[saxon]

For ME3, I meant the end. Up until the end, the story's pretty much par for an ME installment. Which is why the ending is just so... so... so...

[Paula Ramos]

This should make my point for me. Both Saren and the Illusive Man, through dialogue, are able to realize they've been indoctrinated. The steps leading up to it may have been fuzzy, but the idea that once you're there, nothing can snap you out of it is proved incorrect. Couple that with the fact that Shepard no doubt has far stronger mental faculties than either of them, and Shepard should be even more likely to break the spell. I mean, Shepard's whole thing is that his sheer force of will is practically immeasurable.

They both realise they are indoctrinated through dialogue. And they only realise they have been indoctrinated long enough to blow their own brains out before it takes control again.
If you pay attention it seems obvious that what is occurring isn't real. There are subtle hints littered throughout the entire Citadel sequence. In the Indoctrination theory, if Shepard chooses Destroy he does break the indoctrination. Nobody has managed to that in any Mass Effect game before, and if he does succumb to indoctrination it because of a decision made by the player.

My point is it doesn't matter what in-universe explanation makes the most sense when poor writing and rushed development covers things far better. The fact that there's so many off-the-wall weird moments that are just written off as, "Well, they are just weird 'cause indoctrination," should show that. Having unexplainable events doesn't mean there was some grand plot idea, it just means they (the writers and developers) butchered the ending.

I honestly can't accept that the ending could be so terribly written, especially when compared to the quality of it throughout the rest of the game. The plotholes are so painfully obvious when recognised, yet difficult to even notice (in my case, at least) that I can't see how they can't be intentional.

And there's the thing about Shepard waking up after the Destroy ending amongst blown up concrete reminiscent of that during the Conduit run. Surely this means something. Again, I cannot accept that Bioware would just toss this in to get people talking.

The theory adds up with less flaws than the actual ending taken literally. And it's not just a "well, it was all a dream". Indoctrination has played a large role throughout the series. The topic of "discussion" at the Citadel is indoctrination, and Shepard does fall to it for a moment, effectively killing Anderson.

[Skrapp Stephens]

Oh dear. Well, I'm finally there. For most of the time I've been playing ME3, a shadow has been looming over me because the tales of the dreadful ending soon came out (yeah, thanks for the staggered release dates there) but I'd managed to avoid finding out exactly why. Now I've "experienced" it... I doubt there's much to say that hasn't already been said thousands of times. My two main gripes: first, I'm left thinking "what the hell was that all about?": not exactly one of the greatest successes in storytelling. Second, being an RPG, aren't I supposed to have some influence over what happens? More than the restrictive, cookie-cutter endings was finding myself blocked from the last dialogue option with TIM: yeah, that makes sense, a character with an almost perfect paragon rating has to use a renegade interrupt to get past the penultimate stage. Sloppy and really quite unsatisfying to force me to do something that's out of character for the way I've played over the three games with the alternative of just standing there and being shot.

I suppose I'm reminded of the old stand-up performer's maxim, you're only as good as your last performance. And although the Mass Effect series is one of the best things I've played, its final moments were absolutely dire. Perhaps it's too soon to say whether or not it's my worst gaming moment, but if it's not the worst, it's right up there with them.

[Darrell Fawcett]

They both realise they are indoctrinated through dialogue. And they only realise they have been indoctrinated long enough to blow their own brains out before it takes control again.
If you pay attention it seems obvious that what is occurring isn't real. There are subtle hints littered throughout the entire Citadel sequence. In the Indoctrination theory, if Shepard chooses Destroy he does break the indoctrination. Nobody has managed to that in any Mass Effect game before, and if he does succumb to indoctrination it because of a decision made by the player.

It doesn't matter how other character's have dealt with the discovery that they've been indoctrinated. It only matters that they realized it and, more importantly, they did so through dialogue. Shepard has no such opportunity. The developers denied it. Denying players the ability to further investigate the Citadel Child's claims is no different than if they'd disallowed players from confronting Saren or the Illusive Man through dialogue. Beyond that, the whole point is that Shepard is stronger than Saren and the Illusive Man. His chance of indoctrination detection and resistence should therefore be greater, not lesser. Shepard shows absolutely zero indication that he has any doubts that what the Citadel Child says is true. He offers a halfhearted response about wanting to decide their own future and then readily accepts everything else that's thrown his way.

Choosing the destroy option results in the exact same ending cinematics. If choosing destroy broke indoctrination, these scenes would not be shown. You have the potential to see a glimpse of somebody maybe taking a breath if you achieve a certain level of military readiness. This doesn't mean anything, though, beyond that Shepard possibly survives. Whether he survives or not has no further implications. He could just as easily survive while giving into Reaper demands as he could resisting them.

Then we run into the fact that if it's indoctrination there is literally no ending. Shepard is still laying around down on earth. He hasn't even entered the crucible. That was all imagined. There's still a war raging on around him. The Reapers are still laying siege to Earth, members of all races are being cut down in space, there hasn't been anything even approaching a conclusion.

This is why, even if we accept indoctrination as the actual intent, this was a horribly written ending.

I honestly can't accept that the ending could be so terribly written, especially when compared to the quality of it throughout the rest of the game. The plotholes are so painfully obvious when recognised, yet difficult to even notice (in my case, at least) that I can't see how they can't be intentional.

And there's the thing about Shepard waking up after the Destroy ending amongst blown up concrete reminiscent of that during the Conduit run. Surely this means something. Again, I cannot accept that Bioware would just toss this in to get people talking.

The theory adds up with less flaws than the actual ending taken literally. And it's not just a "well, it was all a dream". Indoctrination has played a large role throughout the series. The topic of "discussion" at the Citadel is indoctrination, and Shepard does fall to it for a moment, effectively killing Anderson.

Filling in those holes only exposes new holes in the new interpretation. Why can't Shepard resist indoctrination, only break it or give in (there's no middle ground or struggle)? Why does Shepard still see the relays explode and the Reapers die and joker flee if he's already chosen the path that breaks indoctrination? Where is the ending?

Deciding that the ending as presented is incomplete and unsatisfying, then attempting to fill it in with half-justified new interpretations only results in a different unsatisfying and incomplete ending. Bioware has always relied fairly heavily on cliche (definitely on their narratives if not so much on the universes and lore they create). It's not at all surprising to me that an attempt to avoid cliche results in a clumsy ending like the one we were given.

[CxvIII]

It doesn't matter how other character's have dealt with the discovery that they've been indoctrinated. It only matters that they realized it and, more importantly, they did so through dialogue. Shepard has no such opportunity. The developers denied it. Denying players the ability to further investigate the Citadel Child's claims is no different than if they'd disallowed players from confronting Saren or the Illusive Man through dialogue. Beyond that, the whole point is that Shepard is stronger than Saren and the Illusive Man. His chance of indoctrination detection and resistence should therefore be greater, not lesser. Shepard shows absolutely zero indication that he has any doubts that what the Citadel Child says is true. He offers a halfhearted response about wanting to decide their own future and then readily accepts everything else that's thrown his way.

Choosing the destroy option results in the exact same ending cinematics. If choosing destroy broke indoctrination, these scenes would not be shown. You have the potential to see a glimpse of somebody maybe taking a breath if you achieve a certain level of military readiness. This doesn't mean anything, though, beyond that Shepard possibly survives. Whether he survives or not has no further implications. He could just as easily survive while giving into Reaper demands as he could resisting them.

Then we run into the fact that if it's indoctrination there is literally no ending. Shepard is still laying around down on earth. He hasn't even entered the crucible. That was all imagined. There's still a war raging on around him. The Reapers are still laying siege to Earth, members of all races are being cut down in space, there hasn't been anything even approaching a conclusion.

This is why, even if we accept indoctrination as the actual intent, this was a horribly written ending.

You are Shepard. What reason is there to trust this God-Child? Why believe what is says despite it being completely nonsensical? The fact that he's stronger than the Illusive Man and Saren may well be irrelevant when it comes to indoctrination... we don't know enough to just say "Shepard would have known he was being indoctrinated". The game places us in an area that doesn't makes sense with a character who's reasoning behind why it is apparently the mother-Reaper or whatever doesn't make sense. We can take this and say "yeah, I don't believe it", then choose Destroy indicating that the so-called Catalyst did not change your opinion.

I will, however, concede that Shepard breaking character and accepting what the Catalyst says as fact as yet another plothole. In dreams, you generally accept what you see as real unless you are lucid dreaming. Perhaps this is what is occurring? Shepard is in a state where he cannot question the Catalyst, only accept it as real.

This opens more flaws with the Indoc Theory, so I'll just say that it is an issue either way. Shep would not believe the Catalyst if he were not dreaming. Shep in a dream- or indoctrinate-state believing the Catalyst yet still being able to work out he is being indoctrinated doesn't really make sense, unless there is a point of realisation which there is not. Still, it makes more sense that Shep became clearer of mind once being the choice presented itself rather than him just accepting it without even a semblance of logic behind why.

Filling in those holes only exposes new holes in the new interpretation. Why can't Shepard resist indoctrination, only break it or give in (there's no middle ground or struggle)? Why does Shepard still see the relays explode and the Reapers die and joker flee if he's already chosen the path that breaks indoctrination? Where is the ending?

Deciding that the ending as presented is incomplete and unsatisfying, then attempting to fill it in with half-justified new interpretations only results in a different unsatisfying and incomplete ending. Bioware has always relied fairly heavily on cliche (definitely on their narratives if not so much on the universes and lore they create). It's not at all surprising to me that an attempt to avoid cliche results in a clumsy ending like the one we were given.

We don't know the power of indoctrination. Shepard is extremely strong-willed, but this is technology from those who created the Mass Relays. We have seen indoctrination being momentarily staved-off when convinced by Shep, but never broken.

What reason is there to believe the Catalyst, as I have asked? He is clearly trying to stop you from choosing Destroy. And if you do choose Destroy it is proven that he lied or was incorrect, as Shepard still lives. The hallucination ends when Shepard awakes or when he falls to indoctrination. He is still in a hallucinatory state, regardless of the fact that he broke from it.

I realise I am grasping here, but to be honest I'm not the right person to have this debate with you, as I'm really not good at organising my points and communicating them in a coherent way. Especially as you think the writers just completely lost the plot with the last sequence and think that there is no reason behind the nonsensical things that happen except atrocious writing while I'm trying to make sense of it.

[Marina Leigh]

More than the restrictive, cookie-cutter endings was finding myself blocked from the last dialogue option with TIM: yeah, that makes sense, a character with an almost perfect paragon rating has to use a renegade interrupt to get past the penultimate stage. Sloppy and really quite unsatisfying to force me to do something that's out of character for the way I've played over the three games with the alternative of just standing there and being shot.

A direct line from the hint book about the last contact with the illusive man, which was why i had a renegade prompt instead of using paragon on him.

Spoiler

You can convince the Illusive man of his own indoctrination, after which he ends his own life ( by either shooting himself or by storming directly into your line of fire). This is actually a series of paragon/renegade persuasion options that get progressively harder. To complete the final persuasion successfully, you must have used a persuasion on the illusive man in every one of your earlier conversations-on Mars, Thessia, in the illusive man's base, and the three previously in this conversation.

One of those was interrupted, by a family member while i was playing thus Anderson died.

[megan gleeson]

A direct line from the hint book about the last contact with the illusive man, which was why i had a renegade prompt instead of using paragon on him.

Spoiler

You can convince the Illusive man of his own indoctrination, after which he ends his own life ( by either shooting himself or by storming directly into your line of fire). This is actually a series of paragon/renegade persuasion options that get progressively harder. To complete the final persuasion successfully, you must have used a persuasion on the illusive man in every one of your earlier conversations-on Mars, Thessia, in the illusive man's base, and the three previously in this conversation.

One of those was interrupted, by a family member while i was playing thus Anderson died.

Interesting; thanks for finding that. I don't remember missing such a persuasion earlier in the game, though I might've been likewise interrupted; though I think they should have applied "mostly" rather than rigidly sticking to "every time" as that's still feeling like it's not reasonably within my control. Maybe that's just me, but it seems too restrictive to get a reasonable conclusion and I feel I shouldn't be left having to take a renegade action resulting in a rather unsatisfactory outcome. Maybe I'll see it differently next time I play through, though that might be a while...

[Erika Ellsworth]

You are Shepard. What reason is there to trust this God-Child? Why believe what is says despite it being completely nonsensical? The fact that he's stronger than the Illusive Man and Saren may well be irrelevant when it comes to indoctrination... we don't know enough to just say "Shepard would have known he was being indoctrinated". The game places us in an area that doesn't makes sense with a character who's reasoning behind why it is apparently the mother-Reaper or whatever doesn't make sense. We can take this and say "yeah, I don't believe it", then choose Destroy indicating that the so-called Catalyst did not change your opinion.

I will, however, concede that Shepard breaking character and accepting what the Catalyst says as fact as yet another plothole. In dreams, you generally accept what you see as real unless you are lucid dreaming. Perhaps this is what is occurring? Shepard is in a state where he cannot question the Catalyst, only accept it as real.

That's precisely my point. I am Shepard and I don't trust the child. Why then am I forced to accept what he says without question? Your argument, as I understand it, is that since I can choose an ending the Citadel Child cautions against, I can make my skepticism known through action. I'm saying that the inability to first make my skepticism known through dialogue is an example of poor writing. What if I'm skeptical, but not skeptical enough to dive headfirst into something I may regret? I can't question, I can only rebuke. It's frustratingly binary

My point in bringing up Saren and the Illusive Man is that they did question indoctrination entirely through dialogue. Unable to fully reject it's effects, they then choose to end their own lives. Their experience with indoctrination consists of two parts. A mental sequence in which, through dialogue, they come to realize the extent of their indoctrination, and a physical sequence in which they act on that realization (ending their own lives). Shepard (and thus the player) is only provided with the latter sequence. This is entirely inconsistent with what we know about indoctrination.

This opens more flaws with the Indoc Theory, so I'll just say that it is an issue either way. Shep would not believe the Catalyst if he were not dreaming. Shep in a dream- or indoctrinate-state believing the Catalyst yet still being able to work out he is being indoctrinated doesn't really make sense, unless there is a point of realisation which there is not. Still, it makes more sense that Shep became clearer of mind once being the choice presented itself rather than him just accepting it without even a semblance of logic behind why.

This is another thing. There is no indication that Saren or the Illusive Man were experiencing totally separate realities. The indoctrination only ever played off their pre-existing motivations. Saren, while hating humans, ultimately was a "good guy". Sovereign's manipulation played off of this, but we're never given anything that would indicate Saren was seeing or experiencing things incongruous with reality. He was tricked into believing he could save some by aiding the Reapers. The Illusive Man was himself tricked into believing he could control the Reapers. Again, no indication that he'd been experiencing a wholly different reality, only that the Reapers were telling him what he wanted to hear. Up until this segment, indoctrination has always been a subtle force, slowly edging it's way into the subject's mind. When Shepard experiences it though, we're to believe he concocts an entirely new scenario that's not actually real.

As I've seen it, indoctrination may result in mild hallucinations, seeing ghostly visages, hearing voices, etc. But I think to describe Indoctrination as having all the same qualities as a dream is making an assumption we have little evidence for. So, while some may be more inclined to accept dream logic as reasonable, there's little to indicate that indoctrination shares these qualities.

I feel like much of the evidence for the indoctrination theory is found by working backwards from that assumption, rather than looking at each piece of evidence and deciding what it points to.

We don't know the power of indoctrination. Shepard is extremely strong-willed, but this is technology from those who created the Mass Relays. We have seen indoctrination being momentarily staved-off when convinced by Shep, but never broken.

What reason is there to believe the Catalyst, as I have asked? He is clearly trying to stop you from choosing Destroy. And if you do choose Destroy it is proven that he lied or was incorrect, as Shepard still lives. The hallucination ends when Shepard awakes or when he falls to indoctrination. He is still in a hallucinatory state, regardless of the fact that he broke from it.

I realise I am grasping here, but to be honest I'm not the right person to have this debate with you, as I'm really not good at organising my points and communicating them in a coherent way. Especially as you think the writers just completely lost the plot with the last sequence and think that there is no reason behind the nonsensical things that happen except atrocious writing while I'm trying to make sense of it.

Not permanently broken, but still broken. The Reapers wouldn't allow their thralls to simply off themselves whenever somebody pvssyd with them if they could help it.

I'd also point to the fact that on Thessia the Prothean VI says nothing of indoctrination when approached by Shepard and his team, but totally flips out when the assassin arrives on the scene. It's been established that indoctrination is not a sudden effect, but a gradual one. Why then can the Prothean VI detect indoctrination in Kai Leng, but senses none of it in Shepard. Are we to believe that Shepard was indoctrinated to a extreme degree, far beyond that which was experienced by either Saren or the Illusive Man, in as short a time span as the conduit run?

I'm arguing from the standpoint of what's more likely: That the writers pulled a fast one on the players, but happened to forget established indoctrination lore while ignoring other plot holes and neglecting to include any actual ending? Or that the deadline was coming up, they weren't where they should have been on the schedule, and rushed to turn in a subpar ending?

[Josee Leach]

Interesting; thanks for finding that. I don't remember missing such a persuasion earlier in the game, though I might've been likewise interrupted; though I think they should have applied "mostly" rather than rigidly sticking to "every time" as that's still feeling like it's not reasonably within my control. Maybe that's just me, but it seems too restrictive to get a reasonable conclusion and I feel I shouldn't be left having to take a renegade action resulting in a rather unsatisfactory outcome. Maybe I'll see it differently next time I play through, though that might be a while...

No i absolutely agree with you, i just posted that to highlight what you were saying, if i didnt have the hint book, i wouldnt have known myself that they applied that, but this is the first hint book ive got that theyve put boxes with spoiler alert, the whole books a spoiler thats the point, and they put the text upside down, now why would they do that, in a spoiler book, also they dont tell you what happens at the end, they dont even print the screencaps for the ending, it just has spoiler alert and gives info on the multiple variations of the 3 endings, thats the first time ive seen them do that, i wonder why.

[Laura Shipley]

Or that the deadline was coming up, they weren't where they should have been on the schedule, and rushed to turn in a subpar ending?

Which is why i keeps saying and will stick to my guns on this, they were only interested in the multiplayer aspect of it, it ended up being a platform to introduce multiplayer, they had 2 other games both single player no multiplayer, for what reason would they hold the game back to introduce multiplayer, this is why i find these comments so interesting.

How did advances in your game engine open up multiplayer for the Mass Effect universe?

It almost went the opposite way where we knew we wanted to do multiplayer in Mass Effect. We finally had a really good reason why it worked with premise of the story and who you’d be playing and why you’re playing those characters and what you’re fighting for. We knew we wanted to do multiplayer and we knew it had to be great. In order for it to be great, the game engine and the game systems, the combat, the movement, the weapons, all had to be that much better to be a really great multiplayer experience. It was the drive towards those things that actually created a line of technology improvements and game design improvements that have been carried over into the rest of the game. When we first announced multiplayer, a lot of fans were concerned that somehow the work would take away from the single-player, but it actually worked the opposite because we got an extra budget and an extra team to do multiplayer and that left the single-player side and scope and quality alone and intact. The great thing is that the work that was done on the multiplayer side helped to make all those things that much better on the single-player side as well.

Of course they were concerned, the game was held over from the 2011 release date to introduce mutilplayer and so they could work in the kinect technology into the game, because its their test bed for future multiplayer, maybe an MMO, if im wrong im happy to say i was wrong, but this isnt the first time a games company has done this and im sure it wont be the last.

[yermom]

Mass Effect's twitter response to a question about the ending:

http://imgur.com/ufN82

EDIT: fixed link. They took down the response on twitter, but someone caught a screen shot of it.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10222868

[Ilona Neumann]

And you thought http://www.destructoid.com/ea-reported-to-ftc-over-mass-effect-3-ending-224101.phtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Destructoid+%28Destructoid%29&utm_content=FaceBook disliked the ending.

[Josee Leach]

I just thought of something in relation to the catalyst-child thing. If the Catalyst is the starchild dealy, which is the Citadel, which in turn is in command of Reaper forces, how the hell did the protheans manage to prevent remote activation of the Citadel relay to dark space? Couldn't the star child, since it is the Citadel, just open the relay by itself? I mean, it is that relay. Why does it need Sovereign to send a signal to the keepers so that the Keepers will open it?

[Rinceoir]

Mass Effect's twitter response to a question about the ending:

http://imgur.com/ufN82

EDIT: fixed link. They took down the response on twitter, but someone caught a screen shot of it.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10222868

Its a stock generic answer, its a form responce to any question you post to them, its just basically a bot posting the same answer over and over, ive already seen the same answer posted on multiple sites, if i e-mailed them id get the same form answer.

A stock answer like their stock photo of Tali, i didnt know that till a few days ago now thats poor.

[phillip crookes]

Let me first state that I hated the ending...I'm a huge Mass Effect fan and Mac Walters disgusts me. I miss Drew Karpyshyn. I'm thinking about just going with the original Dark Energy story ending as personal Canon. The ending was terrible.

However, I'm holding with the Indoctrination theory, because it does have good reasons and little things add up. The [censored] excuse of 'dude, we kill organics so synthetics don't kill organics' was obviously flawed logic, a lie. But also: Control and Synthesis are buttered up. Illusive Man Indoctrinated, obviously...don't listen to him. An Indoctrinated servant would never be allowed to reveal the truth if you could 'control' them. Pick Control, and the Catalyst (Harbinger) is shown smiling and grinning as you dissolve. Synthesis: the Reapers are part organic, part synthetic. Their goal is to create Synthesis! Pick that, and again Harbinger grins. But why is the Catalyst the kid from your dreams...how could it know to portray that kid from your dreams, and if it could know, why would it?

In the beginning, that kid is in a vent of the building that just got blown apart, and when Shepard goes in, Anderson doesn't hear the kid. Anderson thought Shepard was trying to go out that way. When Shepard was called by Anderson, you hear a Reaper growl. Those "growls" have precedent in ME novels when a character named Grayson was trying to be Indoctrinated but he resisted, it growled like that.

Until the end is fixed, or EAware gives the real ending in a money grab dlc, I'm going with Indoc. Other points about Illusive Man/Anderson being symbolistic during that one scene also makes sense.

Brutal job by EAware in endings, though...and I like the characters but I'm a plot guy. It's brutal. I mean, a super dsrk ending is fine, but show it. Show our destruction. Detail it. Show overload in population centers of the harvest and Shepard's demise. Or show victory. Whatever. Just have it finalized. I blame Mac Walters AND Casey Hudson. What the hell were they thinking? Morons.

[*Chloe*]

Take hold men and women of the forums! Don't let one little slip up break your morale, rally I say! Hold the line! It was a mix up, this means absolutely nothing. It's all PR speak gibberish for maybe, I don't know, I'm tired, and perhaps a little panicky trying to deal with all of this fan backlash. We must wait for them to actually announce things. Twitter and Facebook are a battlefield, but hardly any meaningful victory. If anything such a sudden shock might draw more anger if we can stop people from breaking. A http://www.facebook.com/masseffect/posts/275243029217754 to calm you all down. And a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wRkzCW5qI to inspire us all! To victory, and hold the line! We will be famous after this retake movement! The second time in history an ending has been changed because of just how bad it is.

[NAkeshIa BENNETT]

I don't personally see any reason to believe the Indoc theory. A multi-million series as Mass Effect requires a straightforward ending that everyone can understand. Making an abominable ending as it is now and then pointing absolutely nothing to reinforce the Indoc theory, it would serve greatly against them.

BW screwed up. End of story. They are not fixing it, for now at least. We may have to wait months to get what we deserve.


The kid is just some PTSD Shepard is having. And my FemShep shouldn't even be seeing that kid. She has killed so many kids in her career that one shouldn't matter.

[kelly thomson]

I don't personally see any reason to believe the Indoc theory. A multi-million series as Mass Effect requires a straightforward ending that everyone can understand. Making an abominable ending as it is now and then pointing absolutely nothing to reinforce the Indoc theory, it would serve greatly against them.

BW screwed up. End of story. They are not fixing it, for now at least. We may have to wait months to get what we deserve.


The kid is just some PTSD Shepard is having. And my FemShep shouldn't even be seeing that kid. She has killed so many kids in her career that one shouldn't matter.

It does seem pretty weak, you could have had a renegade Shep with the battle of Torfan, have condemded whole species to extinction and gone on a suicide mission to fight a human-reaper but - oh no - this child dying really hit him hard.

[Rebecca Clare Smith]

A few alternatives to the indoctrination theory:

1. Shepard died of his injuries after the illusive man encounter. Shepard was pretty close to dead by the time he had that final conversation with Anderson and was radioed by Hackett about the Crucible not firing. When he collapses on the floor, he hallucinates the final scene with the star child. Hackett's engineers figure out how to fire the crucible anyway, which the dying shepard is aware of, but Shepard reconciles that event with the star child hallucination, which is why the Crucible activation gets three colors. Everything else in the ending is a synthesis of comms pvssyr coming over the radio and Shepard hallucinating.

2. Shepard is trapped in the Geth consensus. Turns out Geth don't write very good endings.

3. Shepard is brain damaged/almost dead by the time he gets to the Star child, which is why he doesn't make much of an effort to argue against it's points or the premise that synthetic life necessarily destroys organic life. He just doesn't have the capacity to argue against a space station after the verbal duel he had with the president of the United States.

[Sami Blackburn]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Shepard dying? Am I the only one who thinks it svcks to have this 4-year hero, who single-handedly has taken down two Reapers (human Reaper and the destroyer in London), possibly promising LI to spend rest of his/her life with him/her, to just die because some child ghost tells so? I know that this is the end of Shepard's story but it does not mean s/he has to die. Just retire with LI to some remote Earth city. I was greatly relieved when my FemShep was taking a quick breath, which means she survived. Without Liara, but that can be corrected in future playthroughs. I can send EDI and Ash to accompany Joker in the deserted island for all I care.


Though I'm just glad there there is a possibility for Shep to survive. Shepard is not even that old - I always aged my FemShep to be around 25-30 and Mass Effect humans live to around 150. If one thing I like in the current endings is that the most positive one (IMO) has Shepard surviving if enough war assets.

Come on BW. Let my Shep retire in peace.

He just doesn't have the capacity to argue against a space station after the verbal duel he had with the president of the United States.

TIM is the US president?

[Emily Jones]

And you thought http://www.destructoid.com/ea-reported-to-ftc-over-mass-effect-3-ending-224101.phtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Destructoid+%28Destructoid%29&utm_content=FaceBook disliked the ending.

Despite its ridiculousness, I'm glad someone's finally doing this. It's about time the software industry, and the gaming industry specifically, practices some accountability. Do I think it'll be successful? No (probably for policy reasons, not because there isn't actually a sound claim). But at least there's going to be some legal clarity on one part of the industry's operation. And while I don't think the USA will take these kinds of claims seriously, other countries just might... I know that kind of advertising would never fly in South Africa, for instance.
It might make software companies think twice before hyping a game or program out of all proportion.

[Sylvia Luciani]

Shepard is not even that old - I always aged my FemShep to be around 25-30 and Mass Effect humans live to around 150. If one thing I like in the current endings is that the most positive one (IMO) has Shepard surviving if enough war assets.

Shepard would turn 29 the year of the first ME game, according to the timeline in the codex, so that's about right.

TIM is the US president?

They were probably referring to Martin Sheen having played the US President in The West Wing.

[Suzie Dalziel]

Alright, I support the Indoc theory because it does clear up a lot of plot holes. Sure, it has its own share, but they can be much more easily rationalised and are a fewer amount than what we receive. I think the issue is that BW tried to make an ending that could be interpreted in many ways so they tried to not make any possibility more believable than the other which led to them making every one with huge plot problems. The level of writing in the rest of the game was so impressive compared to the final mission and especially the final few minutes that while I agree they messed up, I can't think they weren't at least hinting at an alternative ending.

[Charlie Ramsden]

Alright, I support the Indoc theory because it does clear up a lot of plot holes. Sure, it has its own share, but they can be much more easily rationalised and are a fewer amount than what we receive. I think the issue is that BW tried to make an ending that could be interpreted in many ways so they tried to not make any possibility more believable than the other which led to them making every one with huge plot problems. The level of writing in the rest of the game was so impressive compared to the final mission and especially the final few minutes that while I agree they messed up, I can't think they weren't at least hinting at an alternative ending.

It's just denial and wishful thinking. It's a user theory to cover up the shock made by BW screw-up.

As far as I'm concerned BW either genuinely screwed up or, judging by day one DLC, they are just trying to ASSUME CONTROL of our wallets by releasing the proper ending a few weeks/months later for some $$$

If BW does indeed make an ending-correcting DLC it will prove that they genuinely f'd up the original ending and there is no reason to further debate it. I can only hope that they will fix it and the new ending will be like in other BioWare games.

[Justin]

We could only hope, but the thing is if they do they svck, and they svck already, either way both ways their going to look bad. And who isnt going to be skeptical about any new release from them, that they do the same thing again knowing they got away with it once.