ever learned this lesson.

[@jabberw0k812]

The entire extended cut and fans demanding something different debacle is interesting, because I don't think any amount of patching or new content could have fixed the fundamental problems with the story. And even if it were possible to rewrite and rerelease the entire ending section (instead of just patching in some new scenes), that would've required people at the highest level to actually believe they had made something bad and invest a ton of resources in changing what was already finished. I hated the ending long before I was aware of the 'controversy' online, but I never thought of it as a consumer rights issue. That's the weird duality of games as product versus games as art. A poorly written book is not defective. It's just bad. Readers don't demand that it gets fixed, they just find better authors to read.

[@freedantheeternal]

@@jabberw0k812 Except there is at least one case of an author "fixing" his book due to fan backlash. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, actually killed Holmes off at the end of one of the books by having both Holmes and his arch-enemy, Professor Moriarty, fall over a waterfall while fighting each other. Fact is this is the accepted canon ending to the series these days, long after the fact, but at the time it was first released, the backlash from the readers was so great that Doyle wrote an alternate version and re-released the book where Holmes survived. Difference is you can't "patch" a book, so the original released version is still out there, and actually was printed in greater number than the alternate version. Games are a different thing, since unless you've got the 1.0 disc copy of ME3, the changes to the ending are now permanent.

[@frenkzors]

Big props for bringing up the issue of dev crunch. Esp. in this way, where it was made very clear that this permeating crunch "culture" was a big issue, even outside of ME3.

[@TigerXGame]

Indoctrination theory will always be a much more interesting concept to me than whatever the creative bankrupt ending was that we actually got. This one dude saying that it was a terrible idea is why he's an animator and not a writer. The indoctrination theory would have been an absolutely amazing ending to a series that's been hinting and warning for indoctrination for three solid parts. It would have tied basically everything up right back to Mass Effect 1, and it would have made for an actual twist. So many directions they could have gone with it, and the theory as it was eventually put together by fans actually fits all the narrative. It actually has less plot holes than the official ending, which is insane on its own. I honestly believe that the ME3 ending was the result of different writers simply not understanding the ongoing narrative from the first two games, and taking a completely different direction with it for which there was no setup up build up AT ALL. It's the danger of making a trilogy where in each installment has different writers. Mass Effect 1 was written before the idea of Mass Effect 3 was even conceived, much less had an ending. It's just a shame, in hindsight it could have been so much more.

[@STARSBarry]

"If you went through once you had a pretty satisfying ending" what?! No you didn't because it felt like none of my choices throughout the game mattered... what happened to the the people and crew that I saved throughout the triology? All that happened is I got a green cutscene, and it felt anticlimactic and shit.

[@notthemusewere]

Do want to point out that, with perspective and all, the entire last act of the game was rushed; poorly thought out, poorly executed. Look at how Suicide Mission was designed to showcase the people you had grown to love. Or how Priority: Tuchanka brings the genophage and Mordin's personal arc and Bakara and the Thresher Maws together (particularly resonant for someone who had done both Grunt's loyalty mission and had themselves been on Akuze). The entire Earth sequence, with the exception of a few brief meetings and a couple of tiny blink-and-you-miss bits (like Jack if you failed to save her) was a generic combat that could have happened at any moment in any of the three games. The space battle lacked even the Save/Abandon the Council moment to make it any different from any other play experience (and let's not even start contrasting with Suicide Mission). I understand rush, and budget crunch, and directions from above, and so on. Worked in live theater for much of my life and there are so many designed I had to put on stage that weren't what I had wanted. Not blaming anybody (except probably EA.) But it was a sloppy, rushed, botch job of something that with even 1% of what they must have wanted to do but couldn't, would have been epic.

[@23Scadu]

I haven't thought about Dragon Age 2 for a good while. Actually I quite liked the game for the most part. The writing and setting was really cool. The only problem was that there were like five different dungeon maps that were each reused many, many times. If they had cut down on the combat sections and focused on what people were so upset that the writer was more interested in, it would have been a much better game.

[@alexschott2092]

As a former supporter of Bioware and Mass Effect, the entire ME3 ending situation still boggles my mind. Yeah, I was part of the crowd posting my scathing critiques on Bioware's forums (RIP to the BSN) but the majority of what I encountered wasn't the pissed off demands of "self-entitled whiners" that the gaming press was portraying us as. We were mostly creative types that had supported Bioware and there drive for better narratives in games. We knew the quality in narrative they were capable of producing and Mass Effect's conclusion wasn't anywhere close to it. Our collective postings and fan theory videos were as much a critique as they were us trying to make some sense out of a final entry that was incomplete at best and fundamentally broken on several narrative levels at worst. Modern Bioware fans seem to have this knee-jerk reaction against criticism of the ending or mention of the collective fan theories we made all those years ago, and that's rather sad. It speaks volumes about how poorly the entire game and its fallout were handled that it actively drove away some of the oldest supporters. ME3 marked a downward turning point for Bioware, and I'm honestly amazed they're still around. Maybe its because their smaller, more zealous fanbase is willing to overlook their decline in quality. Maybe it's because EA feel obligated to keep one of their few remaining developers around, no matter how broken and laughable their games are. Whatever the case, I can only look back on the Mass Effect series and Bioware with pity. You could teach an entire class on what not to do when designing saga-length interactive stories and fan engagement based on their actions alone.

[@pandora8610]

The amount of depth and detail of analysis the fans gave was astounding. We had literature phd writing essays of thousands of words on just how badly the ending fit with the rest of the story. And somehow, Bioware managed to receive the message that we needed "clarity", that we just didn't "get it".

[@frostybaby13]

Preach!!!

[@porkchop9978]

"The mako-sized elephant in the room" Miss opprotunity. Poor Elcor is always forgotten.

[@Zynnix]

This was very interesting. After all the behind the scenes info we got from Anthem, I had no doubt that in retrospect this was another issue of 'Bioware magic' rearing its ugly head. I remember at the time being very disappointed and angry at the ending, because I had read things like that Game Informer interview where Casey had said the ending wouldn't just be A,B or C and then that's exactly what it ended up being. I was shocked and felt lied to and it made me angry to see people defending the endings because the Game Director had very specifically said that it wouldn't reach that kind of conclusion, and yet here we were. And then you had the slightly edited stock photo of Tali for the first time we see a Quarian without their helmet on, and it was just like... what happened? Did they run out of time? I wouldn't have minded if they took another 5 years to work on the game! It was such an important ending to nail and they whiffed it hard with a really weird and out of nowhere plot device to set in motion a mechanical kill switch ending to the game that did not factor in any of your choices throughout the whole series whatsoever. Like ME2 for example had so many different characters that could die in that ending depending on your choices, and how prepared you were for the mission. I was hoping for at LEAST that same level of danger and consequence for your actions. It actually bothers me hearing about this reaper queen storyline, because that would have made a lot more sense than this random space ghost kid. Like the way he explained all the endings actually made sense. It still would have been a bit unsatisfactory from a 'this is the culmination of all of my decisions up to this moment' point of view, but narratively it would make so much more fucking sense. I still can't really accept this ending. It still bothers me to this day and I have no idea how they're going to write themselves out of this mess in 4. But as critical as I am of ME3's ending, I'm still optimistic and hopeful that they can bring things back around. Andromeda was not the worst thing ever. I actually really liked it. (It's worth mentioning that I played it last year for the first time after all the bug fixes) I heard so many negative things about it, and I never played it at launch because I was still so burned from ME3, but when I did get around to playing it, I had a great time. It's disappointing to me that the spinoff had so much potential and will likely never be seen again because of the rough state that it launched in, the frostbite engine catastrophe, etc. It's the crunch and rushed nature of these games that kill them. I hope Bioware takes all the time they need on 4. Tell EA to wait patiently, shut up, and count their FIFA money.

[@cainekass]

I was super excited about Legendary Edition being announced and wanting to get my hands on it. Then after all the excitement I paused ans thought "fuck I'am about to pay to get fucked by that ending.. Fuck!" Reaper Queen endings sound amazing to what we got. If they would have included that in the LE package I wouldn't have been mad.

[@Zynnix]

@@cainekass I haven't managed to convince myself to play it yet either. It's hard when you realize all your effort will come down to a button push again. Maybe it will be easier to swallow after we see what they do with 4.

[@cainekass]

@@Zynnix I'm a sucker. I got it. I've played 1 and 2. But haven't been able to get finished with 3. I restarted 2 again instead lok

[@SirLesterMarwood]

I had a blast with LE. Reminded me why I fell in love with the series in the first place. Of course when I got to the end , I muted the sound, stared at my phone only glancing up to make the occasional dialogue choice, ignoring everything until the credits rolled.

[@billypaul1234]

Honestly the reaper Queen storyline is atrocious. An AI being stored on the citadel ( Which for still reasons unknown is believed to be a ghost kid by fans despite the fact that it's mentioned as an AI) Is a lot more feasible than an entire reaper being stored on the citadel.

[@Alitacyan]

I remember being at first perplexed. Surely there is a bug, or I missed something critical that would've unlocked other endings. Then, slowly, realizing that there was not a mistake and that this was in fact the way bioware intended to end the story. Then I was just extremely disappointed and astonished. How on earth did this happen. How did the team that made the first 2 games choose to end this story in this way. It felt like several pieces of the puzzle was missing. What and where were they? Then Bioware comes out and explains that no. This is the ending they wanted and besides extending some Cutscenes they would leave those endings as they were, because they were totally satisfied that this was the way to end the story. This is the part where I actually got upset. I loved the games and had looked forward to the 3rd so much. This actually put the final nail in the coffin for my romance with such single player and story driven video games in general. Apart from some exceptions like VNs and Nier automata, I've stuck to books and shows for my story fix ever since. Video games have amazing storytelling potential in theory, as we can see in such titles as Half-Life and Portal. However in practice only a handful of titles out tens of thousands have come close to reaching that potential. ME1 looked to be very promising. ME2 being a narrative detour, it did not destroy that promise but it also put off everything needed to fulfill the promise to the 3rd title. ME3 did not deliver on any of it. At best it gets a few things right. From a narrative perspective it doesn't just underdeliver it takes a nose-dive. The narrative is so badly abused that it dives deeply below mediocre. They didn't settle for good enough. Hell even something like Shepard winning because the galaxy rallied to their banner would've been infinitely preferable. As underwhelming and unsatisfying as it sounds it would have at least made sense from a narrative POV. As I'm here watching this video, it strikes me that some small part of me is holding out, waiting for an explanation that will redeem the series. Crazy that I still feel strongly about it 9 years later. It just goes to show how strong of an impression these games have made.

[@Ninjastahr]

Okay now I for sure need to play Nier, I own it but just haven't played. Also, what VNs are you talking about? Sounds like they'd be very interesting if you'd like to share!

[@Biouke]

My previous experiences with BioWare titles made me go "ok that's it all hope is lost on them" after ME2. They always present the same ambitions with the same flaws in execution. They do cinematic storytelling with strong characters and some great character arcs but fail to make an actual role-playing game every damn time. Their games are not bad or made without effort, but they should stop pretending making RPGs with meaningful choices, they always oversell this point.

[@Alitacyan]

@@Ninjastahr Sorry for late reply! As for VNs I like 07th Expansion's Higurashi and Umineko series very much. Those are masterpieces of litteratur IMO. Can't say I've read a lot of VNs though. In the future I plan to read Doki Doki Literature club, VA-11 and Steins;Gate. I've heard Great things about those.

[@Sorain1]

Exactly OP. The ending as delivered amounted to "Nothing your Shepard did mattered in the end, you could never have won and saved anything you cared about. Your Shepard (and every other) 'defeated' the Reapers and died achieving only a near omnicide of galactic civilization. All your war assets were expended for essentially nothing." Sure, some life picks up the pieces millennia later, but so what? Even if we granted the massive ask of ignoring what happens when a relay is destroyed, every alien war asset in the Sol system is dead. The Catalyst isn't even an AI, it's a glorified phone directory, as revealed by the extended cut result of refusing the 'answers' it gives. Even if we accept the idiotic stated reasons for the Reapers, if you saved the Quarians and Geth then the evidence is right there the Catalyst's analysis is wrong and it refuses to listen. End of the day, the rushing cost literally everyone far more than taking the extra time and money do nail the bloody ending would have. EA included.

[@snowman2149]

Honestly, Mass Effect 3 needed an additional year of development. The developers even admit the ending was worked on at the last minute, which is why they scrambled and reused assets. I would’ve scrapped the whole fucking thing. I would’ve had Liara and EDI join you on that final ascent to the citadel, and I would’ve had EDI be the one to make the choice to sacrifice herself to save the Galaxy from the Reapers. Controlling the reapers should’ve been a false choice (and a trap) I would’ve dropped the synthesis ending because that came out of nowhere and it doesn’t even make sense. The developers admit that the Normandy crash landing on that jungle planet makes no sense so why even include it in the first place? Yes the Mass relays get destroyed but that means that the entire galactic fleet is stuck on the solar system, they have to take their time, rebuild, and travel back to their home planets once Earth is rebuilt. Shepard would’ve lived.

[@brightfalls6788]

Drew Karpyshyn pretty much made BioWare, then shortly afterwards Mac Walters un-made BioWare.

[@lawsonrg01]

I love how you show the destruction of the Mass Relays, but never once bring it up as a legit story reason fans would have to HATE the ending. With hardcore fans having played Arrival, and the HUGE consequences of destroying ONE Mass Relay, destroying EVERY Mass Relay would be beyond catastrophic. Killing the galaxy to "save" the galaxy, not a great ending.... especially when you/Shepard dies (yes, I know about that ending, don't care) in EVERY choice/ending.

[@TheMrVengeance]

It's not only that choice. Every single choice is incredibly f*cked. Either it's catastrophic as you describe, or genocidal on a galactic scale (especially ridiculous if you went to great lengths to make peace between/save the Geth and Quarians), or incredibly immoral as you violate the bodily autonomy of literal billions of people who never asked to become a hybrid organic/synthetic. Then all of that is presented by a deus ex machina star-child, and results in the exact same cutscene in an option of three colours. After which the character you invested likely hundreds of hours in is _dead._

[@Ninjastahr]

@@TheMrVengeance I just wanted to go home to Tali on Rannoch man - honestly even if they just played up the self-sacrifice bit (my best example being the end of Halo 3) then it'd have at least been slightly palatable to me; Shep was a war hero. None of the endings even needed to be a thing, Shep could have died, the allied forces could have pushed the reapers back, then fade to black - this was before after-credits stuff was so popular, but imagine credit roll then after it it opens to a series of war memorials on each planet, brightly lit with thriving people. It stops on one, someone (in my head a kid) asks "who was that?" - pointing to some mural or something of Shep, and a sideshow of your decisions, maybe clips of big moments of previous games plays - and Joker or one of your other squad mates (clearly very old now) looks down, smiles, and says "A hero" or "a friend" or whatever depending on different choices made. Boom, big ME3 logo at the end as music swells, end of game. Obviously that's just my interpretation or whatever but there really *didn't need to be a major choice* - we'd already *made* the choices, we'd set things up as best we could, Shep is just one soldier at that point it would have been better to just let it play out.

[@yaboyjay7202]

I expected someone to talk about Casey Hudson's role in how all of this played out. I remember an interview of someone on the writing staff who said they already had different endings fleshed out (probably the Reaper queen ending mentioned here), but then suddenly Hudson told them to scap it shortly before launch and do the red/blue/green ending. There also was Drew Karpyshyn, lead writer of Mass Effect 1&2, who said he already had the story for ME3 with multiple endings ready to go, but then got into a huge fight with Hudson, leaving BioWare, promising never to return, which was pretty huge. Still very interesting and stellar execution as always :)

[@PeopleMakeGames]

Thanks for watching! And I really appreciate the feedback. We did ask Casey if he'd like to be involved, but he couldn't find the time unfortunately. There's also people like Mac Walters, who I'm told co-wrote much of the ending with Casey, but unfortunately he's still working at Bioware and that was a no-go for us too in the end. As for Drew's original Dark Matter ending concept, there's already been quite a bit said about that, but as far as I've heard, it was never more than a rough idea. By the time he'd left Bioware, things had started to go in a different direction. We decided to keep the video focused on people who worked on ME3 directly, as to be honest, I was mostly interested in the human side of the story. Like, how it felt to be on the receiving end of the backlash and what it meant for the studio going forwards.

[@wolven86]

@@PeopleMakeGames An entirely fair decision, what could have been and what was presented have been thoroughly explored already, I'd never considered the crunch cost of all the whining before. The backlash was not cool.

[@LieberInsideGaming]

Drew was off Mass Effect and on The Old Republic prior to leaving BioWare. Him leaving the company wasn't related to Mass Effect.

[@Mafia18822]

I in particular love the "Indoctrination Theory". The way they made the last 30 minutes of the game REALLY had a lot of moments where it could mean that what was going on in there was actually happening inside Shepard's mind, with the "Destroy" ending being his mind trying to fight the influence of the Reapers, the one thing that was told time and time again for us through all of the 3 games that WE HAVE TO KILL THE REAPERS IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. The Illusive Man and the "Control" ending was an attempt to lure Shepard into giving in to the control with an alternative that seemed almost too good to be true: To control the Reapers into doing what is good for everyone instead of galactic genocide, but ultimately we have seen time and time again that every time someone tried to "control" the Reapers (Saren, TIM), they were actually the ones being controlled. And Synthesis would be the personification of the "subtle influence" that Reaper indoctrination has been shown to have. A third "magical" solution, one that is only possible because Shepard is special, that will allow everything to be okay, nothing needs to be destroyed.. Seems amazing, and almost a no-brainer to go for that option. And yet it is still what the Reapers would want, it is what they want you to do. The star child urges Shepard to do everything BUT destroy, because destroy would mean losing the hold on Shepard's mind. Why did I type all of this? Oh well. What I wanted answered when watching this still wasn't touched upon. WHY DOES SHEPARD LIVE ONLY ON THE DESTROY ENDING? The citadel was obliterated in every ending, it is impossible for him to survive it. And yet we do get that damn breath scene. That is peak indoctrination theory right there.

[@DangerCZ]

You wrote this all because you know you're not the only one who finds this theory to be only explanation that makes sense and you don't believe in the astronomically low chance that tons of details and all the attention on showing players how reaper technology affects minds was all just something put in the game by accident. For me, this trilogy is a masterpiece that accomplished unimaginable - it indoctrinated vast majority of its own player base. I made 4 complete trilogy playthroughs and spent over 400 hours with it. And all the details I've seen just all fit together. ME for me is a story of Shepard that united the universe, didn't lose a single teammate during suicide mission and who despite the attempt to be brainwashed by reapers didn't fall into the trap and released himself from the mind control and can continue fighting. Short version for others - you think the ending doesn't make sense? You're right because it doesn't. Shepard gets hit on the Earth during the final run and the rest happens just in hi/her (played both) head. Based on the result, it is game over for Shepard or not. Synthesis = Shepard gives up and disintegrates in the cutscene, Control = Shepard completely gives up and also disintegrates in the cutscene, Destroy = Shepard doesn't give up but is not strong enough to wake up from it and dies. Destroy (with high enough score) = Shepard doesn't give up and has strong enough will to wake up from it in the extra breath scene. Only in this scenario he wakes up and this is where ME I played ends... or better said, where it continues. Ending where war is still on, where for the first time ever, entire galaxy stands united against Reapers. Ending where no synths died from magic rainbow effect. Ending that makes sense and sets ground for a sequel with characters we love. It is a masterpiece that makes perfect sense and I admire few of the devs who over the years said that IT is valid explanation of endings or that they actually love it and wish that was the ending. From my point of view, Indoctrination Theory is one of five endings and it is the one that is most difficult to get. Because in order to get it, you must not consume content at the face value:)

[@Mafia18822]

@@DangerCZ precisely that! To me the indoctrination theory is so good because it is almost as if they were slowly indoctrinating the player throughout all of ME 3, that being with the very subtle attempts ate saying that maybe the reapers could be controlled, maybe there is that chance. Also that damn kid that becomes the star child at the start of the game, conveniently whittling down Shepard's will with guilt for not being able to save him, being haunted by that thought throuout the game, and then at the end the SAME CHILD shows up to say "hey, I know how you can fix things, do exactly the opposite of what you know should be done!" It's too perfect to not be right. I don't know if it is denial, but I still can't not have it as the actual ending of the game. The damn breath scene just means that the fight isn't over.

[@RodrigoCML7]

It’s a bit rich to play the “don’t tell the artist how to art” card, considering it is interactive media. Specially in an RPG game, the whole notion is that the player feels involved in the agency. And in previous iterations of the game agency was promoted and rewarded. Mass Effect’s II ending was so rewarding in regard of agency, story and consequences that likely it has a share of the blame of how the choose your favorite color ending of MEIII feels so empty.

[@DMTHOTH]

Exactly. It was promised to be an user choice based video game. What kind of 'multiple ending' did they think that fans wanted? We wanted a ending with developer's artistic vision but also the endings that fans can satisfy. Like, that was literally the easist thing they could do with multi-ending rpg video game.

[@willyeeton4390]

@@DMTHOTH A chef can't tell you that you're acting entitled when you order chicken and they serve a steak. Bioware plainly promised the opposite of what they served the community, people were right to be upset.

[@Sylocat]

Also considering that they're charging $60 for their art. (But then again, almost none of that $60 went to anyone who actually WORKED on the game, most of it went straight into the pockets of the corporate parasites responsible for the horrific crunch conditions in the first place)

[@nathanlevesque7812]

The ME2 ending didn't reward anything beyond crew mate survival.

[@spaxxor]

as both a semi failed musician, and a failed writer I've got this to say on that. I HATE with every fiber of my being the "don't tell an artist how to art" people. You stopped influencing your art the moment it was released to purchase. It's out of your hands, almost completely. Sure you can release patches and corrections to the narrative after the fact, but the fact of the matter is. You let it go, it's out there now, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[@olehoncho]

In general, I think Mass Effect 3 had more problems than just the endings. The first two games have a lot of branching story choices, but ultimately none of the decisions you make matter by the time you reach the third game, nor does the origin you picked for Shepard. When you sell the first two games on "your choices matter" you need to follow through on that in the final entry. If you're pro-genophage Shepard in the first two games - you should be trying to convince the Krogans on that point in ME3. If you were a spacer or colonist for your origin, you might not care about the Earth the same way an earth-born Shepard does. A Renegade-Spacer-Lone Survivor Shepard would consider using Dark Energy to turn the sun into an EMP bomb to wipe out the Reaper Fleet. There needed to be like 9 ending options, not 3. It was a big letdown that you can't write off as "artistic vision" because it is a failing of planning and writing. Also, that on-disc, pay-to-unlock dlc was very anti-consumer. Bad form. Also, fighting a Reaper on foot was so stinkin' dumb.

[@musicalnotextr]

That bit about caring about Earth was a big one for me. I had a Spacer Shepard and while I played her as mostly Paragon, her dialogue definitely implied some deeper connection to the planet than just simply humanity which didn’t read right.

[@davidmiller9485]

I know this is old but... It really bothered me that here we had Humanity at a stage where bio-electrical devices could be implanted and used for everything from combat to Construction and for some reason we couldn't figure out how to create a exo-suit that provided serious advantages in combat. Their is a reason the Military has a hard on for exo-suits or some type of equivalent. Having increased strength, stamina, quickness and the ability to survey the battlefield electronically with near total awareness is an advantage in war that the military will pay out the nose for. Considering the technological levels in Mass Effect (no matter which game) that should have been one of the things that Humanity had already been traveling down. (with the end goal of replacing or enhancing body parts with machine to increase combat effectiveness. If you want to get a clear picture of what I'm talking about go read timothy Zahn's cobra strike series for a good example, including the problems of post war issues with the hardware in the soldiers.)

[@olehoncho]

@@davidmiller9485 So, the biotic abilities in mass effect do present an alternate pathway to technology in the setting. Because you can have someone who can lift tons of equipment with their mind, which eliminates the needs for specilized machinery to do the same work.

[@swa5026]

When Joker is flying away I always thought it looked like he was deleting his browser history.

[@swa5026]

It still it better than the ending for Fallout 3, "You let your companion who is radiation-proof to do the job for you, you are a bad person."

[@mikeymike1792]

You get a bonus point for 'Elon Husk' Chris. Incredible. This is a fascinating look at a game very close to my heart. I have to admit, I was also unimpressed by the ending at the time, and do feel the extended ending did improve things a bit, and in time, it's come to be something I'm alright with. (Especially compared to that Reaper Queen idea, that's hilarious)

[@IIIIMavIIII]

Yeh, I think I'm going to remember Elon Husk and use it...incredible is right!

[@ZekeRaiden]

Honestly I think I would have preferred the Reaper Queen. The Reapers as the Catalyst's "solution" to the problem of synthetic vs organic life is, frankly, dumb as hell. "I'm going to save organic life by utterly exterminating every species except the one talented one in every 50,000 year cycle, and the one I don't exterminate completely I'll just turn into a giant cuttlefish robot coursing with the juices of round-up members of that species." Like...what??? The Catalyst had literally *become* the very thing it was created to oppose, a synthetic life form repeatedly exterminating organic life. The Reapers had been presented as unknowable, almost Lovecraftian. Reducing them to puppets of an unseen and self-contradictory puppetmaster really devalued their place and merit, taking them from mysterious to basically mindless in one fell swoop. I wish they'd done more with the abandoned "this star has aged WAY too fast" plotline, so we could've gotten a much more serious reason for the Reapers doing what they do (e.g., "interstellar travel harms the universe, but we can find a way to fix that" kind of thing), but alas, such will never be.

[@Shvabicu]

@@ZekeRaiden the dark energy/dark matter storyline had too many plot holes on its own and there's a reason it was dropped entirely.

[@jenniferhanses4205]

I don't think people were as upset about the color swap endings as they were about the fact that the endings did not reflect the choices made. The color swap was just symbolic of how MUCH the endings did not reflect the choices you made. For example, one of the devs here says that you could play the game once and have a good time, and then got upset on replay. And no, that was not the case for me. I was upset and somewhat depressed/traumatized that Shep had died. Which is a valid artistic choice, and I think the team would have gotten backlash for that if it hadn't been all this other stuff, but it would have been more muted as the fandom went through the stages of grief together. Because yeah, that alone affected my mood for several months even with the extended cut endings. In my case, though, I was also angry not just that Shepard had died, but that she died for nothing. You don't go down fighting a big boss, you go down making a choice. And depending on the choices YOU have made, the choices you're given may not make sense. In my case, I ended the geth-quarian war peacefully, so all this "We have to kill you because you're chaotic and because the organics and synthetics can't live peacefully" did not make sense at all. I wanted Shepard to argue that chaos means that it's possible to someday change the pattern and get it right and that she had, that the galaxy was on a potential path to peace if the Reapers would just GTFO. They were, at that point, destroying their own chance at getting their mission right. But I wasn't given the option to bring this up. I was just given the red/blue/green endings programmed in, endings that required me to die for no good reason. Because there was no reason not to temporarily halt the war if Star Child was in charge and give Shep a chance to live. Her sacrifice was merely to apparently satisfy the ego of a dying computer. Or at least that's the way I feel because Shep was never able to make a proper argument and have it refuted and find out why she had to die. So, yeah, it wasn't a "satisfying" ending even the first time through. Not because Shep didn't get her happy ending, but because there was no reason for her not to get her happy ending other than the devs wanting her to be sacrificed. She was killed for nothing. Yup. Still pissed about that. Though I never expected them to change that part. It was too integral to the tale. Nor would I have asked them too. I would have just written the game off as "bad ending." And yes, I still do. It's better. But it's still bad. And no, I didn't emotionally connect with the kid when he reappeared in dreams or as Star Child. I did connect in the opening invasion, and then the reappearances ruined it and made me angry rather than sad or ... I don't know what they were going for. And even then, I was annoyed with the kid running from Shep when she tried to help him. It makes it feel like he was always a hallucination rather than a person. And maybe he was. But there's no reason my Shep would be hallucinating kids. And this isn't a character I spent "60 hours" with. This is a character and story that I spent 180 hours with through three games. The time frame is longer and the involvement deeper. Now, the extended ending is at least better in that it reflects the results of the choices you made in the game better, showing what happens to your friends, the krogan homeworld, and quarian space. And the game itself had many wonderful and moving moments. And I think they wouldn't have had an uprising if they'd at least done that bare minimum, or at least it would have died down. Because without the extended cut the meaninglessness of Shep's death and choices is laid bare. But ... well... at the same time if we're getting into choices, I was always pissed about people getting the same quests whether or not they'd saved the appropriate crew member in ME2, for example. I mean, I'd have forgiven it if it were just the mainline quests where you needed to complete things or quests that were meaningful without the character like Jack's and Grunt's, but they give you the Jacob, Zaeed, and Kasumi quests even though it doesn't make sense for Shep to get roped into them or for the same things to happen. When I found out those quests existed without the characters, it felt very much like the content was forced rather than special and meaningful. I would have preferred a bit more of the Dragon Age model where sometimes you don't get certain quests depending on past choices. Instead you get other quests.Or maybe you get nothing. But it would have meant the choices to save or abandon those characters had meaning heading into the end game, and instead it didn't feel that way. Ah, well. It's better now. And I am sorry about the crunch, though that I blame on EA running things poorly to begin with. And there were great and beautiful moments in ME3. Things I really appreciated, like Jack's storyline, Liara's sincere friendship, the lovely cut scene into action scene transitions for things like saving Zaal'Koris. The documentary is interesting, but at the same time depressing in that the devs in some cases still don't seem to have understood why there was anger about it and how it failed as a work of art. Nor that in creating a work of art where choice mattered, fans did have ownership of the story and the ending to a degree. Enough to say that you didn't write a proper ending that reflected them. Especially when the hype men are out there selling endings based on choice. You can't lie to people to get their $60 and then get mad when they say "this isn't what I bought." People may actually have had legal cases for fraud if the fans had wanted to push it that way. That's how bad the endings were vs. what was marketed to us. Ah, well. RIP Mass Effect.

[@frostybaby13]

I agree with you on every point. And I'll add, not only did our Shepard's die a meaningless death for a robot's ego, but that also, they turned her into a war criminal just before - Shepard making the choice to change all genetic life without input? My Shepard isn't a megalomaniac and simply would not have made that choice on behalf of everyone else. I wish I hadn't have played Deus Ex games RIGHT BEFORE finishing Mass Effect, because it was so stark and striking, my stomach sunk, when I started walking down the path to see the SAME 3 ENDINGS - and not explained half as well as in Deus Ex, where a chunk of the game is spend showing you the universe in each choice... My perfect ending would have been close to Dragon Age ORIGINS, with some text written out about each choice made, and a few splashes of cutseens for the crew and my Shepard and Liara hearing the pitter patter of little blue feet!!

[@Ahrpigi]

The number of better, more detailed, and more rewarding endings written by the fans shows how hard the ball was dropped. It wouldn't have been such an outrage if everything up to that point hadn't been so good and gotten people so involved.

[@LilAlfiq]

I had played ME1 and 2 six times leading up to ME3, and had readied two saves to import and play though ME3 at least twice. I ended up playing Mass Effect 3 only once. While the credits rolled I picked up my box to look for some kind of new company's logo that may have been involved, in disbelief that Bioware could produce such a trainwreck.

[@twinberettas]

There were grumbles back at the time that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson locked themselves in a boardroom and wrote the ending together sans the rest of the writing/production team. Seeing how it all turned out in the end I was inclined to believe it - or at least that they gutted whatever the original plan was. Hmm. Also ooooof I remember the cupcakes, from the fan side. We wanted them to be eaten by the team, as a point being made and also as a "We love you but come on!" but I can see how they saw it (and always assumed they saw it that way) and understand why they didn't want to eat them. I should note I didn't have any cupcake involvement - just chuckled at the result at the time. The death threats and shit, though? That is WAY too far. My heart hurts for them, especially hearing them talk about their crunch and burnout. That's really hard.

[@GyroCannon]

Gamers being toxic, I can't defend. Physical threats are not okay. That said, sarcasm cupcakes is hilarious. That's harmless fun. And my personal gripe with Mass Effect 3, even with the extended cut and the 4th ending is that the 4th ending shouldn't be "You always lose" because that's spitting on all the effort you put into building up your alliance up during the game until that point. At some threshold, it should switch to a "We fought off the Reapers! 90% of us died but we did it!" ending. Ultimately the game's ending kept me from replaying the series because it's so unsatisfying...

[@luckywallace]

I agree, it should have been possible to defeat the Reapers without the stupid catalyst and star child choice at all.

[@mikeshinwa3398]

@@luckywallace As a newcomer to the franchise who played these games, back-to-back, that whole ending had me saying "what the fuck?" And Star child? Why tf was he even included? I get it's to show Shepard's PTSD but it just felt so inorganic and contrived I couldn't take it seriously.

[@joshuajefferson3504]

Stop being salty just remember when playing through all 3 games the journey is more memorable then mass effect 3 ending.

[@SCh1m3ra]

"The journey is more memorable than the ending" That... Is some fairly damning praise.

[@kejaris949]

11:55 I like those endings more that the ones we got. Synthesis still is the most ridiculous one of all to me still. Really good video!

[@robcain8865]

When I reached ME3's ending, I wasn't angry, just disappointed. The moments throughout the campaign still landed with immense impact. Luckily, a worthy alternative came from the franchise's passionate fanbase. 2014's Mass Effect 3: Vindicated by Gerry Pugilese massively improved the ending and choice incorporation. It's still available to read online and remains headcanon for me. Here's hoping Bioware can haul themselves back with the upcoming fourth game.

[@ronuss]

i find how it crazy how they spent so much money and effort to make 3 games that people loved and when it came down to the final 1% of the game they were like, " ok how can we save money ? lol.. its like putting ur heart and soul into a cake only to let ur 2 year old child ice the cake with marmite.

[@sirebellum0]

The "they" is EA though, not Bioware, just be clear. Bioware is not without fault, but the crunch they were under to produce the final game greatly exasperated things

[@broshmosh]

Is there any way you could start adding captions to your videos as part of the production process? It really helps when there's mixed media being used, all the different mics have different levels and echoes.

[@iggsolo]

Also handy for people who may have some sort of hearing difficulty

[@PeopleMakeGames]

We'll have these up by tomorrow! I'm really sorry for the delay on that, it's something we're keen to improve on going forwards. As it stands, we were in a bit of a mad rush to get this video up today and haven't had the time to write the captions. Thanks for asking :) -Chris Edit: They're now live!

[@LtLukoziuz]

Guess the description of "we want to avoid it, but we just can't seem to" applies not just to Bioware. :D Loved the video, stay well and take a well deserved rest once captions are up and stuff addressed ;)

[@broshmosh]

@@PeopleMakeGames Thank you for the reply, I'll be back tomorrow to watch the rest :)

[@PeopleMakeGames]

@@broshmosh They're ready to go! Thanks for asking for them :)

[@Lonnloven]

Being on BioWare's forums during the backlash was so awful, it put me off being part of any kind of fandom for years and years afterwards. I remember writing fairly basic messages of support, highlighting what I did enjoy about the game, and getting some of the nastiest comments I've ever been sent - my positive attitude made the people most involved with the backlash furious. I felt like I had to stay there to balance out the hate, but in hindsight, I wish I'd stepped away from the fandom earlier since it became so toxic. I tried to re-enter the ME fandom once ME: Andromeda (which I loved deeply) was released, only to encounter yet another ME-related backlash (I play super slowly so it was already in full swing by the time I finished the game). This time, I bowed out quickly, which was the right choice. Fandom is supposed to be about both celebrating and being critical, but nowadays so many fandoms and online communities are fuelled by hate and filled with anti-fans. I miss when we were able to discuss critically - and I have many critical opinions about ME3. It just isn't worth it nowadays. I'm glad you made this video and that some of the developers were able to speak about their experiences at the time. Maybe some day, more voices will feel comfortable joining in on an even more extensive post-mortem.

[@CodeMorseMusic]

Yeah in hindsight the BioWare forums were a cesspit by that point. I remember some little prick camping in the DA forum dropping spoiler after spoiler for Dragon Age 2, things went down hill after that for me. When it kicked off after ME3 I left. I mean, ok, the ending is a bit shit and abrupt and I was fairly disappointed (though unsurprised after the changes ME2 brought to the RPG elements) but I didn’t exactly expect riding off into the sunset or happy families post game… I left the forums when people started having meltdowns, it was a great trilogy but it was also just a bunch of games, no matter how great, they were games, gutted and all but come on, death threats? Over a game? PS I loved Andromeda, if only because combat actually matched mobility and improved substantially and exploration came back, good to see the pivot back towards ME1 :)

[@diogoamorim513]

As a dev who grew up playing Mass Effect, my team just finished a crunch period today and this video really hit home on so many levels... This is one of the best game journalism channels, and your hard work to interview multiple sources really elevates the experience! When I was a kid, I never considered that it takes lots of actual people with a job, family, social life and responsibilities to do something we take for granted: yet "another game for me to consider buying next week". It's a sweet and sour industry to be a fan/work for. Thank you for constantly looking behind the curtain and bring up these stories!

[@Iwatoda_Dorm]

I cannot praise this channel enough for it's high effort production quality. It really is a good day when PMG uploads >:^]

[@IIIIMavIIII]

Huge thanks to Anni and Chris for telling this story. I feel it was very important to tell and personally it was a bit difficult to hear as I'm a huge Mass Effect fan and I was very grateful for the Extended Cut... ...but oh my...the human cost... :(

[@danimartin818]

The entire backstory concept was flawed from the beginning. And to call control the 'paragon' option is insane. If someone, even a very nice person, asks you to give them complete power over everything and they promise to use it for a force for good, shoot them! The only absolute in this reality is that power corrupts. A galaxy with the reapers still active hoping that they remain "good" depending on the magnanimity of a single absolute authorty, is a galaxy living in tyranny. Whoever came up with that obviously did not give it enough thought and kept it all surface. And thank the Goddess for the original founders of BioWare for insisting on the extended ending because it did make it better! Also, regardless of the ending and the nonsensical background story introduced at the very end, the Mass Effect trilogy is a masterpiece.

[@crazyrabbits]

It's ironic (and telling) that the "Reaper Queen" pitch laid out in this video makes more sense from an in-game standpoint than the final product, and lays clear the problems the original ending set out. Destroy, in this pitch, is described as the Renegade ending - literally taking "ends justify the means" to its most logical conclusion, via destroying Earth and its surrounding area with the endstate being that the Reapers have been destroyed, and what's left of humanity will know enough to break the cycle for any threat the next time. The final product, due to how muddled its message is, gets played up as the "good/Paragon" ending -- it's associated with Anderson, linking it with both their quests to stop the Reapers throughout the series, and Shepard maybe, sort-of sacrifices themself (even if it doesn't make sense, via shooting the control box) to stop the Reapers, but it creates new problems by randomly killing off all synthetic life in the universe. Control makes little sense in both versions. I can't see Shepard voluntarily agreeing with anyone, whether it be the Catalyst or the Reaper Queen, to take their suggestion of randomly uploading their consciousness into their "hivemind" when the Catalyst should theoretically have been able to do the exact same thing just by Shepard telling them to. In the final product, Control is linked with the Illusive Man's ideology, even when the Catalyst admits TIM wouldn't have been strong enough to control the Reapers, and it doesn't really answer how/why Shepard is strong enough to control them, or if s/he will be corrupted by their influence, by game's end. Synthesis makes more sense in the pitch. It's a last-ditch effort, borne out of confusion and desperation, to essentially "interlink" everyone because one side is going to be taken out regardless and the Reaper Queen admits it doesn't have any other answers. In the original game/EC, it's presented as the "best" ending, even though it creates a mountain of plotholes that aren't addressed by the ending slideshow, and makes no sense according to the rules set out by the universe.

[@danimartin818]

@@crazyrabbits And despite the change, they just left destroy as the red "renegade" option even though it is what all the good guys wanted and was the, IMO, most moral of all the bad options. Not to mention, let's say that we didn't have meta-gaming. Let's say that someone faced this choice in real life with no knowledge of what would really happen. The fate of every advanced sentient life in the galaxy depends on your dedcision. There are no do-overs. You cannot just do it again from an earlier save. The psychopath that has directed the death of trillions and has already killed many people you know and at least a few that you love, now tells you that sure, you could destroy them and their monster friends OR you can combine all life, without their consent, with the monsters because ...you just need to trust them that it is the best solution! Would anyone make that decision? They don't provide many details exactly how it would work or what the exact results would be or even why/how it is the best way to go, you just have to trust them, the psychopath who has killed trillions, that it is the best solution in the long run. Who would say yes to that?! I guess the same people who trust the people who call wanting to extend their car's warranty? :o

[@ShaggySasquach4231]

If you make the story a central pillar to your series success, and that’s why people are invested, you don’t get to complain when you make a terrible ending no one likes. Telling people for 8 years to keep your save data because all your choices matter to then end the series with absolutely none of them being taken into account is a massive bait and switch.

[@flowinsounds]

/thread

[@kudosbudo]

Counter argument. You dont' get to be so angry over a GAME that you threaten the developers. Sometime sits ok for a game to just have ashit ending. Not everything has to be perfect or get it right or win the internet. Sometimes its ok to be comfortable in crappy endings that don't make sense cos its just a game and not somethign to lose shit over.

[@CreeperOnYourHouse]

@@kudosbudo That's changing the topic, Jesse didn't say it's okay to toxic to that extent, only that anger and frustration was justified given what had been previously stated and promised by the developers.

[@javkiller]

@@CreeperOnYourHouse Not to mention how much this is used to divert from the company not being able to address its own systemic issues. If the majority of their customers are displeased with the final product and a subset of these are actually abusive, you don't get to ignore the almost universal backlash because of the handful of crazies lighting poop backs on your doorstep. Doing so would imply a blind spot so large it's not surprising the last 2 large productions of the company were catastrophic flops.

[@JamesCarmichael]

Okay here's my personal take on all of this. The Endings we got: My issue was back then (and it hasn't really changed for me) was that the problem with the ending was the logical flaws of the Catalyst (Star Child). It seems to be locked into circular logic and pattern repeating hence the 50,000 year "cycle". It states that the created will always rebel against it's creator and uses Synthetic Vs Organic Life as a medium for that argument. Now obviously it's mistaken as evidenced throughout the series with the Quarian/Geth Resolution, EDI and The Reapers themselves since they use civilisations to create offspring and I'm not aware that any Reapers rebelled. Also the fact that The Calayst itself rerebelled against The Leviathans contradicting it's own logic that it's trying to stop that from happening. When I first played through the ending (even without The Extended Cut and Leviathan DLC) I distinctly remember myself saying something to the effect of "This thing is broken." I couldn't care less about it being a sad ending or even all of the endings being similar with different colours. A lot of games have flavour changes where different choices are made to mask the fact that not much of anything is actually different. The choices themselves seemed to mirror what Saren wanted too. He pretty much says in ME1 that he wants to unite Synthetic and Organic Life while Indoctrinated so the Synthesis Ending always stunk of deception for me. It would also be a complete betrayal of the galaxy fundimentally changing life without it's knowledge, understanding or indeed consent. It's interesting at 10:50 it's very telling that "Everyone" would have got this ending originally which to me speaks that it's a choice regardless of whether you're good or bad, but in the final product it's only available if you've gotten most things. Like they knew that this would be the worst choice available to anyone who didn't invest the time to get a good outcome. The Destroy Ending was the only logical pathway to wipe the slate clean and let life evolve on it's own because it rejects the Catalyst's nonsense, but the Quarians, Geth and all Synthetic Life has to be destroyed for some reason. I never picked Control or cared much for it since it just goes against what my own personal morals are and by extension my Shepard. I remember the popular meme that said something along that lines of "Synthetics Killing Organics to Save Organics from Synthetics." Many a lol did happen frankly, but that is practically what the Star Child is saying. But when all is said and done my problem is how this is all framed on flawed logic to begin with. The choices are fine, the presentation of the endings (to me) is fine, but it's what's led to it all where my problems are. The Ending we could have got: The Reaper Queen thing sounds very interested because even though the ending choices sound similar it's all framed very differently. It's the Reapers that are the problem and that's coming from their own leader who has been locked away for pointing it out to them. The choices are relevant to what you've been building upto rather than falling back on theme (Synthetics vs Organics) that has been resolved numerous times prior in the game and indeed the series. There's no "We're killing you to save you" shit. Instead it's something like "My kind is killing you because they lack that ability to move past their programming and evolve to a higher understanding." I can't figure out why they changed it. Just changing the reason behind it creates an entirely different dynamic and makes a lot more sense and provides far more cohesion. The Extended Cut: My thoughts are simply that it shouldn't have happened. I highly respect Bioware for doing it and feel dreadful for the people who had to crunch to get it done, but it adds more questions than it resolves. In my opinion any changes they wanted or needed to make should have been done in the Leviathan which I'll get to since I have some thoughts on that too. The Extended Cut reinforces and reaffirms the logical flaws that built upto the ending in the first place. You can't clarify something that is just flawed and illogical in the first place because the core of it doesn't make sense. It's like talking to a drunk Flat Earther. You can talk with them for 5 minutes one Saturday Night and know that they're wrong. You can go back to them next Saturday Night and talk with them for 20 minutes and still know that they're wrong. Also how did the Normandy get to Shepard so fast? :D I kid, I kid. Point being it should have been left alone in my opinion. Btw on a personal note I got the "new" ending on first playthrough of the Extended Cut and I think that does imply that Bioware weren't exactly happy with the backlash. It does discolour the idea that this was a wholesome attempt at clarity. I actually like the Refuse Ending the most because it's the only Ending where my Shepard is acting like himself. But I digress. EDIT: Continued below

[@JamesCarmichael]

The Indoctrination Theory: I love this theory because given what we knew at the time it links a series of events that goes back throughout the series and adds in quite a cool turning of events. Because of all the characters that should be at least partially Indoctrinated at the point of the end of the third game then it should be Shepard since from the very first mission on Eden Prime Shepard has been exposed to Reaper Tech over and over again and much more than anyone else. It's clearly now in retrospect not what they intended, but having played through the series recently I did find myself asking questions like "Why does the Star Child look and sound like the kid that died on Earth? They have no connection whatsoever so unless the Calayst has access to Shepard's mind there's no way he's know to present hiself like that." "Why is the Child who (inexplicably ends up at the end of the game) in Shepard's dreams? Why are there "Oily Shadows" in Shepard's dreams?" Why does he wake up with a headache which is a prime symptom of Indoctrination? Why does Shepard see a vision of himself hugging the Child and then burning which mirrors their encounter at the end of them game?" "Why, how and when did both Anderson and TIM get on the Citadel? Why does Shepard clutch his bleeding abdomen after he himself shoots Anderson in the Abdomen?" "Why are there dreamlike whispers (Alien Voices in the Mind) while I'm having this conversation with TIM and Anderson?" I could go on, but there are numerous documentaries covering it far better than I can. When people shoot down the theory one really wonders if they're looked into it and actually seen all the evidence because again in retrospect it's clearly not what Bioware intended, but it is a well made theory and one in which could have been an interesting direction to go in. I mean even now it doesn't really violate what's in the game especially if you swing more towards the Hallucination version of the Theory. Anyway none of this really matters now, but I love the fact that ME3's ending kind of brought together a wide range of people to discuss, create and share their love for this series regardless of the things we didn't like about it. If Bioware only saw that side of it all then maybe it could have balanced out some of the horrible backlash they received because they didn't deserve that at all. Leviathan DLC: I feel like it was a pretty good DLC. Maybe if it was in the original game the backlash wouldn't have been so strong, who knows? Problem is very much like the Extended Cut it retroactively tries to explain stuff about an ending I would think most people who played this would have already experienced. It's reverse storytelling essentially telling you about something before you chronologically experience in the game, but honestly most would have experienced beforehand anyway. The Leviathan's own narrative doesn't make a whole lot of sense either because it simultaneously says that the Harvest isn't a mistake, but also wants to stop it and helps you. Also just as a side note if the Leviathans said "We damaged the A.I in our rebellion" then for me that would have been enough to explain everything that comes out of the Star Child's mouth. It's damaged and stuck in a cycle repeating itself and coming up with nonsense to rationalise it to itself and anyone who finds it. Citadel DLC: LOVE IT! Bioware and the Fans: All I'll say is that Bioware didn't deserve the massive vitriol they got from some of the fans. On the one hand it does show that they care enough to feel so strongly, but adding fuel to the fire will burn everyone. There was a lot of love that came with the backlash. Fan art, theories and I'm sure people even raised money for charity at one point. Bioware did do the extended cut after all and while I think it shouldn't have been made I can at the very least respect them for doing it. How many companies do you know in current times that would do that? The video game, movie and media industry has never been so anti-consumer and it wouldn't surprise me that it's because of the vitriolic fringe elements of these kinds of backlashes that has led to it. I mean I really didn't like Last of Us 2, but if I ever saw Neil Druckman in person I'd most likely buy him a coffee and have a conversation about video games in general. We can all disagree without it leading screaming through the keyboard and I think the internet enables that from both sides. I mean even when I was still salty about the Ending I would have spent most of the conversation talking about the positives of the series if I had a sit down chat with Casey Hudson. On the other hand I do think Bioware did ignore genuine criticism and focused way too much on the loudest, but dumbest objections like "there's no happy ending." That has never been an issue for me personally. I think Bioware focused more on the trolls because it was easier frankly and while I think that was wrong I can at least understand why. Even in this video (4:18 for example) you can still see glimpses of this sentiment in that it was just the colour of the cutscenes that people had an issue with and such. I kinda rolled my eyes at that, but I think I know why those kind of things are still being grasped onto to this day. Mass Effect 4: I'm curious. I mean where on Earth do they go from here without choosing a canon ending? This Video: Couple of things. 7:20 I disagree and I can prove it. There was a backlash to the Ending of ME3. If what he said was the case then people wouldn't feel the need to go back and see if the other endings played out better or made more sense in the first place. 7:58 My question upon seeing that was if the bean was destroying the Normandy then what the hell is it doing to the rest of the galaxy? This happens with all the endings as far as I remember. 13:46 Incorrect mostly. Actually the Theory evolved into different versions. The Dream Theory was the first and least accepted. The Hallucination Theory where Shepard did get up and go upto the Citadel was the latter and more accepted Theory from what I remember. TIM and Anderson were said to be the Paragon and Renegade elements of Shepard's psyche manifesting in a Hallucination which informs the decision to come with the Star Child. It's interesting that they added in cutscenes of them both Controlling or Destroying the Reapers in the Extended Cut. It was that confrontation that was the Indoctrination attempt. I'm not saying this is true, but I do want to inform that there is a lot more to the theory than the typical surface level understanding. 22:11 I agree with that for the most part. The thing I would just say though is that people invest a lot of time, energy and indeed money into buying these games and while I agree that people demanding that you SHOULD change your story is ridiculous I don't see a problem in consumers taking an active role in voicing their views on the media that they pay for and consume. It's that way for any other form of commerce and video games and art in general shouldn't be excluded in my opinion. Look at the Citadel DLC. It's absolutely packed with meme material most of which I would suggest came from elements of the story the fans attached themselves to and gave life beyond the artist's intent. That's a positive example of fan/artist interaction, but you can't have one without the other because the other is uncomfortable. I think especially in today's world of vast and easy communication fan involvement is going to become more and more of a reality whether artists like it or not. I don't know personally if that's going to be a good or bad thing, but an inevitability. Death Threats and Harassment are never acceptable especially in this case. This team clearly went through hell to get the game on the shelves and giving them more hell from the peope they made the game for just isn't right at all. I just want to reaffirm that. We can talk all day about the rights and wrongs, artistic integrity validity etc, but when it gets ugly that's when I and I hope many reasonable people switch off. Thank You: Regardless of everything these devs created a game series I and many people still love. Many brilliant memories both within the game and outside of it discussing it with friends etc. So thank you all. I should go

[@frankdonatelli343]

The message to take away from this story is that management fucked up and over worked their people and the product suffered.

[@heartofdawn2341]

The ending of ME3 was disappointing. All of the choices you made throughout the trilogy were completely ignored and the only thing that mattered was your "readiness score" which you could simply bump up by playing the multiplayer mode. While I understand artistic vision as a principal, it just felt completely incongruous and slipshod compared to the masterpiece that was everything else. And I do feel that we as consumers are entitled to give feedback and criticism on a product that we spent our hard earned cash on. That all being said, what happened was absolutely disgusting. Toxic vitriol and death threats are never acceptable, and the crunch management put the devs under was inhumane. The devs were caught in the cross-fire, took hits from both sides. So in the end, while I'm glad Bioware listened to feedback and made changes for the better, the victory feel pyrrhic. It should not have been this way. Going forward, we need to to better. We need to remember we didn't get the green ending- the devs are human too.

[@clockworkpineapple9510]

I am continually shocked that People Makes Games doesn't have millions of subscribers and views per video. This is the only channel I watch every new video on release date. Keep it up guys, love your brilliantly edited and informative content.

[@brogdafrog5856]

Have you watched Shut up and sit down? It is similar but is focused on board game reviews! (It has Quinns as well so that is a plus!)

[@OriginalPiMan]

@@brogdafrog5856 While there is Quinns in common, I think the feel of the two channels is very different. Even beyond the topics being very different, I wouldn't expect Chris or Quinns to be nearly as comedic here as SUSD is.

[@brogdafrog5856]

@@OriginalPiMan yes I agree, but they do sometimes talk with the developers. That may not be the same because they usually are playing the game that the developer made and it is normally longer but it is still enjoyable. Also, if you are interested in games you might be interested in their board game counterparts

[@ZekeRaiden]

I find it interesting to compare and contrast the ME3 debacle with the FFXIV 1.0 launch. The two are not the same for a variety of reasons, so no comparison can be totally perfect, but they have a lot in common...and also show how it's possible for things like this to have a different impact, even if ME3 probably could not have avoided this problem. While FFXIV is a "standalone" game and not the final chapter in a highly anticipated trilogy, it had the weight of decades of FF games behind it, and the extreme competition from WoW and other high-profile MMOs, so it ended up in a similar place. The writing, however, was far less a concern than the game as a system, and that definitely changed the tone of the responses, both from players and from its creators. Yet, in the end, FFXIV came out far, far stronger after the team picked themselves back up and, with Yoshi-P's direction, put together an astounding recovery. In a very real sense, the quality and even the story itself of FFXIV could not have happened if it hadn't struggled so mightily and failed so hard. As a very popular piece of music for a recent fight says, "To begin/We first must see the end." But I definitely think the ending was always going to be at least *somewhat* disappointing for ME3. For my part, I had seen all the Shep death flags and thought they were going to pull a subversion, so I didn't care for the ending on that alone. However, I _had_ absolutely been expecting them to really make a broader spectrum of endings, where all the choices I made across the three games could play out and give shape and texture. I felt blindsided by the "star child" and felt that the laziest possible option had been chosen for the endings: distill every choice into a single number (galactic readiness, which could be completely compensated for via PVP, invalidating the different choices you made), and then palette-swapping the endings, apart from rewarding the Renegade option with "oh yeah and this one you maybe actually survive." The plot holes like "the armada you just summoned now dies of starvation," and dismissing important, relevant things like "the geth and quarians have learned to live in peace, can't we try to generalize their solution?" just added extra spice to the overall problem. I think that's honestly why it blew up so much. There was always going to be *some* controversy, that was unavoidable. However, because of the specific path taken, almost everyone could see an aspect of the ending that stuck in their craw, *especially* because of the explicit "there aren't just A, B, and C endings" comment that so thoroughly told players to expect more. I absolutely get the "I am an artist, my work stands, take it or leave it" position. Artists have a vision and deserve to be respected enough that we can judge that vision, good or bad, rather than *telling* them to change it. But games admit a far greater freedom (and expense) for post-release change than any other medium, and that creates a unique opportunity as well as unique problems. It's kinda impossible to "correct" a film or TV show after it airs, ad least without very kludgy tools like retcons or time travel. A book (as others have noted with the Holmes comparison) is theoretically malleable, but it takes ages to write and publish an alternative, and there's a feeling of greater finality to words in print, even though it's much, *much* more expensive to make a new cinematic with voices etc. A game can be *transformed* by its post-release content, both literally and figuratively. Ultimately, I think the lesson of the ME3 ending was appropriately threefold: (1) Make sure you *correctly* communicate to your audience what they should expect from your game, and especially *don't* tell them to expect something you aren't going to do. (2) Endings require a LOT of work. Leaving them sketchy and minimally addressed until very late in the process is a Bad Idea for a variety of reasons. (3) Artistic vision and audience reception have a complicated relationship, and the fact that games are malleable in a way films, TV, and books aren't makes it even more complicated. If the artistic vision is unfulfilled or lacking, it may actually be for the best to address that...but it also may not be helpful to anyone, not even the upset fans.

[@fence_seagull]

One unanswered question from this is "how was the extended cut received?" In the end, did the players find it worth the cost to make it?

[@wppb50]

Anecdotally, I'd say it was a very mixed bag. It was almost universally seen as an improvement (in that it was, at least, three endings rather than a palate swapped cinematic), but a good part of the fanbase had some deeper issues with it in practice. It fixed some of the problems in concept, but it didn't solve the issue of having a deus pop up literally ex machina to give awkward exposition and try to redefine the central conflict of ~90 hours of playtime in the last five minutes.

[@thatotherguy8138]

A) It was received... grudgingly. By that point in time, most Gamers realized how much the Developers (NOT the Executives) were being pushed, and most Gamers grudgingly accepted that this was the best we were going to get. Very few were happy or satisfied, but most of us essentially let the matter drop. B) At the time, I think many of us would have been happy if Bioware had crumbled under the cost of fixing this mistake. We might have felt bad for the "Names on the Credit Screen" who had no say in how things were written or marketed, but at the time the only face we had for Bioware was Casey Hudson and wanted him to suffer for this mistake. (and I'm honestly not sure if he has or not.)

[@1957DLT]

I wasn't an original Mass Effect trilogy player, but I was aware of the controversy with the ending (what gamer wasn't when it happened). I recently played the Legendary trilogy though. From my point of view Shepard does not spend 3 games trying to find out about and destroy Reapers only to have some random Star Child (another harbinger, imo) show up with 2 alternatives to indoctrination. My Shepard chose destroy because that's what she was damn well there for. Synthesis and Control just seemed to be glossed over versions of reaper indoctrination in the long run, no matter how logical the Star Child made it sound. And I could not imagine a galaxy where folks can sit down to dinner with their husk family members like all is well. No synthesis kumbaya for my Shepard, thanks. Control gives the illusion of Shepard being the driving force of the reapers, but is that not another manipulation? Perhaps after all this time harbinger realizes that Shepard is formidable enough to be the one who can destroy Leviathan. So no Control for me either. Bioware writers lost their plot and went too convoluted by 3. It didn't have to complicated, Shepard was always there to end the Reapers and prove that it can be done. Leviathan is still lurking waiting to be apex predator; an end to this cycle of reaping leaves breathing room for the galaxy to get its shit together to deal with Leviathan. The Reapers and Leviathan might be older and more powerful, but are operating from flawed logic (I am an apex god, bow to me) that does not take self-determination of the galaxy species in consideration. I hope Bioware calls mea culpa and announces that Destroy is canon. ME4 with Leviathan rising as the real threat would really be something.

[@Cauthon007]

Bioware was ahead of its time, it did the game of thrones ending controversy way before it was cool The guy who sent the cupcakes was a legend XD We've learnt that few people are capable of sticking the landing on a series and much like No Man's Sky more of the criticism was placed at the pre launch lies

[@justinwhite2725]

Game of thrones ended exactly the way it should have. Any other ending would have been bizzare. Only beef is thet crammed 3 seasons of content into 3 episodes.

[@Blottingpaper]

Counter point to initial opening of people telling artists to change their story. Mass effects ending wasn't even written before they started the game, they didn't know what they wanted to say, so what they made up was sub par and you can't say "it was artistic therefore above reproach" There wasn't artistic merit in it because it was written to expedite releasing the game on time. The story board dude saying "we're going to use space magic to make everything better" basically sums up the endings we got. That aside the harassment, isn't' expectable and the people that did it are dickheads. Lastly, Upper management seems like they're the true reason.

[@Peranor79]

Yeah, the whole "artistic integrity" angle that gaming media tried to spin was just ridiculous.

[@cjkhis1037]

Let's remember the bravery of the Marauder Shields. He tried to protect us from this godawful ending

[@MrSnaztastic]

I remember joking about who was the better final boss... Reaper Baby or Marauder Shields..

[@QuiGonGlenn]

Never forget.

[@RConn55]

Explain

[@demolition_lovers]

@@RConn55 Marauder Shields is the greatest video game boss of all time. He will never be forgotten.

[@osmium6832]

@@RConn55 I had to google "Marauder Shields Meme" because people think the most hilarious way to answer an honest question is to remain in character and give a nonsensical response to those who don't already know. The final enemy in ME3 before the half hour of cutscenes is a nameless character labeled in-game only as "Marauder" with shield icons over his health bar. The joke is that this guy, named "Marauder Shields" by the community, is in fact a hero by being the last line of defense between the player and the disappointing ending. His "sacrifice" to stop Shepard became a big meme in between release of ME3 and the new endings.

[@vulture8298]

I think some developers certainly committed a fallacy when they said: _"You can't tell the artist to change their artwork _*_after_*_ they already finished it."_ When in reality that was *not* the original premise. Bioware either strongly hinted at, or at times straight up *told/promised* their customers that their individual choices in the Mass Effect-games would have *consequences.* That was conveyed to their customers for over five years when the first game was first presented and its coming features were explained, up to the third game in which all of those individual choices were meant to culminate in a custom ending. If you say this was always impossible, don't think of custom full rendered outros for a myriad of possible endings, think of a choice few ending narrations over 2D stills like Fallout 1 & 2 did it. Most RPG players in the early 2000's were familiar with these possibilities and came to expect them or similar ones because of the announcements that "every choice would matter". These expectations were *not* unreasonable at the time. So to say the consumer of an artwork would have no right to demand changes to it after the artist already finished it, is almost completely missing the point. There were promises made and after 5 years and 80-90 hours of playtime, those promises were simply not kept. A promised core feature of the game was simply not there. And the customers only found out about it after 5 years, completely slapping them in the face. Their choices, *for five years* meant nothing. Honestly, you can debate about if the changes were the right decision all day long, but you can't fault people for being outraged about it all at the time.

[@treetheoak8313]

I would argue they never really kept that promise since the beginning of Mass effect. Between all three games The only two "notable" choices that I can remmeber is the racnhi queen and being able to convinse the quarian and geth fleets standing down. Both of which ultimately lead to what kind and the amount of resources youll get to building the crucable. Neither of which I recall people mentioning in the weeks following the release of mass effect 3 and if you watch most videos on the topic of mass effect 3's disappointing ending/s. Is something quite ignored or glossed over. As if the lack or binary choice often self contained in the individual game itself could somehow lead to the hundreds of endings some. Fans were hoping for. With that being said I think the responsibility should have been with the staff communicating to fans that this was not something that could not happen. At least not with EA's demands and deadlines. Also using older games such as fallout 1 and 2 I think is a bit disingenuous as older games and simpler games such as isometric rpgs. Are much, much cheaper and easier to implement a large amount of varied endings. Then the cost and time required to create several endings to motion captured and 3d animated games. I'm not saying people shouldnt have been pissed. But what I'm saying is that people really should have been warry when developers are making grand promises that when taking a step back, seem too good to be true. I remember mentioning that I was suprised how quick the development is and hoping we don't get a paywall to the ending in a future DLC as they are showing off very EA heavy aspects such as a multi-player mode in my narrative heavy ARPG.

[@PlaylistGeneral]

You can still have individual choices bear consequences in the final game, while also not having every single choice mesh together into some unique ending. It almost sounds like people wanted entirely personalised endings, which is a ludicrous ask to me. More endings and choices being reflected would've been good though.

[@vulture8298]

@@PlaylistGeneral Like I said, to expect fully rendered cutscenes for hundreds of possible combinations of endings would have been absolutely unreasonable. But a throwaway voiceover-line about some group of NPC's whose life you changed forever, all of which over a 2-D picture, not a full rendered moving CGI-cutscene, would have been more than possible.

[@vulture8298]

The following questions should have been asked and answered at the time: Bioware _"All your choices matter."_ - _"Okay... *how?*"_

[@vulture8298]

@@treetheoak8313 "Between all three games The only two "notable" choices" - Which arguably made it worse, because most players came to expect their choices to at least come together at the end. "With that being said I think the responsibility should have been with the staff communicating to fans that this was not something that could not happen. At least not with EA's demands and deadlines." - I wholeheartedly agree! "Also using older games such as fallout 1 and 2 I think is a bit disingenuous as older games and simpler games such as isometric rpgs. Are much, much cheaper and easier to implement a large amount of varied endings. Then the cost and time required to create several endings to motion captured and 3d animated games." - Yes, I was trying to make this exact point. It would have been unreasonable to expect fully rendered cutscenes for custom endings, but it would not have been unreasonable to expect at least some voiceover narration over some 2D pictures.

[@eji]

It's interesting that the colors indicate that Paragon was Control and Renegade was Destroy, because if you think of it fundamentally, those should be flipped. A Paragon Shepard would be the one who would've destroyed the Reapers because that's what their goal has consistently been the entire time, basically the Anderson approach, get rid of the evil plaguing the universe, and Anderson has always been the image of a Paragon. Control is definitely Renegade because, like the Renegade Illusive Man, Shepard would have the audacity and ego to believe they could actually control the Reapers into doing what they wanted, forcibly.

[@Slywyn]

The "no screw you starchild' ending always felt incredibly spiteful on the part of the developers. With really high readiness it genuinely seemed like the combined forces were winning but nope you just get steamrolled and it's a dark time for the galaxy. It really genuinely felt like it was the devs saying "You don't want our contrived plot child's help WELL FUCK YOU THEN" and you got the worst possible ending out of all of it. It felt spiteful and mean and just mean-spirited in general. It honestly made ME3 WORSE than the original vanilla endings, for me.

[@VashIsBetter215]

It's honestly disgusting hearing the team defend lying for years to get pre orders and everyone to buy all 3 games then have us spend 100 plus hours on each game, expecting "a unique ending that is Formed, depending on ALL of your choices from all 3 games, then 300 plus hours and 180.00 at minimum plus all the extra stuff people bought for a game expecting it to be bigger than 3 different colors to the same cutscenes, there is no opinion here, no defense is valid when everything you earned was based on lies to mostly kids, and even adults whom actually understood how fcked it was , after what they claimed it would be for years.

[@Saithene]

"we shouldn't do this" Manveer Heir, pity he never said this about his twitter or Mass Effect Andromeda.

[@CodeMorseMusic]

I’m on a second play through of Andromeda, sure the story ain’t all that but it’s a LOT better than some people make it out to be. Biggest difference is the tone

[@FredCDobbs-rd5wi]

My assumption regarding the ending was that the top-level designers (i.e., Casey Hudson and a few others) had, from the start, wanted the series to be as much cerebral sci-fi (i.e., like 2001: A Space Odyssey) as it was adventure and romance but that the serious sci-fi stuff kept taking a back seat to other elements as the trilogy was actually getting made. By the time they got around to the final entry in the trilogy, the top-level guys realized that this was their last chance to make a Big Profound Sci-Fi Statement and so they poured all of their energies into using ME3's ending for that purpose. Thus, the ending of the game couldn't just be "big battle where we defeat the bad guys once and for all." No, it had to be "Highbrow think-y sci-fi moment that blows minds." And that's how we got the Starchild and the three different paths and so on. This video implies it was presented as a fait accompli to other developers late in the process, giving them no time to press for any significant changes. The problem with the original ending was that it follows 100 or so hours of swashbuckling adventure and romance across three separate games. To go from that to "Let the game slowly and enigmatically rationalize why the big badguys do what they do and then have you, the player, potentially determine the fates of entire species. Oh and your character dies and they don't get the ride-off-into-the sunset happy ending that you have been expecting after all of this" was just too jarring of a shift from what most players were expecting. The fact that the ending's initial version appeared to indicate that the final choice only changed which color filter used in the ending cut scene was the final insult. Honestly, the developers should have been less ambitious. They should have focused on perfecting the story that they were already telling: the story of a hero saving the galaxy. They should have given Shepard the moment of triumph that they had earned and then let them return to their loved ones. Tacking on what amounted to an entirely new and different story at the very end of the trilogy was just a step too far.

[@Complex_Difficulty]

Sorry, but to this day I still don't understand why sheperd should survive in the end? Yes he survived in ME1 due the scale of the threat, which was just one reaper, but in ME2 he almost dies, and in some endings he actualy die, so why his death in ME3 would be strange or unrealistic with all that full scale attack from the reapers?

[@matro2]

If Destroy is canon, they'll also canonise Shepard surviving in the rubble. But he could return in a virtual form or not at all.

[@atfruitbat]

This was an interesting watch, and the animation was great! It also reminded me about a conversation I had elsewhere about the different kind of attention that the beginning of a game may get as opposed to the ending, in terms of design. The beginning of the game has to hook the player. If they don't play through to the ending, it's the early part of the game that might affect the ratings they give it. The end of the game might not always get that much attention in comparison, particularly if it comes after a very long, depleting period of development and crunch. It's interesting to me that the 2nd game in the series was reported to have been made with the least amount of crunch and is also said to be the best received of the trilogy. I wonder if people had been better rested, if they would have had the resources to do something different with the ending in the first place. That isn't to say that it's in any way OK to be toxic and harass developers - nothing justifies that. I'm mostly curious about what might have been in the background in terms of production pressures, etc, to those design choices.

[@tripleO16]

One of my favourite youtube channels. This channel is criminally underrated.

[@harshvardhanjha4611]

Should have kept the Dark energy subplot excluding the absurd humanity sacrifice. You can always weave your way around that. The "synthetic and organic will always go on war" never was established throughout the trilogy, felt like it came out of nowhere. Even relating it with the real world, such a theme is out of question, as a synthetic being cannot ever be living. Should have simply left the reapers as being indoctrinating killing machine, a dense deep space virus maybe.

[@Asylumrunner8]

Elon Husk is such a good nickname for the Illusive Man oh my god

[@arhangeo]

Shepard's indoctrination makes perfect sense. They probably didn't bother revealing it to all staff :D

[@calemr]

Most of the people in this I liked. People saying how they didn't have control over things, didn't even Know the ending was just a color change. People saying that they're glad the ending is improved now, that that made some of the fans feel a lot happier. That's great. Either explaining how it wasn't their fault, or accepting it and being willing to improve, be that by fixing it, or just going forwards. But I HATE anyone who calls the fans, their Customers, entitled, for wanting a good product. That mindset is Awful, both morally, and as business. (Mass Effect is basically Dead, now. and part of that's general issues with Andromeda's quality as a whole, but a lot was also gonna be back of ME3.) What's truly entitled is when someone releases a low quality product, and expects people to just accept whatever garbage they've put out. Or going "I'm an artist, I make whatever I want, and to hell with the actual consumers." If someone wants to make something that only they are going to like, they should spend their own money, and go leave it in their basement. Not spend millions of dollars of other people's money and then demand to get paid for doing their job badly. If there's a meal that's under-cooked, or made from bad ingredients, saying "The boss demanded I send it out early" means that part ain't your fault. saying "There was an issue with the ingredient delivery" is... acceptable for mitigation. "How dare you expect Not to get salmonella! Eat your gone off food!" makes you a piece of shit. And "I'm sorry, I'll go and fix that for you." Makes you a really decent person, in my eyes. Even if it's not a great fix. At least they tried. And that's commendable. Though I would also like to say: Fuck the people who, in this metaphor, would start screaming slurs at the wait staff. There's polite ways to complain, and then there's being a total douche about it.

[@jabberw0k812]

These interviews give me the impression that they think the color swap and other corners they had to cut are what caused the backlash. Personally, I think what's bad about it goes way, way beyond that. The whole concept these people were handed was just a mishmash of garbage before anyone in production touched it. At the highest level, they wrote themselves into a corner and then gave us a space fairy waving a magic wand to fix it. They tried to pull a Deus Ex, and ended up with a deus ex machina, wrapped in pseudo-philosophical nonsense. There was a lot of great work done on ME3, but what will always stand out in my memory are the issues I had with the writing - mostly high-level plotting stuff - which extend far beyond just the ending. In that sense, I always feel a little bad for the people who made something good around or on top of something that wasn't very good.

[@blakeharris787]

A different take worth thinking about. It is interesting to consider the response of the tiny indie studio that made No Man's Sky (masterfully detailed by Internet Historian) and the response of Bioware. The small indie studio works it's ass off for years releasing DLC (all free) to not only finally deliver what people wanted but has since by and large exceeded what people wanted and they are still improving the damn thing. In contrast a prominent studio backed by EA cobbles a dlc that pretty much just explains what some endings actually meant by adding some dialogue with artwork (how is that not included day 1), but then moves on to add some paid dlc which is just some extra events to get $ and the turd that is ME Andromeda... And you can now relive the disappointment for a stack of cash with a release of the same games. At least Todd Howard at least puts it in VR and his crap can actually be fixed with mods. I feel bad for the rank and file who put all the work into making something with really good gameplay and great artistry only to have their managers tarnish their legacy. And going back to the comparison, the difference that a small studio basically remade an entire game and didn't charge their customers a dime, versus honestly just remake part of the last level and the ending sequence to fit with the rest of series... Screw the travesty the management at Bioware became, based on everything they made before (with the exception of Dragon Age 2), they were better than that. Just imagine if they did 1/50 of what Hello Games did for their customers, and Hello Games didn't even have a fan base from a decade of pioneering storytelling in games.

[@sirebellum0]

I get what you're saying but Hello Games is the exception not the norm, and I would assume the only they went through all that effort was BECAUSE they were an indie studio and to do the head of HG, NMS was probably a long awaited dream project. Even if NMS didn't turn around in sales & perception, the core team probably would've stayed on that sinking ship til the very end. Its just not realistic to expect the average studio to do like them, ESPECIALLY AAA where shareholders are involved (shareholders tarnish any creative effort)

[@REDLINE.FGC1]

Those ending"s" were diabolical. Don't mislead players with your marketing. There's frankly no defense for that. Develop your games properly, without crunch, and you'll find this drama doesn't happen. This is yet another case of devs and gamers turning on one another due to the decisions of CEOs

[@jedimasterpickle3]

...thank you for this video. I'm 25 now. I was in high school when ME3 came out and never really considered what this meant to BioWare employees. I remember being unsatisfied with ME3's ending and I still consider the Extended Cut to be "good damage control". I wasn't and still am not part of any large discussions about Mass Effect so I didn't know the scope of the specific toxicity that occurred at the time. The cupcakes thing is kinda funny, but death threats are always inexcusable, and their caution in approaching the cupcakes is understandable.

[@as9ardian248]

The catalyst is basically Matrix's Architect, introducing that character in the last 5 minutes of a trilogy such as Mass Effect was definitely bad writing. Cutting two major plot missions from the main game and using them as DLC (the day one protean and the leviathan) was even worse. I believe these were their two major mistakes.

[@FlakAttack0]

If you're not familiar, look up the concept "Deus Ex Machina". The Architect and the Catalyst are literal examples of it and would be funny if not so disappointing.

[@charlestonobryant807]

Nah, I’d say worse. The Architect isn’t really a deus ex machina, and his existence still ties heavily with the overarching themes of the Matrix. Imo I’d say it even pushes those themes to their core further, with the ideas of control, true free will, and above all else, choice/illusion of choice. Plus he was introduced in Reloaded, not the end.

[@as9ardian248]

@@charlestonobryant807 It's a bit controversial and that's why I avoided using that concept. Well, for sure you can apply it in a negative sense to the anticlimactic Catalyst at the end of ME3. That being said, I do agree with flak attack: you can still use that term, more broadly speaking, with the Architect which, while being only a program, is nothing else than the representation of the Machine Leader's will and purposes for designing the Matrix. Let's say that he is a Deus Ex Machina done right because, as a plot device, he does resolve a lot of the questions going on at that point in the trilogy, but he does that in the second chapter, giving so the spectators the time to metabolize important rules of that world without breaking their suspension of disbelief.

[@charlestonobryant807]

@@as9ardian248 yeah I see what you mean, and I think him being in the second chapter is also an indicator of a problem with the ending. Most second parts of a trilogy end with a revelation that drives forward the plot and recontexualizes what we know. Episode V ends with Vader revealed as Luke’s father, driving the narrative of VI. Episode II ends with the Clone Wars and Anakin marrying Padme, the driving forces of III. The Architect’s reveal drives the third movie. But nothing about the plot of 3 other than the Reapers coming is brought up in 2. By kinda rejecting the dark energy subplot, the ties from 2 to 3 are weakened to the point of 2 feeling like filler retrospectively instead of the second chapter, and as such, 3 has to have revelations and reveals that should’ve been done in 2.

[@as9ardian248]

@@charlestonobryant807 Now that you mentioned it, I wish they never ditched the dark energy plot: it would have been a perfect link to ME2 and, as an explanation for the Reapers motivations, works way better than the synthetics vs organics one. We'll never know, I guess

[@noneofyourbusiness4616]

10:49 - the image of the Reaper helping an old lady cross the road is amazing

[@normalperson4sure]

Seeing developers disagree about changing the ending is kind of sad, honestly. If there was a gameplay feature that players didn’t like and the developers on the whole thought was poorly implemented, that gets patched and nobody tries to make a philosophical argument about it being fan service. Sucks that storytelling isn’t considered as integral or as malleable.

[@BrotherCheng]

I don't know, do you expect an author to change a book's ending just because you don't like it? But also, for gameplay, usually that's because something is broken, buggy, or poorly tuned etc. Narrative is a much more subjective thing (and yes, I did dislike the ending) that you can't simply say it's a "buggy" ending. And the video also went into the actual cost of creating an alternative ending, aka crunching for another 4 months to rush an extended cut out the door when you thought you could take a break. And to add to that, this was essentially creating new content (cutscenes, dialogues, etc), rather than simply changing some tuning here and there.

[@normalperson4sure]

@@BrotherCheng Obviously crunching for four months to change an ending is bad. Crunching to change anything is bad. There has to be a middle ground there, like maybe taking 12 months to patch an ending. And yeah, it is subjective, but so is gameplay. Looking at something as poorly-tuned is a subjective analysis that is a common interpretation by the community, just like the ending of ME3. In this case it seemed like even the developers weren’t happy with it, which indicates a bigger consensus than most gameplay patches have. I think the example of boyfriend dungeon is an extreme that shows when narrative/writing shouldn’t be patched - the character remains in the story despite backlash, which is the correct choice. This is similar to dark souls choosing to favour difficulty over accessibility, because it suits the game and the experience they are trying to craft. I think that narrative patches in games should be given the same nuanced thought. Even books have updated versions, like how the hobbit was retrofitted for lord of the rings. Why not games, when editing after release is an accepted fact?

[@kylewavey6206]

Regarding if changing the ending was the right choice. You just need to consider if your artistic vision is more important than giving the fans what they want. If you find the answer to that then the choice is easy. Considering the game's story likely changed according to the corporate demands why would changing it based on fan demand hurt their artistic integrity any more?

[@LifesProtagonist]

I appreciate the video, but I wish there was a bit of time addressing or acknowledging the feelings among a lot of fans, including myself, that the endings being similar was ultimately very low on the list of why they were and are such disappointments and such a narrative failure. Giving each of the endings a 30 minute cutscene that was totally different from the other two wouldn't have done anything to make them less morally or intellectually offensive or any less of a betrayal of what Mass Effect stood for. It wouldn't have addressed the *dozens* of absolutely gaping plot holes and contradictions. It wouldn't have changed the fact that Shepard and the player spend three games uniting the galaxy and building the ultimate team of heroes, all to have them contribute basically nothing and to have the problem instead be "solved" by some combination of a 'Reaper Off Button' built completely off screen and the antagonist deciding to be nice. All problems that - based on their track record of the three games released since - BioWare themselves have completely failed to make any progress in doing better, or have even regressed.

[@frostybaby13]

From this answer, I gather we are soulmates! :D I feel the very same, and you expressed it perfectly!

[@Andrei2patrU]

Honestly, if ME4 starts by revisiting and redoing the ending of the original trilogy it will already be a huuuge success. I'd buy that game just to get a better ending even if the rest of it would be shit. Re-doing it and allowing it to be replayed would also nip a lot of this "canon" bs in the bud

[@QuiGonGlenn]

In a sense, it has to. A canon will be chosen, and bits and pieces of that canon will filter down to the player over the course of the game. If this is done well, much could be forgiven. I just feel like they've made the stakes so high for themselves, that the project will crumble in on itself due to all of the pressures. This game won't even release as a BioWare title, if DA4 doesn't do well. The brand has been horribly tarnished since the release of this bad ending.