I think the reason why the endings where Shepard dies feel unsatisfying is because they ultimately feel anticlimactic, arbitrary and forced. It feels less like a grand sacrifice made selflessly in order to save the galaxy and more like Shepard being railroaded into jumping into the green light or grabbing the electric blue thing to disintegrate themselves to power the space magic just because the Starchild said so. It removes agency from the player. It especially bites players who went through the whole trilogy and wanted to earn their happy ending through choices, quests and exploration. ME2 rewards players with the perfect ending if they made the right choices, dedicated time and effort to know and help their crew and did enough sidequests. ME3 says "best I can give you is a couple seconds cutscene of Shepard lying in the rubble and maybe alive, but only you chose the Destruction ending. Hope you didn't like EDI and the Geth too much".
ME2's final mission including a 'perfect ending' is a great point. Another promise that set up expectations into 3, but unfortunately, completing more of ME3's content didn't result in a 'happy' ending, but rather more choices for how to save the galaxy.
I felt like ME3 took away a lot of agency right from the get go. Like I'm the beginning when you're waiting for the Normandy. A lot of people who used only powers at the end were confused as to why they felt they were just fighting cannibals forever. It's like the game developers said "no I want you to use all your ammo so that the Normandy will show up at just the right time and nothing you do will change that". That works well and fine for just a cinematic linear game but completely goes against the whole RPG/ your choices matter game
I find it interesting that mordin. Who said it himself. He only had maybe a couple years left of life left. And to me the biggest punch is when you get him to talk about sea shells.
I wouldn't mind Shepard's death if it served a purpose, but in ME3 it felt like the devs wanted to kill him, just to make sure the trilogy remains a trilogy.
@@tammykolu1242 Why do people keep saying this when everyone knows in the perfect destroy ending Shepard likely survived, I would have agreed with you 100% if that scenario, the perfect ending had never existed, but it does.
Not sure if it was in the OG triology or only in legendary edition but it makes no sense that they included the destroy ending where Shepard survived than
When I looked up the original endings I couldn't find the extra Shep breath scene anywhere except the extended cuts, but I don't own the original game so I can't confirm.
@paragonseven trust me, this existed prior to the extended ending patch. My Shepard took a breathe on March 10, 2012, four days after the game came out.
@@MattRowland is correct. @paragonseven you even showed that "secret" document that had Shep as being alive in that ending in a previous video. IMPORTANT: The reward was that the option that required the MOST effort--importantly--the most effort ion the multiplayer part of the war assets--gave the player _their_ "best ending". The reward for all of that MP, which EA was pushing, was Shepard taking a breath. In context, this was the period in which EA was pushing for every SP game to have a MP component. This ties in with the suicide mission of ME2. The bit with the most effort kept everyone alive. We were trained in ME2 to make sure we gained the most war assets (ie, play the MP) in ME3.
@@Bethgael This is correct. I intentionally delayed finishing ME3 in the four days I took off of work to play it, in order to grind maximum galactic readiness to ensure I got the 'best' ending.
Interessting. I'll make sure to give it a spin, I just bought the Legendary Edition (Despite owning all games physically and 2 of them as pyhiscal Collectors Edition) and was planning another playthrough. When I originally finished ME3, it was when there was not even a patch for the more "extended" endings and was so frustrated at what happened, despite the devs saying "there wont be an ending A, B, C, where there are just different colors of endings" (or something really close) and then they did exactly this, that I never picked it up again.
I completely agree with Shepard's death being unnecessary and forced in terms of the thrust of the story--or at least, versions of the story the player could choose to tell through their narrative. Shepard's story in my game was always of triumph against impossible odds, achieving outcomes no one else could. I absolutely wanted her to live through the ending, because it felt correct. In the end, I even turned to the popular MEHEM mod to achieve this, and still think of it as the canon end to my Shepard's story.
Eh, seems like we’re picking narrative techniques to fit an opinion about a story. It could easily be done the other way. Shepard is named Shepard for a reason. In fact, sacrifice is one of the traits of the “shepherd” historically in literature: “The good shepherd chooses personal sacrifice for the welfare of his sheep. The same is true of shepherd-leaders. They willingly experience personal sacrifice for the benefit of those they lead. It’s not about the leader; it’s about those being led. “ That sums up Shepard in the entire series, going out of their way for their crew and for the galaxy at their own expense. The plot does serve the character if the character’s trait is self sacrifice because “it’s not about the leader, it’s about those led”. It’s a cool video essay though.
100% agree with this. Although I would also like to add this: The fact that Shepard died in the beginning of Mass Effect 2 and managed to bounce back from such a death makes their demise in ME3 ludicrous. If they can bounce back from dying in the vacuum of space and possibly atmospheric re entry, surely they could have survived the catalyst.
I think the endings feel weird because the point of the whole trilogy was this idea of together we are stronger, i mean all the games start with Shepard collecting team members and friends from different species that are all their individual divers characters to complete the task at hand, or in the third game we need to unite the whole galaxy to even have a chance. So having experienced that throughout 3 games the ending will always feel strange because the whole endgame is just Shepard with the squad even evacuating and then 1 person deciding over the fate of the galaxy which is obviously no decision an individual should or can make by himself. Its just completely counterintuitive to what the games have been subconsciously "teaching" us
Definitely felt this too. At the end, I wanted my squad by my side saving the galaxy. But I don't blame the devs for wanting it to just be Shepard. Especially with the context of needing to develop the whole game in only 2 years.
@@tammykolu1242 We did make a lot of difficult choices all along the journey, also this trilogy was all about choices, where is our choice for a happy enough ending when we are still alive for sure and didn't have to kill our allies and EDI for it ?
@@paragonseven yeah i agree the time constraint really was the reason for all that mess. Its just for me this together with the point you made in the video are the fundamental problems with the ending (at least thats what i think haha after all im a physicist and not a psychologist)
Honestly the idea that one person can make a world/galaxy/universe-defining choice that irrevocably informs the course of their futures is so wack to me. The endings have always bothered me in that they run completely counter to the narrative themes of people's and peoples' right to self-determination, the steer the course of their own destiny. But that's kind of a fatal flaw in having a main character in a power fantasy game.
Part of is starting to agree that Shepard dying at the end of Mass Effect 3 wasn't completely satisfying but maybe in the new Mass Effect game maybe we finally can have a true ending to Shepard and the Normandy crew without ruining what came before.
Thank you. For the past 12 years, something about the ME3 Ending always felt hollow to me, like it was missing a crucial piece in order to be a fitting/satisfying ending. Yes the choice-consequence promise was broken, yes the final choice royally sucked, yes we don't get to live/experience the consequences of that choice like we do throughout the series, and yes we have no say in Shepard's final fate, but I always felt that there was still a missing cause that I just could not place my finger on, and I believe you have voiced that lost piece here: plot resolution without character resolution. I could accept an option where we can choose to sacrifice ourself in the final decision and the sacrifice seems the honorable price to pay, but also there needs to be the opposite option where we choose live and the price is guilt, but they didn't go with this option either.
Nope! It didn't! It's not the concept that's the problem, it's the execution. Had the ultimate final decision been to sacrifice Shepard (i.e. the player's alter ego / “own Shepard”) for the greater good or let him live and face the negative consequences, this could well have been an excellent ending to Shepard's “journey”. - And Bioware would have been cheered and celebrated instead of being showered in shame.
A great video> I would argue that the "Actions have consequences" promise was a little broken in 3 too. I mean, the choices from 1 had impact in 2. So we expected the choices from 1 and 2 to build to 3, to give us multiple different, possible endings, What we actually got, was a meta war score that subverted what plot had been built in 1 and 2 (that there was a chance to fight and defeat the Reapers, that our actions mattered and that perfect choices and consequences could craft a perfect ending). Instead, we were essentially given 9 possible endings in the original... up to 10 and a loophole on one of them, in the extended version. The problem was, these endings, in most cases, were re-skins and just colour pallet changes. Its like seeing 27 different coloured ice creams or cupcakes, but they all taste the same. It was a lazy, cop out ending, that felt show-horned and rushed. It left a bitter taste and took away a lot of player choice and agency as well as "hope". The fact is, none of the endings were "good". - Control and become a tyrant policing the Galaxy - Merge, taking away everyone's free will and choice in the matter (that's a decision too big for one individual) - Destroy (the only one that really fulfils the promise that was made in the previous 2 games and their DLC;s), thus sacrificing choices made before and several characters/races we've grown to be fond of, and possibly going against other choices we made - And in the extended version, do nothing, and die. And doom everyone else to Death as well. But a future loop will defeat them due to the clues your friends are able to leave behind. None of those are satisfying... because, for a lot of people, none of them really feel like the choices of the Character we were playing and allowed to craft in the previous installments and first half of the game. It also felt like it left a lot of character threads hanging, unresolved and unsatisfying. And as previously alluded, also felt like a betrayal of the promises made in the previous two installments. Ultimately, it seemed like someone rushed the game to get it out, so gave us a rushed, unsatisfying ending that was not up to the caliber of the previous two installments.
I personally disagree, I think ME3 does a fantastic job building up on previous choices and showing consequences. I really agree with you saying the ending is rushed and I think it's almost common knowledge that ME3 was rushed out by EA, but it's feels like that to me because ME3 before the last choice did a great job of feeling like it's the culmination of everything you did. The biggest example for me is how Mordin can survive in ME3 if only Wreav is the clan leader because in ME1 you killed/didn't recruit Wrex, and then in ME2 you didn't keep Maelon's data, it allows you to convince Mordin to not go ahead, whereas trying to stop him otherwise leads Shepard to shoot him. I also think ME3 did a good job wrapping up most character threads, everything with Wrex and Mordin, Tali and Legion, and Miranda and her father are things that have been developing over the course of the trilogy and now show results depending on your actions. I'd say the only unresolved returning character is Jacob (mainly because I feel sorry for anyone who romanced him, only for ME3 to spit in their faces lol). I think the ending overshadows just how much ME3 can change because of your choices, how you can only get the best outcomes from certain situations if you did this in ME1, then that in ME2, then finally this in ME3. Hell, you can go into ME3 with every squad member in ME2 dead, therefore locking yourself out of getting Garrus and Tali on your team. It's just a shame ME3 dropped the ball at the most pivotal moment, it didn't ruin my journey but I get why it's such a massive stain for others.
Shepard's death would only make sense if he was a tragic character, but Shepard isn't, despite having difficult pasts, but Shepard is a fighter and got through difficulties). That's why I firmly have held the belief that the perfect destroy ending is the canon ending; while also adding in the fact that the Reapers were trying to indoctrinate Shepard while he is in a vulnerable state - being unconscious and/or injured by Harbinger's beam because that whole thing after Shepard wakes up felt like a dream (or a nightmarish hallucination). I'm a fan of some of the indoctrination theory, but not all of it. The whole scene where Shepard's with Anderson and The Illusive Man made me think Shepard was fighting against the Reapers, while Anderson was trying to help him regain control of his mind, while Harbinger was working through TIM. In the end, Shepard realizes he was shot in the stomach, and not Anderson. I think Anderson shot Shepard to get him to "wake up" to end the indoctrination attempt. I never trusted "Star Brat's" two choices - Control and Synthesis - since those two were what TIM and Saren wanted. I think those were other indoctrination attempts, because "Star Brat" REALLY didn't want Shepard to choose destroy, "You'll also destroy the Geth and AI like EDI." Yeaaaah, doubt it, you little lying shite!
Have to disagree, here. Shep always lived in the Perfect Destroy ending. The idea was: this was the "correct" ending. The rest were not. [discussion of that would take another video, and would involve breaking an NDA because Bioware are well known for "breaking story promises"; it's kind of their thing, in DA as well]. But really, it was that the devs didn't want to continue the story with Shepard, and killing them off was the only way to make sure there were not Shep-based sequels. Shep wasn't intended to be "the players character" but a multi-version Bioware character (like Hawke is in DA2), and many of the writers have gone on record (Gaider and Carp in particular) as saying that when it comes to their plans, player and multi-canon is taken into account, but their story matters more, so if there is a clash, they will discount multi-canon (which is one reason why all of the comics always have Bethany dead, and always have King Alistair; that is Biocanon). And, most importantly: their story will happen how they want it, and they will retcon to do it (see DAI and Leliana being alive in DA2/DAI even if she died in DAO. Also Zev, but that started with a bug, and they ran with it. Leliana's was a quite deliberate "eff you" to players that killed her. They also retconned ALL ofhte Cullen epilogue slides into "rumours" to bring back Cullen in DA2, and All of the Awakening slides to make sure Anders would be in DA2, so nothing the players did actually mattered. Oh, and Flemeth isn't really dead, either, ha ha, even if that dragon fight was one of the harder ones in DAO). It's why a Warden who is literally Alistair's Queen will spend all of Awakening taking orders from Amaranthine's captain of the guard. You know, the city whose Arl killed their parents, sister-in-law and nephew and massacred their entire castle. The city who are under the auspices of their own brother. Past the "1" games, none of the storytelling will make sense, and it is, importantly, Not Good Storytelling. Bioware do _not care_ about player choice or "keeping story promises". It's just marketing that serves the story they want to tell. They give the _illusion_ of choice. They write themselves into corners and then use, erhm, "Bioware magic" to write out of them. ME1 writers wrote an excellent story. DAO writers did, too. But after that? Their storytelling cheats (and so, btw, do Gaider's novels). Even in the Shepard lives ending, the implication is that everything that makes Shep "super Shep" (ie, the technology that has just been destroyed) is gone. Their story is stopped. The end. For Bioware's writers in the post DAO/ME1 period, character and player always, always serve the plot. Hence why MEA was so awful. And yes, Bioware will retcon that for the next game if they have to, because of MEA's failure and MELE's success. We may dislike the ending, but it was intentional.
This has ALWAYS been something that bothered me about Shepard's death. They are indomitable, the representation of hope, and hope never dies! And then the writers killed that hope. Ok but I also just saw a comment of someone mentioning the clone and that could be such a neat story line to untangle. Like a redemption ark for the broken and hurt and a transfer of the spark. But still, the clone isn't Shep, but could they become a true Shepard? (Given the eventuality of them also surviving the fall from the Normandy) I would find it entirely believable.
i disagree about the hope. Personally, while experiencing ME3, i almost didn't have a sense of hope at all. For me, the game is pretty dark. Especially the last mission on Earth. Most people you talk to, actively trying to provide, that sense of hope, but in the end they all say goodbye. Especially Garrus and the bar. So, honestly, since I was playing for the first time waaay after the release, hearing the perception of the endings (obv without specific spoilers) i was ready for a straight up defeat and that the crucible was a trap, a diversion, so, organics would spend their last resources in the hopeless unknown project, only to realize that it's worthless crap As for the clones, Shepard in a vacuum has very little traits, most are positive. The rest traits are made with player's choices. And yet, that's still not enough. Without relationships built over the three games, Shepard may as well be just an empty rpg shell filled with player's decisions. So, in my opinion, Shepard shouldn't exist without original crew and vice versa (a clone without experience is not Shepard to clarify). For a new game, it's either both or neither. Tho, personally, I definitely prefer both the crew and Shepard.
I still stand by Paragon Shepard representing hope, at least, that's how I always interpreted it, but that's just they joy of these games, it's player choice and how you think your character would act, and how you see their chosen one status etc. And I totally agree about Sheperd needing their crew and the crew needing Shephard. That's what the life at the end of the destroy ending always falls totally flat for me. It's life, but at extreme cost, which a renegade shep would absolutely go for, but a Paragon shep? I don't think so. But I don't think its write to cram a "righteous death/sacrifice" down players throats either. Like the control ending could have resulted in a body being built for Shephard . Their consciousness is alive (as far as I interpreted it) controlling the Reapers. Could they not build a body for themselves? But that still wouldn't be enough for me either. It wouldn't feel like Shepard unless it was Sheperd. But spirits, I hate that Shepard's life feels like it's stuck behind a paywall of death. I still think the clone story line would be interesting but not if it's the only choice players get. I do feel like players entering the next mass effect for the first time might resonate with it as they also won't have that connection to the crew but they're still tasked with upholding greatness so to speak. It definitely wouldn't be the start most longtime players would want. We generally want Shepard 😅.
To me, clone Shepard isn't really them because they don't have a past. They suddenly just sprang into existence, and only had the real Shepard as a connection to anything in the world, which is why they were so bitter. *spoilers for Horizon Zero Dawn* I really like the way Horizon Zero Dawn covered a clone-type story with Aloy because the whole point was her searching for meaning in her life because she didn't have a mother. If the clone does come back, I'd want their story to be more along those lines to add meaning to their existence.
I feel like the next mass effect should be a epilogue for the og trilogy and a introduction to the news game after it. Give us 1 last game fixing the politics of the milky way ( paragon/renegade) with Shepard and mass effect 6 , 7 , 8 be a new protagonist.
Shepard surving would make the point of the character pointless. Shepard is a shepherd. You save the galaxy from the Reapers, leaving your mark on how the galaxy post reapers should function. The only ending that Shep even has a chance of surviving is destroy, and I doubt Bioware wants to cannonize an ending to ME3.
Sadly way too many people are incapable of letting Shepard go. For them Mass Effect = Shepard and nothing will change their mind. I've played the trilogy about 15 times , it's my favorite game series ever made , and i absolutely DONT want Shepard to come back. It would be such an incredible cop-out to bring back Shepard and would defeat the entire point of the trilogy imo.
@@GoldussstI think it’s more about people wanting an actual good ending/closure for Shepard more than people always wanting to play as Shepard nowadays.
Whatever writer was responsible for the endings must have read some Cyberpunk stories before writing them. Those guys are all like "wrong people, wrong city. everyone must die, can't get a single win".
Here's where I fundamentally disagree. 1) Thane was dying from the disease, but it was the disease that killed him insofar as the disease slowed him down enough to be killed. 2) Shepard's death served the plot in that he or she fought so long & hard to defeat the Reapers that when they WERE defeated, Shepard no longer had a reason to fight. It was a natural ending to his/her arc. Would I have liked to see the proverbial "happy ending," like Shepard raising kids with their love interest? Yes, but I'm satisfied with the end to Shepard's story, although not exactly the implementation of that ending.
See, that should have been another possible option. The survives, retires, happy ending. Not saying it should be the canon ending, or the only ending... as you said, Shepard's death is a satisfying and valid ending to the story too. But the fact is, there should have been a possibility.
@Siliqueath To be honest, I think Shepard's death is really the only ending that makes narrative sense in the grand scheme of things. Shepard was the ONLY being that cared enough about the Reapers to put literally everything on the line for the galaxy all the way thru the 3 games. Even the entire crew checks out of the main story at one time or another. Even Garrus when he became Archangel. Shepard was the only one who would make the sacrifice play at the end. The only real question was how many people could Shepard save.
I'm sorry who's death? We all know Shepard gets perfect Destroy ending and survives if a little worse for wear and that's the only canon ending 😉😉 But seriously I don't understand why after all these years many people treat the Shepard lives ending like some kind of unproven wacky fan theory. I mean you can go into the files and the .bik file with the Shepard taking a breath is literally called Shepard_lives, just how more obvious you want it to be?
Do you trust BioWare not to 180 on that, or for that file to not be a bait? There's nothing of Shepard having recovered in the slighest, by the way. Just them taking a breath, which could be a preamble to dying later in a hospital bed, maybe offscreen.
Couldn't agree more. You put into words how I felt about the trilogy, and I did not know why on a conscious level before (and I've been playing since OG ME 1 release back in 2007). You're right; Shep's death being a player choice would've had a total different meaning. I, too, badly want Shepard to return not because they're the only ones that can carry the torch, but rather because to me it feels like unresolved business and such a great character deserves better ending. Here is to hoping that Bioware brings us the chance of truly deciding how to retire the Shepard character in a way that feels right by the grandiosity of this character. Death can certainly be an option, and I hope they add more to the table of choices. And if the torch gets passed on to another character in the process, even better (compared to, say, a new beginning that is completely detached from the current lore and only shares the background of being "a Mass Effect universe story")!
I think killing Shepard was the right choice even if it hurts. But it brings a good close to the Reaper triology. And afterall Shepard defeated the Reapers, the biggest threat and most dangerous enemy the ME universe ever had. No matter what they do in the next game or who the villain will be but whatever won't come anywhere close the achievement she already accomplished. I will be a new story with new enemys so it's only fitting to have a new main character. Honestly I love the idea though that we play as Shepard and Liara's daughter. I absolutly love Asari and always dreamed of having a customisable Asari character. Given that Liara is the canon romance option for Shepard and they had a union in the end of ME 3 it is not just possible but also likely that Shepard and Liara have a child. Ps. Would absolutly love to see a complete playthrough series from you.
I don't speak English well, but I'll try. I totally agree with what you're saying, thank you for expressing and explaining it so clearly. I feel like many people decided on the red ending simply in the hope that Shepard lives, I even considered the option of making that ending "my canon". However, I felt like it was a "renegade" ending and in all the games I stayed as far away from those kinds of decisions as possible, so in the end, it didn't match the character I had forged. Cheers! Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con lo que decís, gracias por expresarlo y explicarlo de forma tan clara. Siento que muchos decidieron el final rojo simplemente con la esperanza de que Shepard viva, incluso consideré la opción de convertir ese final en "mi canon". Sin embargo, sentí que era un final "renegado" y en todos los juegos me alejé lo máximo posible de ese tipo de decisiones, por lo que al final, no coincidía con el personaje que forjé. Saludos!
If I had played the game 10 years ago, I truly might've bought in to the Destroy ending being the only option so that my Shep could live. Here's to hoping there's an option for Shepard to return regardless of which ending we chose. 🫡
@@paragonsevenAgain, sorry if I'm not writing well. I totally agree with you, I discovered Mass Effect thanks to a friend, in January of this year. Before, perhaps I didn't give so much importance to narrative details like the ones you mention in your analysis, but at 45 years of age I was learning where those points lie that make a story completely satisfactory. Honestly, it's been a long time since I connected so much with a game and the empathy I generated with Shepard and his beautiful crew really touched my heart. Maybe it's because I'm already old 😆. Thanks for answering. Greetings Commander 🫡
Before I get into this, I just want to say that I'm torn on the end of ME3 from both a storytelling and a player satisfaction perspective. This is more just my addition to your analysis and why, 12 years later, I'm on the fence whether I consider it a good or bad conclusion. When I first played it, I absolutely loved ME3...until the end. I just felt so cheated. However, time has allowed me to replay the trilogy (I don't want to consider counting how many times) and think about things from many levels of storytelling and different perspectives. Probably the hardest thing to consider is how these "fixed" plot points have to fit with all the many variations of storytelling. This is, more or less, the conclusion I've come to. I see and agree with both sides of the argument, but there's a character promise that Shepard's death does keep: Shepard will finish the mission, no matter what. It's a character promise that is hardly ever considered since that's generally a given in games, but it's brought to the forefront of the story in the ME2 prologue. After all, the end of ME1 established that Shephard will survive, yes? Did you consider that ME2 was establishing a separate promise along the lines of: everyone must face the Reaper? Sure, ME2 immediately circumvents it, but it did establish the groundwork of what it would take to kill Shepard: self sacrifice. ME3 brought the promise of finishing the mission, no matter what, to the forefront with the Citadel coup attempt and, more so, with the fall of Thessia. In the Citadel coup attempt, the cost (depending on your choices) would include: Thane (potentially your love interest), the Salarian councilor, Kaiden/Ashley (potentially your love interest), and the Human councilor (no love lost there, but this represents a massive loss/setback for humanity as a whole). For Thessia, it's finishing the mission in unmitigated failure. Here's what makes me think that the character plot isn't sacrificed for the story plot: those losses suffered reinforce and drive Shepard to finish the ultimate mission of ending the war, no matter what. Regardless of how I feel about the colour choice at the very end, the final action, which ends the war, is Shepard choosing to risk themself, as they always had, to finish the mission and, hopefully, to save others. Was Shepard's death a good one? Yes. Am I satisfied with it? No. Was it needed? Maybe.
I disagree with the sentiment that Shephard's death defeats the point of the trilogy. Yes, in the first two games he makes it out against all odds but this was when he was fighting a signifigantly smaller threat. Mass Effect 3 is bleak, and that's why I love it. No other game story gives such an feeling of utter helplessness in its introduction and yet is able to still make you feel hope for survival. But it does not stray away from that idea that the reaper's are snuffing out all hope and our Shepard is not immune to their presence. Shepard's death actually does feel like the natural conclusion to me, even with me1 and me2. Months of fighting and war have battered and bruised Shepard and he is on the brink of death by the time you have reached the catalyst. He is the one chosen to fight the reapers and has given everything to get this moment, the only thing he has left to give is himself and he will do that if it's what it takes. Yes it may seem anticlimactic but its also a very natural conclusion and thats why i agree that it was the best course of action to approach the ending with
Shepard’s death WAS the point of the trilogy. He was unkillable, except his first death. When he came back as closer to a hybrid, he was beyond anyone else. But Shepard gave his life for something greater. “I won’t let fear compromise who I am” -Shepard. We are going to commit genocide and sacrifice friends and allies so Shepard has a chance to live? Shepard. The one who could survive everything, even death. His death directly results in the greatest change. He also could have lived through anything. This time he didn’t. That was the most fitting conclusion to the ending for Shepard. Shepard has a clear arc, with the ptsd growing. Every one of them isn’t that different, you have a very limited scope on how different you can make Shepard. Shepard is less of an avatar than a dragon age OC. Shepard not directly seeing the results of his final choice, because he made it while trusting the allies and built to carry on in the right way, was the only way to end his story. He didnt need to do it all alone. He built up the galaxy so they could carry on after him.
Another question. What are the Keepers hiding, they self-detonate when scanned by other means. What secrets are they hiding that Reapers didn't want anyone finding out. Could the keepers have given the Council races an early warning of the Reapers?
Probably not because the Council races refused to acknowledge the existence of Reapers when Shepard brought it up. The keepers are definitely still shrouded in mystery.
I think I partially agree with you, in two ways: 1) what was the point of saving the Geth if the only Shepard-survivable ending destroys them and 2) that there isn't a set of player choices that can result in Shepard's survival in a meaningful sense (i.e. more than taking one quick breath). However, the ending did make sense to me in this way: besides Shepard's Chosen One status, a non-Renegade Shep has a superior sense of dedication to humanity and to the mission. When the Crucible hasn't activated and Hackett calls Shepard on the comm, Shepard's immediate, instinctive response is, "What do you need me to do?" Even near death and in crippling pain, having given nearly all to do what no one else could do, Shep is still ready to do more as long as they're alive. Sure, they've always come back from seemingly impossible missions before, but it makes perfect sense that, in as existential a crisis as the Reaper War, it would finally catch up with them. I think a main problem with the ending is that the mechanism of the Starchild makes it seem like the choices presented to Shepard are kind of arbitrary and could just as easily not require their death. So if the solution to the Reapers seemed to be more "organic" (no pun intended), then Shep's death makes more sense. It seems necessary, like Mordin's.
I disagree a whole lot. You built the whole argument on this "Promise" of Shepard being invincible. Shepard surviving the end of ME1 doesn't promise anything. Saying that just because they survived one (or 3+) close calls still doesn't make it any sort of promise. I could just as easily say "They died in ME2, so that's a promise of Shepard dying in the future again." Also, had the writers actually promised us Shep's invincibility, the story would immediately lose a good amount of weight, because hey, i'm not going to die, so who cares what happens. Shepard's death is simply what the trilogy has been preparing us for this whole time - one last difficult decision. We sacrifice ourselves for one of the possibly better futures for the galaxy, or decide to hang on to the hope of survival, even if it means sacrificing every single synthetic instead, despite discovering that synthetic life is also life through the games. Making difficult decisions is absolutely a promise Bioware gave us in the beginning, unlike Shepard's survival. They've had so much plot armor over the trilogy, that it was about time for the luck to run out. I was a wreck for days after finishing ME3 for the first time, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Shepard's death (or lack of it) is on of the most (if not the most) impactful moments in Mass Effect, and a free "happily ever after" would just cheapen what we've been fighting for this whole time. You also say Shepard died for a choice that didn't feel significant to them - but, as you mentioned, we're Shepard. Just because you didn't care about that part, doesn't mean none of us did. I'm also quite sure that for example Joker cared about how the reapers are defeated. Saying nobody cared how the reapers go is simply a false assumption. As for Thane's death - he, an assassin, died protecting someone he didn't even know. Just like his wife was ready to when he first saw her. That's a beautifully written parallel and calling it shock value death unrelated to his ark is a disservice. All that being said, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on Mass Effect as always, and hope you have a wonderful day!
Best comment on this video! Agree with all your points and love the points you made about thane 🥺 never saw it that way before, but now gives me something to think about whenever I replay the third game
thank you. you finally put words on thoughts I had for several years now, without being able to formalise them into ideas and phrases. I also loved your trailer breakdown, it gives me hope on what ME4 would or could be.
It was very cathartic putting it into words. I actually struggled with recording it without emotion creeping into my voice during the last parts of the video. 😅 Shepard means so much to me, and even if they don't return, I feel like I finally understand why ME3's endings left me feeling empty.
I wanted Shepherd to settle down with his or her love interest that would have been a fitting end that's part of the reason why I want Shepherd to return if they're going to end Shepherd's story I want a happy ending
I really liked your idea of *a* Shepard returning from a parallel/alternate world, but I’m less keen on my own Shepard returning hundreds of years in the future when all their loved ones are dead. (We didn’t all romance Liara!) And I don’t think it’s too likely they’d bring back all the old squadmates as well… but i agree they should never have died in the first place, although I did choose destroy so mine didn’t, at least 😅
I don't think Shepard returning centuries later would make sense either. To me, it's Shepard and the Normandy squad together (somewhat) or move on to a new cast of characters. And since Gamble is in charge of the next title, and he's very aware of fan sentiment, I assume that if Shepard comes back, other previous squadmates will be back too.
@@paragonseven I am optimistic that this next game could finally give us closure to ME3’s ending but there’s always that part of me that wants to see closure to all the romances. How would Garrus or Tali react to seeing Shepard alive again?
@@BeyondNormal. Right? I mean, Control means you have a Tyrant Robo-police state. And synthesis means all conflict is ended and everyone is merged. You're right, neither allow a continuation of the story or a setting where any truely interesting storytelling could happen (Well, I mean, you COULD be in an uprising against the Tyrant Control Reapers... Though that would sting and feel Dark, as that means you would be AGIANST Shepard) Destroy... allows a continuation. I mean, wiping out all AI life in the Galaxy is harsh... but, it can always be rebuilt and reactivated. And in the perfect ending, its also shown that, even this may not be as true as the Crucible tried to make out. It tried to point out Shepard was part Synthetic and would likely die in that choice. And Perfect shows a breath, showing that, maybe it wasn't right or as truthful as it claimed/thought. That leaves a lot more room for story telling.
I was really upset originally with the ending but I’ve come to be ok with her death in the destroy ending. It could have been a slightly more dramatic death in my opinion, but better to go out in a blaze of glory rather than old and in bed. If the perfect destroy ending is cannon I hope she’s retired an admiral or the human counselor in the next game. Shepard was a great player character. I’m afraid BioWare would ruin the character in a modern game. Developers just can’t seem to make great games anymore.
Correction: The Extended Cut did NOT introduce the Shepard Lives Perfect Destroy ending. The Perfect Destroy ending was already included in the base game without Extended Cut - you just couldn't get it naturally in a Singleplayer playthrough though due to ridiculously high EMS requirements, but you could experience it if you played enough multiplayer to increase the multipliers of the Theaters (increasing the Galactic Readiness multiplier from 50% upwards). In the original game, you needed 4000 Effective Military Strength to get Perfect Destroy ending - at a 50% Galactic Readiness multiplier, that was 8000 Total Military Strength, which was not obtainable in the release of the game because there was simply not enough War Assets or any DLCs. The only way was playing Multiplayer; promoting agents (100 War Assets each) and mainly, increasing Galactic Readiness and then re-play a New Game+. This is just to clarify that the Perfect Destroy ending was always there with the base game; in other words, it wasn't a ham-fisted attempt to cull the criticism due to the poor ending, but the intention of Shepard living one ending was always there from the get go. All the Extended Cut did was lower the requirements for a Perfect Destroy ending (3100), which made it possible to obtain in a EMS-optimized playthrough without requiring Multiplayer.
This is one of the many reasons why I pretend that the ending for my FemShep is that they chose destroy but the signal ONLY targets the Reapers (to this day it makes no sense that my Shep wouldn't think of this solution or force/convince the star child to make the arrangements😑). Shep barely escape with their life. Recovers, retire from service then the Citidel DLC is the final hurrah with the squad!🎉
Lets not forget the promise in ME1 that was Sha'iras gift of words "...You will continue to survive". Whatever happens I will be pissed if they solve Sheps death by simply fetching a copy from another Universe, that'd cheapen her life and be even worse than her actually dying. If however, the energy of the crusible somehow flung the actual Shep into another dimension, and theres a rescue mission to get her back, that'd be something I could accept. But to replace the original with a copy..? No. Just no. 🙈
I would also say that they knew that the ends were not justified with Sheps death. The Mass Effect 3 we have today was very different from when it first came out without the DLC to cover for how rushed things ended up. We used to write essay length pieces on how Sheps death didn’t feel right not simply because we didn’t like it but because her death wasn’t earned. She already died. Came back and did her thing. So to then make it so that at the end of her arc we as the player are unable to actually choose her outcome- the one we earned by working through me 1 and 2 with our choices.. we felt cheated. Genuinely cheated and robbed of choice. Nice to see someone talk about this ❤️🤎👏🏾
I think that Bioware had Shepard fatigue at the time and didn't expect fans to be outraged by Shep's death. A good example of this is when Core Design tried to kill off Lara Croft in Tomb Raider Last Revelation because they were just so sick of cranking out games... and the IP continued on despite that because the fans wanted answers. I think development crunch and EA are to blame for 3's rushed conclusion. When you have such an iconic character you can't just be like "They dead now, move on!" and I agree that The death served the plot and not the character arc. That's what outraged fans and what made them demand closure even more than if Sheperd would have survived. It feels like they were just cementing the fact that there won't be any more Shepard games rather than giving a proper send off. A major unintended error on Biowares part...
To me the endings sound a bit like taken out of a magic hat, so to speak. The explosion of energy which... merges synthetics and biologics, making them understand each others perfectly well (so what? DNA and technology merge through a wave of energy?)... or a part of you, that is you enough to control the reapers, but is not you because you're dead, so your mind doesn't exist anymore while partly existing in a way, or is it some sort of copy done in an instant... even "destroy", that I usually choose because of that, sounds weird (what is destroyed? components? chips or means to store informations, that would explain the destruction of IAs, but how can you repair enough to make your starships or else work again like when they had all their control systems in order? "Bah, let's just finish the job..."). Maybe the Valars could do that, but a wave of energy from a technological device... That's what boggles me even before survival of Shepard or not. I played the mod for Skyrim called Enderal, and it shows me how a certain verisimilitude can make the difference for me. When we are to rationalize after the facts ("yes, but the tragic hero", all that), something is not so clear in the story, I think. Whatever, tastes and colors... despite the end, the trip was great anyway, right?
Alright, I commented on another video of yours a couple days ago but I wanted to edit a few bits of my theory. The theory is basically canonizing your Shep having a kid with their chosen love interest. This way not only solves “The Shepherd problem” of Shep “dying” at the end of the trilogy but it could also serve as a way to bring them back, in a couple different ways. Shep survives, great. Shep dies but had a kid, allows you to create your wholly unique Shepherd AND play as an Alien Race for the first time, awesome. Shep survives AND has a kid, best of both worlds. Regardless of what fashion Shep returns in, can they get a damn promotion yet?! I get the “iconic-ness” of “Commander Shepherd” but homie has saved the Milky Way Galaxy on THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS; what in the ACTUAL F**K did Anderson and Hackett do to get promoted to Admiral?! 😂
At the end of the day, even with mods that help patch up issues even just slightly, will never fix what the team at Bioware clearly really wanted to do. Even with the original writer not on board anymore. Thus resulted in a game that is built with love and care, but ultimately rushed as you can see in ME3 as it goes on and on. I accepted the way the story ended even with the Extended Cut, because where they couldn't give us a ending like Witcher 3 where it shows us an ending depending on specific major choices across the trilogy and thus majorly in 3, they give us 3 options that affect the galaxy alongside the major decisions that were already fleshed out & completed in ME3. Even with the response of the ending, with the crew having to come back in to help flesh out the endings better, shows that this was rushed to feel so important that only Shepard should do. Personally, I don't want Shepard to come back. Their story was here and done. But if written possible and even the endings can be written in from lines to straight up side quests revolving around how our endings affected the galaxy & characters, maybe it can work. Like let's say Synthesis, it added new problems for everyone to face & try to overcome, as how life does. And the green glowing thing can be waved off as a side effect that fades away overtime due to biology. Which can work. A quest revolving around our VI in the Reapers post Control and what truly happened to EDI post Destroy Ending. There's a lot of interesting potential here and then some. Especially with Leviathan maybe coming back, and maybe tackle the Dark Matter story that was originally going to play a major role in ME3. After what the creative director said about Veilguard and the reception surrounding that, maybe there's hope. And we can get the ending Shepard truly deserved. But as of right now, I'll accept the one that I feel like the team felt they had to make, due to the unreasonable development time that was forced upon them. When they could've been given more time and gave us the Return of the King of video games. In a way, ME3 still is, but the more I looked at how unfinished Mass Effect 3 is, despite all that was accomplished, it really could've been something more.
Shepard's death is unnecessary because he came to the Catalyst due to an ACCIDENT. He was miraculously lucky not to get hit by the Reaper's fire as they ran en masse towards the portal. This is all. Any person could have performed the actions that were done at the Catalyst.
Great video again, though the Shepard Lives scene is present in the original release of the game - I have noticed it is a common misconception that it was added by the Extended Cut to satisfy fans. Frankly, it might have helped tone down the backlash somewhat if that was the standard Destroy ending because most of us, including myself, didn't meet the very high EMS requirements of the original release to unlock it on first playthrough, which also required investing into the multiplayer mode. The way I rationalise the ending these days is if the Commander has done their job well (High EMS) and the loyal Commander completes the mission to end the Reapers (Destroy), then surviving is the reward. It doesn't really need the rise out of the rubble scene again and a Star Wars fanfare, the hint of such itself is enough in closing a trilogy in which the Commander has overseen so many allies complete their character arcs. It has been a very slow acceptance process for me I will say. The harder process for me is that you have these great characters that are chucked straight into the deep end, the extinction level event is always looming above. This is the benefit that a Star Trek series gets, lots of smaller scale character driven stories. The Citadel DLC, post-mortem, has helped to counterbalance this - the Barbenheimer effect if you will.
Appreciate the Shep Lives tidbit, I assumed it was part of the extended cuts. Makes it even stranger that they locked Shepard's death behind putting EDI's name on the memorial wall. 😔 If I had played the originals, I'm pretty sure I'd be in the camp of slowly processing Shepard's death and coming to an acceptance that it was necessary. It's been a cool experience to see fans from a decade ago having processed Shepard's death differently than my own recent experience.
Oh yes, one of the biggest gripes I have with the ending, is that you can unite the Geth and Quarians, provided all the right choices, in the same game, but you can't convince The Catalyst/Reapers its logic is disproven by that, assuming they are not as malicious as the demeanour of Sovereign and ME2 Harbinger had prior portrayed them as.
I completly disagree.. And coming from someone who has played the trilogy about 15 times , i'm gonna VERY disappointed if they bring back Shepard. Shep's arc is done , that's it.
Been watching some of your stuff and it gave me a few thoughts. One being the new threat. I know nothing about it, but what if it's the people that made the Angara, the Jardan(hope I spelled it right). What if when the initiative scouted potential areas in Andromeda they detected those. That might have gotten them curious to look at the Milky Way. Then after the crucible overloaded, they came to investigate. There first stop would likely be the Geth telescope that was looking at them to begin with. Then about who they are, Javick did mention a group of biological beings joining with there synthetic creations. Javick said they were quickly concord, but what if they were able to escape because they were biological/synthetic? Also as Javick said, all species that they concord were called Prothian, so the tech should be similar. That might also explain why some Angara are present in the Milky Way.
I’m conflicted about Shepards death in ME3 while I do like protagonists dying Shepards just felt unearned but at the same time Shepard is one of 3 characters in sci fi media on my list who’s sacrifice would feel less impactful if they were brought back from the dead with the others being Ironman and Darth Vader
Have you ever watched the Mass Effect Stuff of the Lorerunner - his whole career as a streamer started thanks to it. Especially his ruminations are worth watching.
Thank you for this video. I've never managed to put into words why the endings never sit much right with me, you're on point. The first time I experienced the ending, I chose synthesis and went a whole week in that contemplation period, first utterly disappointed, but later the ending grew on me, because my Shepard would sacrifice himself for the galaxy. However you captured perfectly what I felt in my heart and didn't know how to express
I did the exact same thing a week after I chose the Synthesis ending, but the ending never grew on me. Ngl, making this video was a cathartic way to understand why the endings made me feel so empty after finishing ME3.
Mordin was integral to the creation of the modification of the Genophage not the creation of it. In that way he is the father of the modernized Genophage as seen in the game.
Personally I dont mind if Shep died. I hated the ending just as much as the rest, but I still feel a shep who sacrifices herself to save humanity and the galaxy is the kinda of shep she was for me. Putting everyone before herself. And would gladly give her life if that meant saving others. And yes, Commander Shepard is a female, end of discussion. Edit: Shep should have died in ME1 during the collapse or atleast be badly badly injured, not come running out with the major plot armor she had. Yes she is a hero, but heroes also dies.
That's when the happy ending mod/citadel epilogue mod become your besties 😎 Though it is great that with BG3's epilogue you get to know what everyone has been up to since you last saw them, and it would've been interesting to see the state of everyone/everything after the end of the reaper threat
I just want to say that if they bring Shepard back in ME4/5 using multiverse travel, that Shepard is not my Shepard. That is a different Shepard. They may be able to survive the next game, but they cannot live the life of My Shepard. It is not like we just need A Shepard, we need the Shepard!
I don’t think that surviving is the way to be a “true hero“. I sympathize, because I would have liked to see Shepard survive; and I am speaking as someone who chooses perfect destroy every time. I really wouldn’t mind seeing Shepard in the next game. That said, I actually think Shepard’s death thematically serves the character very well. The rest of what I have to say is only under the presumption that Shepard is dead, so bear with me, here. In games like Fallout, your character is really just your avatar that you use to engage with the world. The character is a blank slate who has whatever personality you have. This isn’t a preestablished character. The character is you. Mass Effect is different. In Mass Effect, the character is not you. You are taking on the role of Commander Shepard. This is a fully fleshed out person with personality, and full voice acting, and interesting quirks and hobbies (Shepard loves collecting models, and loves fish, even if the player does not!) Now, as you pointed out, at the end of games 1 and 2, Shepard is placed in a position where death is a real possibility. The Sarren fight and the suicide mission both. But I think you’re putting emphasis on the wrong thing. Is it called the “suicide mission” because the writers wanted you to take away that Shepard defies death even on suicide missions? I propose to you that the writers called it “the suicide mission” because they wanted you to take away that Shepard is willing to die for the cause. That’s Shepard’s personality through and through. Shepard’s _survival_ in one and two is the thing that served the plot, because without survival, the trilogy wouldn’t continue. Still, willingness to die. That’s Shepard. That’s what the writers were conveying. In ME 3, though, Shepard’s survival is no longer a necessary thing, because the trilogy was at an end. Shepard can finally lean into that character trait of “willingness to die for the cause”, and actually go through with sacrificing themselves to stop the reapers. It is a character moment, and an integral one. If the player was given that choice to have Shepard survive, it would have undercut Shepard’s personality. Supplanted it. Think about it like this… Shepard’s death was always foreshadowed in each game, but it couldn’t happen yet because it wasn’t time. I know this was kind of a long read for a comment, but I hope it gave you an interesting perspective.
The point of the trilogy is making the hard decisions and sacrificing whatever is necessary to stop the Reapers. That's what Shepard did. Plus Shepard being tired isn't Shepard being sleepy or needing a quick mental rest. In each backstory option they either put their men through a meat grinder, had their entire squad killed with only them left alive (and apparently one other person), or did God know what in a gang in earth having no parents. Then they're an accomplished commander in the baby, meaning they've seen who knows what. Then they've had several close friends die only in the few years they knew about the Reapers. And, of yeah, THEY DIED ONCE TOO. Shepard is said to be the ultimate symbol of hope, but the series makes it clear especially toward the end of 3 that they're just a soldier. Shepard is human and can only take so much.
Yo this video makes me feel that Shepard might have been depressed… especially with the line implying he was willingly taking on suicidal missions and impossible odds from the offset
Ironically, Mass Effect 3 proves that it didn't "have" to be Mordin. If you import a save where Mordin died in the Suicide Mission, then his role in ME3 is taken over by Padok Wiks, one of the salarian scientists at the STG base. And Wiks creates the cure and sacrifices himself to ensure it is dispersed. It's worth playing a version of the game without Mordin just to see Wiks' scenes. He's quite an interesting character in his own right with unique dialogue. Just like Bioware to create an an entire, new alternate character just on the off-chance that a player chose this particular path...
I'm pretty sure that the purpose Shepherd's death, is to end the series. I don't believe Bioware had any intention of making continuing the series after the 3rd game.
If the trailer did show Alchera, then wouldn't that mean we're playing a game set between 2 and 3 where you're an N7 and seeing the creation of the andromeda initiative?
Lol. I clicked because I thought "yes, finally someone gets that killing Shep at the beginning of 2 ruined the franchise!" Oh well, guess I'll just go back to yelling at clouds now...
I find that, for me, that death was so unnecessary and unbelievable that they ruined any sort of possibility of a resurrection. It would just seem like very lazy writing...
@@illizcit1 100%! All to force you to work for Cerberus, with no way to rebel or do something different. Instead, they could have had you proactively hunting down leads instead of undoing everything from the first game and basically ruining Liara's character in the process. I pretty much pretend like the 1st one is the only one (much like I do Dragon Age)....
@@jasonGamesMaster exactly. Idc I am not convinced Shepard as we play them (Renegade OR paragon) would have EVER worked with Cerberus. They were just continuously wedged into the story with no real reason for them or TIM to be there. For me, Cerberus ruined not just Shepards' story but their inclusion and focus in 2+ 3 took away the grandeur of an extinction rebellion that the arrival of the Reapers meant and reduced a galactic war into something akin to ....Iraq/Afghanistan War. That was the true trilogy killer. And to start me2 with Shepard being blown up in space, being exposed to the vacuum of space, suffocating, freezing in absolute zero, fall from the atmosphere of a planet to planet surface and the surface is a cold, hard ice surface.... too much hand wavey space magic. Me2 is fun to play, but it truly is the weakest of the trilogy, imo.
@@illizcit1 lol. Definitely. My friends and I were so upset about it we ended up doing a tabletop version of events extrapolating from the ending of 1. Garrus became a spectre and got his own ship, the turian built sister ship to the Normandy, and they and Shepherd were tasked with following up on the leads they had on the Reapers. Shepherd, Kaiden, and Ashley did background missions (mostly riffs on existing missions from the games) while my players were under Garrus and did new missions. Tali went back to her people, and Wrex to his (we did follow their storylines, just a little earlier). Liara (and eventually Mordin) were the home base team doing all the science, etc. It was a blast. Had Kai Lang, Jacob, and Miranda showing up as recurring villains, met up and worked with Thane a few times, and rescued Grunt. Best of all, when the Reapers arrived, the galaxy was ready and we fought a real war and pushed them back and defeated them (their biggest advantage was surprise and crippling the citadel, after all).
I was upset Shepard died but I was also happy at the same time. It felt very real. People can't always succeed and defy all odds time and time again. That creates characters that can never truely die, it mitigates the severity of the threat.
Hi Paragon7. I wanted to run a question by you. Do you think the Prothean scientists survived on the Citadel? If they were going into cryosleep to survive the Harvesting, then wouldn't they have supplies stored that could help them grow food, supplies of water. This would have to be an amount that could sustain hundreds of thousands of their people. Vigil said he believed the scientists starved to death but he doesn't know that for a fact. You've done a lot of research on this any hints or tid bits that could back up the scientists surviving on the Citadel?
To my current knowledge, there isn't any indication of the Prothean scientists surviving, so I personally think Vigil was right. I've seen theories that the Prothean scientists escaped to the Andromeda galaxy, but it's mainly 'no evidence, just vibes' theories at this point. :)
The fact that the destroy ending involves the elimination of synthetic life does not make any logical sense. It's purely a writer's contrivance to add a negative aspect to a choice that would otherwise be the perfect ending to game and therefore give players no reason to pick the other options. That is to say, if all destroy did was end the Reapers, then why pick control or synthesis at all? The writers wanted to add a downside to it to give players an incentive to check out those other endings, so they decided, "Well, we'll say it kills EDI and the Geth too. That ought to do it." The problem is, this completely falls apart the minute you start analyzing it. It is established a few different times that the Crucible is just a massive dark matter energy generator. The ghostboy avatar calls it "crude, but effective". Connecting it to the Citadel as a relay allows the energy it generates to spread across the entire galaxy. It is this wave of energy that kills the Reapers. In the original ending to the game, a lot players assumed the Crucible functioned as a massive electro-magnetic pulse device that destroyed all high technology. That did at least explain how it also killed EDI and the Geth in addition to the Reapers. It also jibed with the cinematic that showed Joker attempting to get the Normandy to outrun the blast wave only to crash-land on a planet. The wave's energy shorted out the Normandy too. BUT the extended cut ending clearly contradicts this. We are shown the surviving ships of the anti-Reaper coalition, including the Destiny Ascension, flying away after the battle. The ending is narrated by Admiral Hackett, who was aboard that ship that ferried the Crucible. If the Crucible did act as EMP pulse weapon that acted indiscriminately, how did any of those ships survive the blast? Their engines, computers and life support should have been destroyed and Hackett should have been among those who died. Similarly, the ending cutscenes make no reference to any other high technology being ruined by the weapon. In fact, we're shown the major cities in Citadel space as gleaming metropolis with the lights on and everything. Is it that the Crucible only impacts synthetic life and leaves non-sentient technology unaffected? That doesn't make any sense either. How precisely does the Crucible distinguish between a synthetic device has achieved sentience and one that hasn't? There's plenty of cases in Mass Effect where devices that were never meant to be alive nevertheless achieve sentience, so the difference between technology that is sentient and what isn't shouldn't be something that a simple wave of energy should be able to detect, let alone be discriminating in what it affects. In short how does the Crucible distinguish between a highly sophisticated ship's computer that's still just a computer and one that is the same but also "alive"? How is that possible? Is it magic? The only way the Crucible's dark matter energy wave killing the Reapers but not destroying other high technology makes sense is if the Reapers also use dark matter energy and that's why it affects them. I.e., it overwhelms them and shorts them out. But then the Crucible shouldn't affect devices that don't use that energy. That includes the Geth, who were built by the Quarians and who, we're told, remove any Reaper code and other related technology after the Rannoch mission. EDI was built using Reaper code and technology, so it is at least hypothetically possible that it could affect her, though we're never told that she uses dark matter energy. Another problem complicating this is that we're told by EDI that she is helping with the Crucible project and Tali says (if they survive) that the Geth are helping as well. How is it possible then that neither bothered to ask how the firing up the Crucible might affect them? If they knew the Crucible was a massive energy generator and if they had even an inkling that the energy it generated would be damaging to them, why wouldn't have they raised concerns and/or taken precautions? One final note: We're not even given any indication that the Crucible actually did killed the Geth. There's no cinematic showing the energy wave killing them like it does the Reapers. There's no images in the ending slides of dead Geth or inert Geth ships either. Hackett makes no reference to them at all in his voice-over remarks. People infer that the Geth died because they don't appear in the ending slides of a Destroy ending but we are not ever specifically shown or told this. The only evidence we have that the Crucible kills the Geth is the claim, made prior to it being activated, by the ghostboy avatar. This being is, let's not forget, the collective voice of the Reapers, a race of machines that uses their indoctrination powers to distort how organics perceive reality. So their claims are suspect, to say the least. Having said all of that, it's possible that the Bioware writers who gave the ghostboy this dialogue did mean it to be taken seriously as canon. But, if that is the case, they did not think it through properly and left several major plotholes in the game.
Mass Effect 3 was always a let down for me, especially coming after how much of an impact ME2 had on me. I felt it was very rushed. It's no surprise the studio as a whole went completely downhill after.
For me, the DLC Citadel was the most insulting part. If youre going to write a dark dark dark story and the only way to win is to die well, then a carnival dlc shoved in to pick up the players who are about to quit before the end of the game is just harmful to the first two games
And any promise and build up to the Reapers as a greater threat than anything Shepard has faced before. should be ignored then. Nor everyone aggress with her interpretation of what a hero is. Hs death also solves the problem id where you can even take the character from here. These aren't rules set in stone. Part of a goof story is knowing when to follow the riles and when to break them.
I think far too many people are obsessed with Shepard and refuse to let go. It was planned as a trilogy. I love the original trilogy, and Mass Effect is my favorite gaming franchise ever. Yes, the ending of ME3 has its flaws. It was rushed and changed over the development process. However, just because Shepard was a survivor in the first two games didn't mean that they would have to survive the third. Heroes often die in their stories. Especially when sacrificing themselves for the benefit and greater good of everyone else. I had always felt that the fate of Shepard and the Reapers were intertwined from pretty much the beginning. I wasn't shocked or mad that Shepard made the ultimate sacrifice in order to save the galaxy. In many ways, I felt like Shepard was always moving in that direction. A hero does what is necessary and will always put the life of others above their own. If BioWare is planning on bringing Shepard back in some capacity, it better make sense and be integral to the story that they are trying to tell. If it is just being done for fan service or brownie points so they can say "Hey look guys Shepard is back!" Then I feel that would be a mistake. The Mass Effect universe is amazing and full of so many storytelling opportunities. Shepard does not have to be included in order for it to be a Mass Effect game. I just want BioWare to take their time and craft an incredible story with compelling characters to get to know and interesting places to explore. They need to lean in the direction of a Baldur's Gate 3 and just make a great game. Don't be like the rest of the gaming industry and give us DEI created, politically driven, virtue signaling nonsense. Fingers crossed BioWare, don't screw this up.
Compared to ME chosen one, the way that Starfield screwed up the setup is just comical. You can make an everyday joe who just happens to be digging and gets flashed with their version of the beacon. Its just much worse for immersion reasons from the get go. I was never a fan of bethesda games anyway, but always ME fan.
My first ending on 3 was synthesis i will admit i was pretty durn upset because well i wanted her to live thats ending was i guess terrible to me. She was only in her 30's that is to young to me just saying. I'm pretty scared to do a second playthrough because im afraid i might choice another ending blindly of her dieing or the same ending.
u can survive. and also the problem if main guy dies in war as a leader and sacrifce. kinda the point that war without sacrice is a lame story .so dont get it. none of the endings were happily ever After.
Thank you. The explanation you've walked through here makes a lot of sense to me, and I only hope that you're right that Shepard will return, and therefore that "Shepard as Survivor" will be satisfied.
Tbh I like the takes but to me Shepard death needs to happen even if you do everything right in the last 2 games Shepard stated that we are not ready I know a lot of people were mad at the endings and made the extended cut to make them feel better but let’s be honest Shepard had to survive the last 2 games because his promise is not to survive it’s to defeat the reapers no matter the cost illusive man said we can’t lose Shepard because they know about the reapers. Now they defeated the reaper their not needed the other point is to rebuild together in all endings even if they have bad endings but the moral of MASS EFFECT is to work together now you don’t have to choose that but that is how it is in all games us as Humans and aliens is to destroy the threat now Shepard as a character can be a nice person or a ruthless person your choice throughout the games you don’t have to stick with them but you need to be working together even if you do sabotage even if they death felt force it needed to happen so they could change the shape of the galaxy tbh instead of a brand new mass effect with shep we should have gotten a prequel first as to how he/her became an N7 and what they did like you start at the very beginning the mindor flash back or the akuze mission torfan it would make more sense to do that first and would be a hit sense they remastered the games you can now transfer data
It was ok they did it because of game dev stuff not because the story had to go that way but it also did not go against existing story or cannon it simply did not have to happen. They did it for exactly the reason you made this video they knew people would not want to let go of shep and let them move on to other stories or even further stories in sheps universe even, they just did not understand that people would simply be weird and refuse to move on. Review bombing and screaming for years. It is all very dramatic and exhausting. I do not want shep back. To get them back we have to re write the whole last game and all the story just so we can get what we want. I want fun and excitement and adventure and wonder not the same old character brought back from the dead over and over again like a 80s horror villain. Or a invincible undying protagonist that I never have to worry about as they will always win and never die that takes away all the stakes.
Ok, ok, hear me out.... what if Shepard isn't the one taking a breath in the perfect destroy ending? If Shepherd is on the Persidum, then why are they surrounded by brick and mortar and not steal and glass? Could the person at the end be the clone. 😅
Wild thought that I hadn't considered....but probably not. The Citadel DLC where the clone was revealed was released a little bit after the original Mass Effect 3 release. And since Shep took that breath during the rushed extended cuts which was also before the clone reveal, I assume it's not the clone. IMO, the strange discrepancies of "where the heck is Shepard" in that shot is simply because of a rushed effort to please fans that Shepard could've lived, so the writers or animators didn't know how to portray the shot.
It was speculation like this that led to the clone as the protagonist in the Citadel DLC, just so you know. :D I love it! But that was Bioware making fun of the theory. That's not to say they won't retcon it for ME5 though. If it serves their "vision", they will.
@Bethgael I don't know how a game is made. I assume the story is cut for time, and what is cut is used as DLC, to bring more lore. 🤔 but life be lifen.
They didn't really get the issue in it. It's always impactful to see a Hero die, but tbh having her get found in the wreckage and see that she goes onto help with rebuilding and end up happily enjoying the rest of her life with even a slide reel montage of some happy moments with their romantic partner and/or teammates would have actually been a far more effective way to end the story of Commander Shepard. The way they ended it is why I need more..after so much effort and so much work...with nobody but the team believing in Shepard..to have that end in death is just unfair. I've legit never gotten over that really. I still replay the trilogy to death once a year sometimes twice a year, but I need some closure lolol.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the reason why the endings where Shepard dies feel unsatisfying is because they ultimately feel anticlimactic, arbitrary and forced. It feels less like a grand sacrifice made selflessly in order to save the galaxy and more like Shepard being railroaded into jumping into the green light or grabbing the electric blue thing to disintegrate themselves to power the space magic just because the Starchild said so. It removes agency from the player. It especially bites players who went through the whole trilogy and wanted to earn their happy ending through choices, quests and exploration. ME2 rewards players with the perfect ending if they made the right choices, dedicated time and effort to know and help their crew and did enough sidequests. ME3 says "best I can give you is a couple seconds cutscene of Shepard lying in the rubble and maybe alive, but only you chose the Destruction ending. Hope you didn't like EDI and the Geth too much".
ME2's final mission including a 'perfect ending' is a great point. Another promise that set up expectations into 3, but unfortunately, completing more of ME3's content didn't result in a 'happy' ending, but rather more choices for how to save the galaxy.
I felt like ME3 took away a lot of agency right from the get go. Like I'm the beginning when you're waiting for the Normandy. A lot of people who used only powers at the end were confused as to why they felt they were just fighting cannibals forever. It's like the game developers said "no I want you to use all your ammo so that the Normandy will show up at just the right time and nothing you do will change that". That works well and fine for just a cinematic linear game but completely goes against the whole RPG/ your choices matter game
I find it interesting that mordin. Who said it himself. He only had maybe a couple years left of life left. And to me the biggest punch is when you get him to talk about sea shells.
I wouldn't mind Shepard's death if it served a purpose, but in ME3 it felt like the devs wanted to kill him, just to make sure the trilogy remains a trilogy.
Bioware only wanted Shepard to be a trilogy
@@tammykolu1242 Why do people keep saying this when everyone knows in the perfect destroy ending Shepard likely survived, I would have agreed with you 100% if that scenario, the perfect ending had never existed, but it does.
@djbare9 Why do people say Shepard 'survived'? I saw a dying breath
Not sure if it was in the OG triology or only in legendary edition but it makes no sense that they included the destroy ending where Shepard survived than
@@illizcit1 That would be the chest falling not rising with an intake of breath.
I'm pretty sure the original version of the game had the "Perfect Destroy" ending where Shep survives
When I looked up the original endings I couldn't find the extra Shep breath scene anywhere except the extended cuts, but I don't own the original game so I can't confirm.
@paragonseven trust me, this existed prior to the extended ending patch. My Shepard took a breathe on March 10, 2012, four days after the game came out.
@@MattRowland is correct. @paragonseven you even showed that "secret" document that had Shep as being alive in that ending in a previous video.
IMPORTANT: The reward was that the option that required the MOST effort--importantly--the most effort ion the multiplayer part of the war assets--gave the player _their_ "best ending". The reward for all of that MP, which EA was pushing, was Shepard taking a breath. In context, this was the period in which EA was pushing for every SP game to have a MP component.
This ties in with the suicide mission of ME2. The bit with the most effort kept everyone alive. We were trained in ME2 to make sure we gained the most war assets (ie, play the MP) in ME3.
@@Bethgael This is correct. I intentionally delayed finishing ME3 in the four days I took off of work to play it, in order to grind maximum galactic readiness to ensure I got the 'best' ending.
@@paragonseven It was in the original before extended cut/ Fluffyninja has a video on their channel
Thanks to the Happy Ending and Citadel Epilogue mod, the trilogy ending is fixed for me.
But the damage was already done thanks to EA....
Same. Those mods are my One True Ending. The game's endings are banished from existence.
Interessting. I'll make sure to give it a spin, I just bought the Legendary Edition (Despite owning all games physically and 2 of them as pyhiscal Collectors Edition) and was planning another playthrough.
When I originally finished ME3, it was when there was not even a patch for the more "extended" endings and was so frustrated at what happened, despite the devs saying "there wont be an ending A, B, C, where there are just different colors of endings" (or something really close) and then they did exactly this, that I never picked it up again.
I completely agree with Shepard's death being unnecessary and forced in terms of the thrust of the story--or at least, versions of the story the player could choose to tell through their narrative. Shepard's story in my game was always of triumph against impossible odds, achieving outcomes no one else could. I absolutely wanted her to live through the ending, because it felt correct. In the end, I even turned to the popular MEHEM mod to achieve this, and still think of it as the canon end to my Shepard's story.
Eh, seems like we’re picking narrative techniques to fit an opinion about a story. It could easily be done the other way.
Shepard is named Shepard for a reason. In fact, sacrifice is one of the traits of the “shepherd” historically in literature:
“The good shepherd chooses personal sacrifice for the welfare of his sheep.
The same is true of shepherd-leaders. They willingly experience personal sacrifice for the benefit of those they lead. It’s not about the leader; it’s about those being led. “
That sums up Shepard in the entire series, going out of their way for their crew and for the galaxy at their own expense. The plot does serve the character if the character’s trait is self sacrifice because “it’s not about the leader, it’s about those led”.
It’s a cool video essay though.
100% agree with this. Although I would also like to add this:
The fact that Shepard died in the beginning of Mass Effect 2 and managed to bounce back from such a death makes their demise in ME3 ludicrous. If they can bounce back from dying in the vacuum of space and possibly atmospheric re entry, surely they could have survived the catalyst.
I think the endings feel weird because the point of the whole trilogy was this idea of together we are stronger, i mean all the games start with Shepard collecting team members and friends from different species that are all their individual divers characters to complete the task at hand, or in the third game we need to unite the whole galaxy to even have a chance. So having experienced that throughout 3 games the ending will always feel strange because the whole endgame is just Shepard with the squad even evacuating and then 1 person deciding over the fate of the galaxy which is obviously no decision an individual should or can make by himself. Its just completely counterintuitive to what the games have been subconsciously "teaching" us
This is something I empathize with so strongly ! One of the more harrowing feelings was to be there alone without my team .
Definitely felt this too. At the end, I wanted my squad by my side saving the galaxy. But I don't blame the devs for wanting it to just be Shepard. Especially with the context of needing to develop the whole game in only 2 years.
@@tammykolu1242 We did make a lot of difficult choices all along the journey, also this trilogy was all about choices, where is our choice for a happy enough ending when we are still alive for sure and didn't have to kill our allies and EDI for it ?
@@paragonseven yeah i agree the time constraint really was the reason for all that mess. Its just for me this together with the point you made in the video are the fundamental problems with the ending (at least thats what i think haha after all im a physicist and not a psychologist)
Honestly the idea that one person can make a world/galaxy/universe-defining choice that irrevocably informs the course of their futures is so wack to me. The endings have always bothered me in that they run completely counter to the narrative themes of people's and peoples' right to self-determination, the steer the course of their own destiny. But that's kind of a fatal flaw in having a main character in a power fantasy game.
Part of is starting to agree that Shepard dying at the end of Mass Effect 3 wasn't completely satisfying but maybe in the new Mass Effect game maybe we finally can have a true ending to Shepard and the Normandy crew without ruining what came before.
It will ruin what came before it if the reaction to Andromeda was anything to go by. And that wasn't even in the Milky Way.
Thank you. For the past 12 years, something about the ME3 Ending always felt hollow to me, like it was missing a crucial piece in order to be a fitting/satisfying ending. Yes the choice-consequence promise was broken, yes the final choice royally sucked, yes we don't get to live/experience the consequences of that choice like we do throughout the series, and yes we have no say in Shepard's final fate, but I always felt that there was still a missing cause that I just could not place my finger on, and I believe you have voiced that lost piece here: plot resolution without character resolution. I could accept an option where we can choose to sacrifice ourself in the final decision and the sacrifice seems the honorable price to pay, but also there needs to be the opposite option where we choose live and the price is guilt, but they didn't go with this option either.
This is why they need to continue shepherd's story in Mass Effect 5. We need closure for our shepherd's story. And proper end.
The worst thing about ME3, is that on replay you see it's just a reunion/retirement tour of the old gang.
Nope! It didn't! It's not the concept that's the problem, it's the execution. Had the ultimate final decision been to sacrifice Shepard (i.e. the player's alter ego / “own Shepard”) for the greater good or let him live and face the negative consequences, this could well have been an excellent ending to Shepard's “journey”. - And Bioware would have been cheered and celebrated instead of being showered in shame.
A great video>
I would argue that the "Actions have consequences" promise was a little broken in 3 too.
I mean, the choices from 1 had impact in 2. So we expected the choices from 1 and 2 to build to 3, to give us multiple different, possible endings,
What we actually got, was a meta war score that subverted what plot had been built in 1 and 2 (that there was a chance to fight and defeat the Reapers, that our actions mattered and that perfect choices and consequences could craft a perfect ending). Instead, we were essentially given 9 possible endings in the original... up to 10 and a loophole on one of them, in the extended version.
The problem was, these endings, in most cases, were re-skins and just colour pallet changes. Its like seeing 27 different coloured ice creams or cupcakes, but they all taste the same. It was a lazy, cop out ending, that felt show-horned and rushed. It left a bitter taste and took away a lot of player choice and agency as well as "hope".
The fact is, none of the endings were "good".
- Control and become a tyrant policing the Galaxy
- Merge, taking away everyone's free will and choice in the matter (that's a decision too big for one individual)
- Destroy (the only one that really fulfils the promise that was made in the previous 2 games and their DLC;s), thus sacrificing choices made before and several characters/races we've grown to be fond of, and possibly going against other choices we made
- And in the extended version, do nothing, and die. And doom everyone else to Death as well. But a future loop will defeat them due to the clues your friends are able to leave behind.
None of those are satisfying... because, for a lot of people, none of them really feel like the choices of the Character we were playing and allowed to craft in the previous installments and first half of the game. It also felt like it left a lot of character threads hanging, unresolved and unsatisfying. And as previously alluded, also felt like a betrayal of the promises made in the previous two installments.
Ultimately, it seemed like someone rushed the game to get it out, so gave us a rushed, unsatisfying ending that was not up to the caliber of the previous two installments.
I personally disagree, I think ME3 does a fantastic job building up on previous choices and showing consequences. I really agree with you saying the ending is rushed and I think it's almost common knowledge that ME3 was rushed out by EA, but it's feels like that to me because ME3 before the last choice did a great job of feeling like it's the culmination of everything you did.
The biggest example for me is how Mordin can survive in ME3 if only Wreav is the clan leader because in ME1 you killed/didn't recruit Wrex, and then in ME2 you didn't keep Maelon's data, it allows you to convince Mordin to not go ahead, whereas trying to stop him otherwise leads Shepard to shoot him. I also think ME3 did a good job wrapping up most character threads, everything with Wrex and Mordin, Tali and Legion, and Miranda and her father are things that have been developing over the course of the trilogy and now show results depending on your actions. I'd say the only unresolved returning character is Jacob (mainly because I feel sorry for anyone who romanced him, only for ME3 to spit in their faces lol).
I think the ending overshadows just how much ME3 can change because of your choices, how you can only get the best outcomes from certain situations if you did this in ME1, then that in ME2, then finally this in ME3. Hell, you can go into ME3 with every squad member in ME2 dead, therefore locking yourself out of getting Garrus and Tali on your team. It's just a shame ME3 dropped the ball at the most pivotal moment, it didn't ruin my journey but I get why it's such a massive stain for others.
This is why I play with Audemus' Happy Ending Mod for my ME3 playthroughs.
Shepard's death would only make sense if he was a tragic character, but Shepard isn't, despite having difficult pasts, but Shepard is a fighter and got through difficulties). That's why I firmly have held the belief that the perfect destroy ending is the canon ending; while also adding in the fact that the Reapers were trying to indoctrinate Shepard while he is in a vulnerable state - being unconscious and/or injured by Harbinger's beam because that whole thing after Shepard wakes up felt like a dream (or a nightmarish hallucination). I'm a fan of some of the indoctrination theory, but not all of it. The whole scene where Shepard's with Anderson and The Illusive Man made me think Shepard was fighting against the Reapers, while Anderson was trying to help him regain control of his mind, while Harbinger was working through TIM. In the end, Shepard realizes he was shot in the stomach, and not Anderson. I think Anderson shot Shepard to get him to "wake up" to end the indoctrination attempt. I never trusted "Star Brat's" two choices - Control and Synthesis - since those two were what TIM and Saren wanted. I think those were other indoctrination attempts, because "Star Brat" REALLY didn't want Shepard to choose destroy, "You'll also destroy the Geth and AI like EDI." Yeaaaah, doubt it, you little lying shite!
Have to disagree, here. Shep always lived in the Perfect Destroy ending. The idea was: this was the "correct" ending. The rest were not. [discussion of that would take another video, and would involve breaking an NDA because Bioware are well known for "breaking story promises"; it's kind of their thing, in DA as well].
But really, it was that the devs didn't want to continue the story with Shepard, and killing them off was the only way to make sure there were not Shep-based sequels. Shep wasn't intended to be "the players character" but a multi-version Bioware character (like Hawke is in DA2), and many of the writers have gone on record (Gaider and Carp in particular) as saying that when it comes to their plans, player and multi-canon is taken into account, but their story matters more, so if there is a clash, they will discount multi-canon (which is one reason why all of the comics always have Bethany dead, and always have King Alistair; that is Biocanon). And, most importantly: their story will happen how they want it, and they will retcon to do it (see DAI and Leliana being alive in DA2/DAI even if she died in DAO. Also Zev, but that started with a bug, and they ran with it. Leliana's was a quite deliberate "eff you" to players that killed her. They also retconned ALL ofhte Cullen epilogue slides into "rumours" to bring back Cullen in DA2, and All of the Awakening slides to make sure Anders would be in DA2, so nothing the players did actually mattered. Oh, and Flemeth isn't really dead, either, ha ha, even if that dragon fight was one of the harder ones in DAO).
It's why a Warden who is literally Alistair's Queen will spend all of Awakening taking orders from Amaranthine's captain of the guard. You know, the city whose Arl killed their parents, sister-in-law and nephew and massacred their entire castle. The city who are under the auspices of their own brother. Past the "1" games, none of the storytelling will make sense, and it is, importantly, Not Good Storytelling.
Bioware do _not care_ about player choice or "keeping story promises". It's just marketing that serves the story they want to tell. They give the _illusion_ of choice. They write themselves into corners and then use, erhm, "Bioware magic" to write out of them. ME1 writers wrote an excellent story. DAO writers did, too. But after that? Their storytelling cheats (and so, btw, do Gaider's novels).
Even in the Shepard lives ending, the implication is that everything that makes Shep "super Shep" (ie, the technology that has just been destroyed) is gone. Their story is stopped. The end.
For Bioware's writers in the post DAO/ME1 period, character and player always, always serve the plot. Hence why MEA was so awful. And yes, Bioware will retcon that for the next game if they have to, because of MEA's failure and MELE's success.
We may dislike the ending, but it was intentional.
This has ALWAYS been something that bothered me about Shepard's death. They are indomitable, the representation of hope, and hope never dies! And then the writers killed that hope.
Ok but I also just saw a comment of someone mentioning the clone and that could be such a neat story line to untangle. Like a redemption ark for the broken and hurt and a transfer of the spark. But still, the clone isn't Shep, but could they become a true Shepard? (Given the eventuality of them also surviving the fall from the Normandy) I would find it entirely believable.
i disagree about the hope. Personally, while experiencing ME3, i almost didn't have a sense of hope at all. For me, the game is pretty dark. Especially the last mission on Earth. Most people you talk to, actively trying to provide, that sense of hope, but in the end they all say goodbye. Especially Garrus and the bar. So, honestly, since I was playing for the first time waaay after the release, hearing the perception of the endings (obv without specific spoilers) i was ready for a straight up defeat and that the crucible was a trap, a diversion, so, organics would spend their last resources in the hopeless unknown project, only to realize that it's worthless crap
As for the clones, Shepard in a vacuum has very little traits, most are positive. The rest traits are made with player's choices. And yet, that's still not enough. Without relationships built over the three games, Shepard may as well be just an empty rpg shell filled with player's decisions. So, in my opinion, Shepard shouldn't exist without original crew and vice versa (a clone without experience is not Shepard to clarify). For a new game, it's either both or neither. Tho, personally, I definitely prefer both the crew and Shepard.
I still stand by Paragon Shepard representing hope, at least, that's how I always interpreted it, but that's just they joy of these games, it's player choice and how you think your character would act, and how you see their chosen one status etc.
And I totally agree about Sheperd needing their crew and the crew needing Shephard. That's what the life at the end of the destroy ending always falls totally flat for me. It's life, but at extreme cost, which a renegade shep would absolutely go for, but a Paragon shep? I don't think so. But I don't think its write to cram a "righteous death/sacrifice" down players throats either. Like the control ending could have resulted in a body being built for Shephard . Their consciousness is alive (as far as I interpreted it) controlling the Reapers. Could they not build a body for themselves? But that still wouldn't be enough for me either. It wouldn't feel like Shepard unless it was Sheperd. But spirits, I hate that Shepard's life feels like it's stuck behind a paywall of death.
I still think the clone story line would be interesting but not if it's the only choice players get. I do feel like players entering the next mass effect for the first time might resonate with it as they also won't have that connection to the crew but they're still tasked with upholding greatness so to speak. It definitely wouldn't be the start most longtime players would want. We generally want Shepard 😅.
To me, clone Shepard isn't really them because they don't have a past. They suddenly just sprang into existence, and only had the real Shepard as a connection to anything in the world, which is why they were so bitter.
*spoilers for Horizon Zero Dawn*
I really like the way Horizon Zero Dawn covered a clone-type story with Aloy because the whole point was her searching for meaning in her life because she didn't have a mother. If the clone does come back, I'd want their story to be more along those lines to add meaning to their existence.
I feel like the next mass effect should be a epilogue for the og trilogy and a introduction to the news game after it. Give us 1 last game fixing the politics of the milky way ( paragon/renegade) with Shepard and mass effect 6 , 7 , 8 be a new protagonist.
Shepard surving would make the point of the character pointless. Shepard is a shepherd. You save the galaxy from the Reapers, leaving your mark on how the galaxy post reapers should function. The only ending that Shep even has a chance of surviving is destroy, and I doubt Bioware wants to cannonize an ending to ME3.
Sadly way too many people are incapable of letting Shepard go. For them Mass Effect = Shepard and nothing will change their mind. I've played the trilogy about 15 times , it's my favorite game series ever made , and i absolutely DONT want Shepard to come back. It would be such an incredible cop-out to bring back Shepard and would defeat the entire point of the trilogy imo.
@@GoldussstI think it’s more about people wanting an actual good ending/closure for Shepard more than people always wanting to play as Shepard nowadays.
Whatever writer was responsible for the endings must have read some Cyberpunk stories before writing them.
Those guys are all like "wrong people, wrong city. everyone must die, can't get a single win".
Here's where I fundamentally disagree.
1) Thane was dying from the disease, but it was the disease that killed him insofar as the disease slowed him down enough to be killed.
2) Shepard's death served the plot in that he or she fought so long & hard to defeat the Reapers that when they WERE defeated, Shepard no longer had a reason to fight. It was a natural ending to his/her arc. Would I have liked to see the proverbial "happy ending," like Shepard raising kids with their love interest? Yes, but I'm satisfied with the end to Shepard's story, although not exactly the implementation of that ending.
See, that should have been another possible option.
The survives, retires, happy ending.
Not saying it should be the canon ending, or the only ending... as you said, Shepard's death is a satisfying and valid ending to the story too. But the fact is, there should have been a possibility.
@Siliqueath To be honest, I think Shepard's death is really the only ending that makes narrative sense in the grand scheme of things. Shepard was the ONLY being that cared enough about the Reapers to put literally everything on the line for the galaxy all the way thru the 3 games. Even the entire crew checks out of the main story at one time or another. Even Garrus when he became Archangel. Shepard was the only one who would make the sacrifice play at the end. The only real question was how many people could Shepard save.
@@UnexpectedHistory I 100% agree!
I'm sorry who's death? We all know Shepard gets perfect Destroy ending and survives if a little worse for wear and that's the only canon ending 😉😉
But seriously I don't understand why after all these years many people treat the Shepard lives ending like some kind of unproven wacky fan theory. I mean you can go into the files and the .bik file with the Shepard taking a breath is literally called Shepard_lives, just how more obvious you want it to be?
Wasn;t that ending part of the redone Epilogues though?
@@cmdr.jabozerstorer3968 Pretty sure Shepard_lives clip was introduced straight away.
i thought shepard died from how bad the ending was
Do you trust BioWare not to 180 on that, or for that file to not be a bait? There's nothing of Shepard having recovered in the slighest, by the way. Just them taking a breath, which could be a preamble to dying later in a hospital bed, maybe offscreen.
Couldn't agree more. You put into words how I felt about the trilogy, and I did not know why on a conscious level before (and I've been playing since OG ME 1 release back in 2007). You're right; Shep's death being a player choice would've had a total different meaning. I, too, badly want Shepard to return not because they're the only ones that can carry the torch, but rather because to me it feels like unresolved business and such a great character deserves better ending. Here is to hoping that Bioware brings us the chance of truly deciding how to retire the Shepard character in a way that feels right by the grandiosity of this character. Death can certainly be an option, and I hope they add more to the table of choices. And if the torch gets passed on to another character in the process, even better (compared to, say, a new beginning that is completely detached from the current lore and only shares the background of being "a Mass Effect universe story")!
I think killing Shepard was the right choice even if it hurts. But it brings a good close to the Reaper triology. And afterall Shepard defeated the Reapers, the biggest threat and most dangerous enemy the ME universe ever had. No matter what they do in the next game or who the villain will be but whatever won't come anywhere close the achievement she already accomplished. I will be a new story with new enemys so it's only fitting to have a new main character. Honestly I love the idea though that we play as Shepard and Liara's daughter. I absolutly love Asari and always dreamed of having a customisable Asari character. Given that Liara is the canon romance option for Shepard and they had a union in the end of ME 3 it is not just possible but also likely that Shepard and Liara have a child.
Ps. Would absolutly love to see a complete playthrough series from you.
I cannot see why you have so little subs. You earned one here, damn your vids are well made.
I don't speak English well, but I'll try.
I totally agree with what you're saying, thank you for expressing and explaining it so clearly. I feel like many people decided on the red ending simply in the hope that Shepard lives, I even considered the option of making that ending "my canon". However, I felt like it was a "renegade" ending and in all the games I stayed as far away from those kinds of decisions as possible, so in the end, it didn't match the character I had forged. Cheers!
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con lo que decís, gracias por expresarlo y explicarlo de forma tan clara. Siento que muchos decidieron el final rojo simplemente con la esperanza de que Shepard viva, incluso consideré la opción de convertir ese final en "mi canon". Sin embargo, sentí que era un final "renegado" y en todos los juegos me alejé lo máximo posible de ese tipo de decisiones, por lo que al final, no coincidía con el personaje que forjé. Saludos!
If I had played the game 10 years ago, I truly might've bought in to the Destroy ending being the only option so that my Shep could live. Here's to hoping there's an option for Shepard to return regardless of which ending we chose. 🫡
@@paragonsevenAgain, sorry if I'm not writing well.
I totally agree with you, I discovered Mass Effect thanks to a friend, in January of this year.
Before, perhaps I didn't give so much importance to narrative details like the ones you mention in your analysis, but at 45 years of age I was learning where those points lie that make a story completely satisfactory.
Honestly, it's been a long time since I connected so much with a game and the empathy I generated with Shepard and his beautiful crew really touched my heart.
Maybe it's because I'm already old 😆.
Thanks for answering. Greetings Commander 🫡
Even the Shadow of Mordor series had a better conclusion to Talion's story than Mass Effect's Shepard.
Before I get into this, I just want to say that I'm torn on the end of ME3 from both a storytelling and a player satisfaction perspective. This is more just my addition to your analysis and why, 12 years later, I'm on the fence whether I consider it a good or bad conclusion. When I first played it, I absolutely loved ME3...until the end. I just felt so cheated. However, time has allowed me to replay the trilogy (I don't want to consider counting how many times) and think about things from many levels of storytelling and different perspectives. Probably the hardest thing to consider is how these "fixed" plot points have to fit with all the many variations of storytelling. This is, more or less, the conclusion I've come to.
I see and agree with both sides of the argument, but there's a character promise that Shepard's death does keep: Shepard will finish the mission, no matter what. It's a character promise that is hardly ever considered since that's generally a given in games, but it's brought to the forefront of the story in the ME2 prologue. After all, the end of ME1 established that Shephard will survive, yes? Did you consider that ME2 was establishing a separate promise along the lines of: everyone must face the Reaper? Sure, ME2 immediately circumvents it, but it did establish the groundwork of what it would take to kill Shepard: self sacrifice. ME3 brought the promise of finishing the mission, no matter what, to the forefront with the Citadel coup attempt and, more so, with the fall of Thessia. In the Citadel coup attempt, the cost (depending on your choices) would include: Thane (potentially your love interest), the Salarian councilor, Kaiden/Ashley (potentially your love interest), and the Human councilor (no love lost there, but this represents a massive loss/setback for humanity as a whole). For Thessia, it's finishing the mission in unmitigated failure.
Here's what makes me think that the character plot isn't sacrificed for the story plot: those losses suffered reinforce and drive Shepard to finish the ultimate mission of ending the war, no matter what. Regardless of how I feel about the colour choice at the very end, the final action, which ends the war, is Shepard choosing to risk themself, as they always had, to finish the mission and, hopefully, to save others.
Was Shepard's death a good one? Yes. Am I satisfied with it? No. Was it needed? Maybe.
I disagree with the sentiment that Shephard's death defeats the point of the trilogy. Yes, in the first two games he makes it out against all odds but this was when he was fighting a signifigantly smaller threat. Mass Effect 3 is bleak, and that's why I love it. No other game story gives such an feeling of utter helplessness in its introduction and yet is able to still make you feel hope for survival. But it does not stray away from that idea that the reaper's are snuffing out all hope and our Shepard is not immune to their presence.
Shepard's death actually does feel like the natural conclusion to me, even with me1 and me2. Months of fighting and war have battered and bruised Shepard and he is on the brink of death by the time you have reached the catalyst. He is the one chosen to fight the reapers and has given everything to get this moment, the only thing he has left to give is himself and he will do that if it's what it takes. Yes it may seem anticlimactic but its also a very natural conclusion and thats why i agree that it was the best course of action to approach the ending with
Shepard’s death WAS the point of the trilogy. He was unkillable, except his first death. When he came back as closer to a hybrid, he was beyond anyone else.
But Shepard gave his life for something greater.
“I won’t let fear compromise who I am”
-Shepard.
We are going to commit genocide and sacrifice friends and allies so Shepard has a chance to live?
Shepard. The one who could survive everything, even death.
His death directly results in the greatest change. He also could have lived through anything. This time he didn’t.
That was the most fitting conclusion to the ending for Shepard.
Shepard has a clear arc, with the ptsd growing. Every one of them isn’t that different, you have a very limited scope on how different you can make Shepard. Shepard is less of an avatar than a dragon age OC.
Shepard not directly seeing the results of his final choice, because he made it while trusting the allies and built to carry on in the right way, was the only way to end his story. He didnt need to do it all alone. He built up the galaxy so they could carry on after him.
Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask the ghosts if honor matters.
Another question. What are the Keepers hiding, they self-detonate when scanned by other means. What secrets are they hiding that Reapers didn't want anyone finding out. Could the keepers have given the Council races an early warning of the Reapers?
Probably not because the Council races refused to acknowledge the existence of Reapers when Shepard brought it up. The keepers are definitely still shrouded in mystery.
I think I partially agree with you, in two ways: 1) what was the point of saving the Geth if the only Shepard-survivable ending destroys them and 2) that there isn't a set of player choices that can result in Shepard's survival in a meaningful sense (i.e. more than taking one quick breath).
However, the ending did make sense to me in this way: besides Shepard's Chosen One status, a non-Renegade Shep has a superior sense of dedication to humanity and to the mission. When the Crucible hasn't activated and Hackett calls Shepard on the comm, Shepard's immediate, instinctive response is, "What do you need me to do?" Even near death and in crippling pain, having given nearly all to do what no one else could do, Shep is still ready to do more as long as they're alive.
Sure, they've always come back from seemingly impossible missions before, but it makes perfect sense that, in as existential a crisis as the Reaper War, it would finally catch up with them.
I think a main problem with the ending is that the mechanism of the Starchild makes it seem like the choices presented to Shepard are kind of arbitrary and could just as easily not require their death. So if the solution to the Reapers seemed to be more "organic" (no pun intended), then Shep's death makes more sense. It seems necessary, like Mordin's.
I disagree a whole lot. You built the whole argument on this "Promise" of Shepard being invincible. Shepard surviving the end of ME1 doesn't promise anything. Saying that just because they survived one (or 3+) close calls still doesn't make it any sort of promise. I could just as easily say "They died in ME2, so that's a promise of Shepard dying in the future again." Also, had the writers actually promised us Shep's invincibility, the story would immediately lose a good amount of weight, because hey, i'm not going to die, so who cares what happens.
Shepard's death is simply what the trilogy has been preparing us for this whole time - one last difficult decision. We sacrifice ourselves for one of the possibly better futures for the galaxy, or decide to hang on to the hope of survival, even if it means sacrificing every single synthetic instead, despite discovering that synthetic life is also life through the games. Making difficult decisions is absolutely a promise Bioware gave us in the beginning, unlike Shepard's survival. They've had so much plot armor over the trilogy, that it was about time for the luck to run out. I was a wreck for days after finishing ME3 for the first time, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Shepard's death (or lack of it) is on of the most (if not the most) impactful moments in Mass Effect, and a free "happily ever after" would just cheapen what we've been fighting for this whole time.
You also say Shepard died for a choice that didn't feel significant to them - but, as you mentioned, we're Shepard. Just because you didn't care about that part, doesn't mean none of us did. I'm also quite sure that for example Joker cared about how the reapers are defeated. Saying nobody cared how the reapers go is simply a false assumption.
As for Thane's death - he, an assassin, died protecting someone he didn't even know. Just like his wife was ready to when he first saw her. That's a beautifully written parallel and calling it shock value death unrelated to his ark is a disservice.
All that being said, I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on Mass Effect as always, and hope you have a wonderful day!
Best comment on this video! Agree with all your points and love the points you made about thane 🥺 never saw it that way before, but now gives me something to think about whenever I replay the third game
thanes death was stupid. he charged a guy with a sword while he had a gun
thank you. you finally put words on thoughts I had for several years now, without being able to formalise them into ideas and phrases. I also loved your trailer breakdown, it gives me hope on what ME4 would or could be.
It was very cathartic putting it into words. I actually struggled with recording it without emotion creeping into my voice during the last parts of the video. 😅
Shepard means so much to me, and even if they don't return, I feel like I finally understand why ME3's endings left me feeling empty.
I wanted Shepherd to settle down with his or her love interest that would have been a fitting end that's part of the reason why I want Shepherd to return if they're going to end Shepherd's story I want a happy ending
I really liked your idea of *a* Shepard returning from a parallel/alternate world, but I’m less keen on my own Shepard returning hundreds of years in the future when all their loved ones are dead. (We didn’t all romance Liara!) And I don’t think it’s too likely they’d bring back all the old squadmates as well… but i agree they should never have died in the first place, although I did choose destroy so mine didn’t, at least 😅
I don't think Shepard returning centuries later would make sense either. To me, it's Shepard and the Normandy squad together (somewhat) or move on to a new cast of characters.
And since Gamble is in charge of the next title, and he's very aware of fan sentiment, I assume that if Shepard comes back, other previous squadmates will be back too.
@@paragonseven I am optimistic that this next game could finally give us closure to ME3’s ending but there’s always that part of me that wants to see closure to all the romances. How would Garrus or Tali react to seeing Shepard alive again?
@@BeyondNormal. Right? I mean, Control means you have a Tyrant Robo-police state.
And synthesis means all conflict is ended and everyone is merged.
You're right, neither allow a continuation of the story or a setting where any truely interesting storytelling could happen (Well, I mean, you COULD be in an uprising against the Tyrant Control Reapers... Though that would sting and feel Dark, as that means you would be AGIANST Shepard)
Destroy... allows a continuation. I mean, wiping out all AI life in the Galaxy is harsh... but, it can always be rebuilt and reactivated. And in the perfect ending, its also shown that, even this may not be as true as the Crucible tried to make out. It tried to point out Shepard was part Synthetic and would likely die in that choice. And Perfect shows a breath, showing that, maybe it wasn't right or as truthful as it claimed/thought.
That leaves a lot more room for story telling.
I was really upset originally with the ending but I’ve come to be ok with her death in the destroy ending. It could have been a slightly more dramatic death in my opinion, but better to go out in a blaze of glory rather than old and in bed. If the perfect destroy ending is cannon I hope she’s retired an admiral or the human counselor in the next game. Shepard was a great player character. I’m afraid BioWare would ruin the character in a modern game. Developers just can’t seem to make great games anymore.
Love that this conversation HAS to ignore how tonally dissonant ME2’s plot is
Correction:
The Extended Cut did NOT introduce the Shepard Lives Perfect Destroy ending.
The Perfect Destroy ending was already included in the base game without Extended Cut - you just couldn't get it naturally in a Singleplayer playthrough though due to ridiculously high EMS requirements, but you could experience it if you played enough multiplayer to increase the multipliers of the Theaters (increasing the Galactic Readiness multiplier from 50% upwards).
In the original game, you needed 4000 Effective Military Strength to get Perfect Destroy ending - at a 50% Galactic Readiness multiplier, that was 8000 Total Military Strength, which was not obtainable in the release of the game because there was simply not enough War Assets or any DLCs. The only way was playing Multiplayer; promoting agents (100 War Assets each) and mainly, increasing Galactic Readiness and then re-play a New Game+.
This is just to clarify that the Perfect Destroy ending was always there with the base game; in other words, it wasn't a ham-fisted attempt to cull the criticism due to the poor ending, but the intention of Shepard living one ending was always there from the get go. All the Extended Cut did was lower the requirements for a Perfect Destroy ending (3100), which made it possible to obtain in a EMS-optimized playthrough without requiring Multiplayer.
This is one of the many reasons why I pretend that the ending for my FemShep is that they chose destroy but the signal ONLY targets the Reapers (to this day it makes no sense that my Shep wouldn't think of this solution or force/convince the star child to make the arrangements😑).
Shep barely escape with their life. Recovers, retire from service then the Citidel DLC is the final hurrah with the squad!🎉
Lets not forget the promise in ME1 that was Sha'iras gift of words "...You will continue to survive".
Whatever happens I will be pissed if they solve Sheps death by simply fetching a copy from another Universe, that'd cheapen her life and be even worse than her actually dying. If however, the energy of the crusible somehow flung the actual Shep into another dimension, and theres a rescue mission to get her back, that'd be something I could accept. But to replace the original with a copy..?
No. Just no. 🙈
I would also say that they knew that the ends were not justified with Sheps death. The Mass Effect 3 we have today was very different from when it first came out without the DLC to cover for how rushed things ended up.
We used to write essay length pieces on how Sheps death didn’t feel right not simply because we didn’t like it but because her death wasn’t earned. She already died. Came back and did her thing. So to then make it so that at the end of her arc we as the player are unable to actually choose her outcome- the one we earned by working through me 1 and 2 with our choices.. we felt cheated. Genuinely cheated and robbed of choice.
Nice to see someone talk about this ❤️🤎👏🏾
Shepard IS the franchise... Bioware found out the hard way with Andromeda.
I think that Bioware had Shepard fatigue at the time and didn't expect fans to be outraged by Shep's death. A good example of this is when Core Design tried to kill off Lara Croft in Tomb Raider Last Revelation because they were just so sick of cranking out games... and the IP continued on despite that because the fans wanted answers. I think development crunch and EA are to blame for 3's rushed conclusion. When you have such an iconic character you can't just be like "They dead now, move on!" and I agree that The death served the plot and not the character arc. That's what outraged fans and what made them demand closure even more than if Sheperd would have survived. It feels like they were just cementing the fact that there won't be any more Shepard games rather than giving a proper send off. A major unintended error on Biowares part...
To me the endings sound a bit like taken out of a magic hat, so to speak. The explosion of energy which... merges synthetics and biologics, making them understand each others perfectly well (so what? DNA and technology merge through a wave of energy?)... or a part of you, that is you enough to control the reapers, but is not you because you're dead, so your mind doesn't exist anymore while partly existing in a way, or is it some sort of copy done in an instant... even "destroy", that I usually choose because of that, sounds weird (what is destroyed? components? chips or means to store informations, that would explain the destruction of IAs, but how can you repair enough to make your starships or else work again like when they had all their control systems in order? "Bah, let's just finish the job...").
Maybe the Valars could do that, but a wave of energy from a technological device... That's what boggles me even before survival of Shepard or not. I played the mod for Skyrim called Enderal, and it shows me how a certain verisimilitude can make the difference for me. When we are to rationalize after the facts ("yes, but the tragic hero", all that), something is not so clear in the story, I think. Whatever, tastes and colors... despite the end, the trip was great anyway, right?
Alright, I commented on another video of yours a couple days ago but I wanted to edit a few bits of my theory.
The theory is basically canonizing your Shep having a kid with their chosen love interest. This way not only solves “The Shepherd problem” of Shep “dying” at the end of the trilogy but it could also serve as a way to bring them back, in a couple different ways. Shep survives, great. Shep dies but had a kid, allows you to create your wholly unique Shepherd AND play as an Alien Race for the first time, awesome. Shep survives AND has a kid, best of both worlds.
Regardless of what fashion Shep returns in, can they get a damn promotion yet?! I get the “iconic-ness” of “Commander Shepherd” but homie has saved the Milky Way Galaxy on THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS; what in the ACTUAL F**K did Anderson and Hackett do to get promoted to Admiral?! 😂
At the end of the day, even with mods that help patch up issues even just slightly, will never fix what the team at Bioware clearly really wanted to do. Even with the original writer not on board anymore. Thus resulted in a game that is built with love and care, but ultimately rushed as you can see in ME3 as it goes on and on. I accepted the way the story ended even with the Extended Cut, because where they couldn't give us a ending like Witcher 3 where it shows us an ending depending on specific major choices across the trilogy and thus majorly in 3, they give us 3 options that affect the galaxy alongside the major decisions that were already fleshed out & completed in ME3. Even with the response of the ending, with the crew having to come back in to help flesh out the endings better, shows that this was rushed to feel so important that only Shepard should do.
Personally, I don't want Shepard to come back. Their story was here and done. But if written possible and even the endings can be written in from lines to straight up side quests revolving around how our endings affected the galaxy & characters, maybe it can work. Like let's say Synthesis, it added new problems for everyone to face & try to overcome, as how life does. And the green glowing thing can be waved off as a side effect that fades away overtime due to biology. Which can work. A quest revolving around our VI in the Reapers post Control and what truly happened to EDI post Destroy Ending. There's a lot of interesting potential here and then some. Especially with Leviathan maybe coming back, and maybe tackle the Dark Matter story that was originally going to play a major role in ME3. After what the creative director said about Veilguard and the reception surrounding that, maybe there's hope. And we can get the ending Shepard truly deserved. But as of right now, I'll accept the one that I feel like the team felt they had to make, due to the unreasonable development time that was forced upon them. When they could've been given more time and gave us the Return of the King of video games. In a way, ME3 still is, but the more I looked at how unfinished Mass Effect 3 is, despite all that was accomplished, it really could've been something more.
Shepard's death is unnecessary because he came to the Catalyst due to an ACCIDENT. He was miraculously lucky not to get hit by the Reaper's fire as they ran en masse towards the portal. This is all. Any person could have performed the actions that were done at the Catalyst.
Great video again, though the Shepard Lives scene is present in the original release of the game - I have noticed it is a common misconception that it was added by the Extended Cut to satisfy fans. Frankly, it might have helped tone down the backlash somewhat if that was the standard Destroy ending because most of us, including myself, didn't meet the very high EMS requirements of the original release to unlock it on first playthrough, which also required investing into the multiplayer mode.
The way I rationalise the ending these days is if the Commander has done their job well (High EMS) and the loyal Commander completes the mission to end the Reapers (Destroy), then surviving is the reward. It doesn't really need the rise out of the rubble scene again and a Star Wars fanfare, the hint of such itself is enough in closing a trilogy in which the Commander has overseen so many allies complete their character arcs. It has been a very slow acceptance process for me I will say.
The harder process for me is that you have these great characters that are chucked straight into the deep end, the extinction level event is always looming above. This is the benefit that a Star Trek series gets, lots of smaller scale character driven stories. The Citadel DLC, post-mortem, has helped to counterbalance this - the Barbenheimer effect if you will.
Appreciate the Shep Lives tidbit, I assumed it was part of the extended cuts. Makes it even stranger that they locked Shepard's death behind putting EDI's name on the memorial wall. 😔
If I had played the originals, I'm pretty sure I'd be in the camp of slowly processing Shepard's death and coming to an acceptance that it was necessary. It's been a cool experience to see fans from a decade ago having processed Shepard's death differently than my own recent experience.
Oh yes, one of the biggest gripes I have with the ending, is that you can unite the Geth and Quarians, provided all the right choices, in the same game, but you can't convince The Catalyst/Reapers its logic is disproven by that, assuming they are not as malicious as the demeanour of Sovereign and ME2 Harbinger had prior portrayed them as.
I completly disagree.. And coming from someone who has played the trilogy about 15 times , i'm gonna VERY disappointed if they bring back Shepard. Shep's arc is done , that's it.
Been watching some of your stuff and it gave me a few thoughts. One being the new threat. I know nothing about it, but what if it's the people that made the Angara, the Jardan(hope I spelled it right). What if when the initiative scouted potential areas in Andromeda they detected those. That might have gotten them curious to look at the Milky Way. Then after the crucible overloaded, they came to investigate. There first stop would likely be the Geth telescope that was looking at them to begin with. Then about who they are, Javick did mention a group of biological beings joining with there synthetic creations. Javick said they were quickly concord, but what if they were able to escape because they were biological/synthetic? Also as Javick said, all species that they concord were called Prothian, so the tech should be similar. That might also explain why some Angara are present in the Milky Way.
I’m conflicted about Shepards death in ME3 while I do like protagonists dying Shepards just felt unearned but at the same time Shepard is one of 3 characters in sci fi media on my list who’s sacrifice would feel less impactful if they were brought back from the dead with the others being Ironman and Darth Vader
Have you ever watched the Mass Effect Stuff of the Lorerunner - his whole career as a streamer started thanks to it. Especially his ruminations are worth watching.
Thank you for putting this into words.
Thank you for this video.
I've never managed to put into words why the endings never sit much right with me, you're on point.
The first time I experienced the ending, I chose synthesis and went a whole week in that contemplation period, first utterly disappointed, but later the ending grew on me, because my Shepard would sacrifice himself for the galaxy. However you captured perfectly what I felt in my heart and didn't know how to express
I did the exact same thing a week after I chose the Synthesis ending, but the ending never grew on me. Ngl, making this video was a cathartic way to understand why the endings made me feel so empty after finishing ME3.
Mordin was integral to the creation of the modification of the Genophage not the creation of it. In that way he is the father of the modernized Genophage as seen in the game.
Personally I dont mind if Shep died. I hated the ending just as much as the rest, but I still feel a shep who sacrifices herself to save humanity and the galaxy is the kinda of shep she was for me. Putting everyone before herself. And would gladly give her life if that meant saving others. And yes, Commander Shepard is a female, end of discussion.
Edit:
Shep should have died in ME1 during the collapse or atleast be badly badly injured, not come running out with the major plot armor she had. Yes she is a hero, but heroes also dies.
Great video, I fully agree with you.
Mass Effect wouldve been remembered way more fondly with an epilogue like BG3 😭
How would that epilogue go?
@@Ollyiswild_04 Depends on you of course 😭
Wym
That's when the happy ending mod/citadel epilogue mod become your besties 😎
Though it is great that with BG3's epilogue you get to know what everyone has been up to since you last saw them, and it would've been interesting to see the state of everyone/everything after the end of the reaper threat
I just want to say that if they bring Shepard back in ME4/5 using multiverse travel, that Shepard is not my Shepard. That is a different Shepard. They may be able to survive the next game, but they cannot live the life of My Shepard. It is not like we just need A Shepard, we need the Shepard!
I won't be satisfied with Shepard's ending until I get to see her chilling at home with Liara and their little blue kids.
I don’t think that surviving is the way to be a “true hero“. I sympathize, because I would have liked to see Shepard survive; and I am speaking as someone who chooses perfect destroy every time. I really wouldn’t mind seeing Shepard in the next game.
That said, I actually think Shepard’s death thematically serves the character very well. The rest of what I have to say is only under the presumption that Shepard is dead, so bear with me, here.
In games like Fallout, your character is really just your avatar that you use to engage with the world. The character is a blank slate who has whatever personality you have. This isn’t a preestablished character. The character is you.
Mass Effect is different. In Mass Effect, the character is not you. You are taking on the role of Commander Shepard. This is a fully fleshed out person with personality, and full voice acting, and interesting quirks and hobbies (Shepard loves collecting models, and loves fish, even if the player does not!)
Now, as you pointed out, at the end of games 1 and 2, Shepard is placed in a position where death is a real possibility. The Sarren fight and the suicide mission both. But I think you’re putting emphasis on the wrong thing. Is it called the “suicide mission” because the writers wanted you to take away that Shepard defies death even on suicide missions? I propose to you that the writers called it “the suicide mission” because they wanted you to take away that Shepard is willing to die for the cause. That’s Shepard’s personality through and through.
Shepard’s _survival_ in one and two is the thing that served the plot, because without survival, the trilogy wouldn’t continue. Still, willingness to die. That’s Shepard. That’s what the writers were conveying. In ME 3, though, Shepard’s survival is no longer a necessary thing, because the trilogy was at an end. Shepard can finally lean into that character trait of “willingness to die for the cause”, and actually go through with sacrificing themselves to stop the reapers.
It is a character moment, and an integral one. If the player was given that choice to have Shepard survive, it would have undercut Shepard’s personality. Supplanted it. Think about it like this… Shepard’s death was always foreshadowed in each game, but it couldn’t happen yet because it wasn’t time.
I know this was kind of a long read for a comment, but I hope it gave you an interesting perspective.
You absolutely nailed it!
The point of the trilogy is making the hard decisions and sacrificing whatever is necessary to stop the Reapers. That's what Shepard did. Plus Shepard being tired isn't Shepard being sleepy or needing a quick mental rest. In each backstory option they either put their men through a meat grinder, had their entire squad killed with only them left alive (and apparently one other person), or did God know what in a gang in earth having no parents. Then they're an accomplished commander in the baby, meaning they've seen who knows what. Then they've had several close friends die only in the few years they knew about the Reapers. And, of yeah, THEY DIED ONCE TOO. Shepard is said to be the ultimate symbol of hope, but the series makes it clear especially toward the end of 3 that they're just a soldier. Shepard is human and can only take so much.
Exactly!
Yo this video makes me feel that Shepard might have been depressed… especially with the line implying he was willingly taking on suicidal missions and impossible odds from the offset
Ironically, Mass Effect 3 proves that it didn't "have" to be Mordin. If you import a save where Mordin died in the Suicide Mission, then his role in ME3 is taken over by Padok Wiks, one of the salarian scientists at the STG base. And Wiks creates the cure and sacrifices himself to ensure it is dispersed. It's worth playing a version of the game without Mordin just to see Wiks' scenes. He's quite an interesting character in his own right with unique dialogue. Just like Bioware to create an an entire, new alternate character just on the off-chance that a player chose this particular path...
Mordin doesn`T die in my playrhrough
I believe Shepards character arc regardless of players choice is viewing synthetics as more than just 1s and 0s
I'm pretty sure that the purpose Shepherd's death, is to end the series.
I don't believe Bioware had any intention of making continuing the series after the 3rd game.
Nah, Shepard's death at the beginning of ME2 was so pointless
My head cannon is at the end of rannoc. You mom a reaper and save 2 races. After that is the end game content.
From a game okay perspective that is
Awesome video. I agree with you 💯😊
If the trailer did show Alchera, then wouldn't that mean we're playing a game set between 2 and 3 where you're an N7 and seeing the creation of the andromeda initiative?
Franchise Director Gamble already shot down the trailer showing Shep's recovery in ME2.
@paragonseven ah I must have missed that comment by Micheal, thanks
Lol. I clicked because I thought "yes, finally someone gets that killing Shep at the beginning of 2 ruined the franchise!"
Oh well, guess I'll just go back to yelling at clouds now...
I find that, for me, that death was so unnecessary and unbelievable that they ruined any sort of possibility of a resurrection. It would just seem like very lazy writing...
@@illizcit1 100%! All to force you to work for Cerberus, with no way to rebel or do something different. Instead, they could have had you proactively hunting down leads instead of undoing everything from the first game and basically ruining Liara's character in the process. I pretty much pretend like the 1st one is the only one (much like I do Dragon Age)....
@@jasonGamesMaster exactly. Idc I am not convinced Shepard as we play them (Renegade OR paragon) would have EVER worked with Cerberus. They were just continuously wedged into the story with no real reason for them or TIM to be there. For me, Cerberus ruined not just Shepards' story but their inclusion and focus in 2+ 3 took away the grandeur of an extinction rebellion that the arrival of the Reapers meant and reduced a galactic war into something akin to ....Iraq/Afghanistan War. That was the true trilogy killer.
And to start me2 with Shepard being blown up in space, being exposed to the vacuum of space, suffocating, freezing in absolute zero, fall from the atmosphere of a planet to planet surface and the surface is a cold, hard ice surface.... too much hand wavey space magic.
Me2 is fun to play, but it truly is the weakest of the trilogy, imo.
@@illizcit1 lol. Definitely. My friends and I were so upset about it we ended up doing a tabletop version of events extrapolating from the ending of 1. Garrus became a spectre and got his own ship, the turian built sister ship to the Normandy, and they and Shepherd were tasked with following up on the leads they had on the Reapers. Shepherd, Kaiden, and Ashley did background missions (mostly riffs on existing missions from the games) while my players were under Garrus and did new missions. Tali went back to her people, and Wrex to his (we did follow their storylines, just a little earlier). Liara (and eventually Mordin) were the home base team doing all the science, etc.
It was a blast. Had Kai Lang, Jacob, and Miranda showing up as recurring villains, met up and worked with Thane a few times, and rescued Grunt. Best of all, when the Reapers arrived, the galaxy was ready and we fought a real war and pushed them back and defeated them (their biggest advantage was surprise and crippling the citadel, after all).
I was upset Shepard died but I was also happy at the same time. It felt very real. People can't always succeed and defy all odds time and time again. That creates characters that can never truely die, it mitigates the severity of the threat.
Exactly!
Hi Paragon7. I wanted to run a question by you. Do you think the Prothean scientists survived on the Citadel? If they were going into cryosleep to survive the Harvesting, then wouldn't they have supplies stored that could help them grow food, supplies of water. This would have to be an amount that could sustain hundreds of thousands of their people. Vigil said he believed the scientists starved to death but he doesn't know that for a fact. You've done a lot of research on this any hints or tid bits that could back up the scientists surviving on the Citadel?
To my current knowledge, there isn't any indication of the Prothean scientists surviving, so I personally think Vigil was right. I've seen theories that the Prothean scientists escaped to the Andromeda galaxy, but it's mainly 'no evidence, just vibes' theories at this point. :)
Exactly. If the devs were tired of her, just let her retire. Run off with Liara to their far away star planet. Set up a bar for Garrus
The fact that the destroy ending involves the elimination of synthetic life does not make any logical sense. It's purely a writer's contrivance to add a negative aspect to a choice that would otherwise be the perfect ending to game and therefore give players no reason to pick the other options. That is to say, if all destroy did was end the Reapers, then why pick control or synthesis at all? The writers wanted to add a downside to it to give players an incentive to check out those other endings, so they decided, "Well, we'll say it kills EDI and the Geth too. That ought to do it."
The problem is, this completely falls apart the minute you start analyzing it. It is established a few different times that the Crucible is just a massive dark matter energy generator. The ghostboy avatar calls it "crude, but effective". Connecting it to the Citadel as a relay allows the energy it generates to spread across the entire galaxy. It is this wave of energy that kills the Reapers. In the original ending to the game, a lot players assumed the Crucible functioned as a massive electro-magnetic pulse device that destroyed all high technology. That did at least explain how it also killed EDI and the Geth in addition to the Reapers. It also jibed with the cinematic that showed Joker attempting to get the Normandy to outrun the blast wave only to crash-land on a planet. The wave's energy shorted out the Normandy too.
BUT the extended cut ending clearly contradicts this. We are shown the surviving ships of the anti-Reaper coalition, including the Destiny Ascension, flying away after the battle. The ending is narrated by Admiral Hackett, who was aboard that ship that ferried the Crucible. If the Crucible did act as EMP pulse weapon that acted indiscriminately, how did any of those ships survive the blast? Their engines, computers and life support should have been destroyed and Hackett should have been among those who died. Similarly, the ending cutscenes make no reference to any other high technology being ruined by the weapon. In fact, we're shown the major cities in Citadel space as gleaming metropolis with the lights on and everything.
Is it that the Crucible only impacts synthetic life and leaves non-sentient technology unaffected? That doesn't make any sense either. How precisely does the Crucible distinguish between a synthetic device has achieved sentience and one that hasn't? There's plenty of cases in Mass Effect where devices that were never meant to be alive nevertheless achieve sentience, so the difference between technology that is sentient and what isn't shouldn't be something that a simple wave of energy should be able to detect, let alone be discriminating in what it affects. In short how does the Crucible distinguish between a highly sophisticated ship's computer that's still just a computer and one that is the same but also "alive"? How is that possible? Is it magic?
The only way the Crucible's dark matter energy wave killing the Reapers but not destroying other high technology makes sense is if the Reapers also use dark matter energy and that's why it affects them. I.e., it overwhelms them and shorts them out. But then the Crucible shouldn't affect devices that don't use that energy. That includes the Geth, who were built by the Quarians and who, we're told, remove any Reaper code and other related technology after the Rannoch mission. EDI was built using Reaper code and technology, so it is at least hypothetically possible that it could affect her, though we're never told that she uses dark matter energy.
Another problem complicating this is that we're told by EDI that she is helping with the Crucible project and Tali says (if they survive) that the Geth are helping as well. How is it possible then that neither bothered to ask how the firing up the Crucible might affect them? If they knew the Crucible was a massive energy generator and if they had even an inkling that the energy it generated would be damaging to them, why wouldn't have they raised concerns and/or taken precautions?
One final note: We're not even given any indication that the Crucible actually did killed the Geth. There's no cinematic showing the energy wave killing them like it does the Reapers. There's no images in the ending slides of dead Geth or inert Geth ships either. Hackett makes no reference to them at all in his voice-over remarks. People infer that the Geth died because they don't appear in the ending slides of a Destroy ending but we are not ever specifically shown or told this.
The only evidence we have that the Crucible kills the Geth is the claim, made prior to it being activated, by the ghostboy avatar. This being is, let's not forget, the collective voice of the Reapers, a race of machines that uses their indoctrination powers to distort how organics perceive reality. So their claims are suspect, to say the least.
Having said all of that, it's possible that the Bioware writers who gave the ghostboy this dialogue did mean it to be taken seriously as canon. But, if that is the case, they did not think it through properly and left several major plotholes in the game.
Mass Effect 3 was always a let down for me, especially coming after how much of an impact ME2 had on me. I felt it was very rushed. It's no surprise the studio as a whole went completely downhill after.
For me, the DLC Citadel was the most insulting part. If youre going to write a dark dark dark story and the only way to win is to die well, then a carnival dlc shoved in to pick up the players who are about to quit before the end of the game is just harmful to the first two games
And any promise and build up to the Reapers as a greater threat than anything Shepard has faced before. should be ignored then. Nor everyone aggress with her interpretation of what a hero is. Hs death also solves the problem id where you can even take the character from here. These aren't rules set in stone. Part of a goof story is knowing when to follow the riles and when to break them.
I think far too many people are obsessed with Shepard and refuse to let go. It was planned as a trilogy. I love the original trilogy, and Mass Effect is my favorite gaming franchise ever. Yes, the ending of ME3 has its flaws. It was rushed and changed over the development process. However, just because Shepard was a survivor in the first two games didn't mean that they would have to survive the third. Heroes often die in their stories. Especially when sacrificing themselves for the benefit and greater good of everyone else. I had always felt that the fate of Shepard and the Reapers were intertwined from pretty much the beginning. I wasn't shocked or mad that Shepard made the ultimate sacrifice in order to save the galaxy. In many ways, I felt like Shepard was always moving in that direction. A hero does what is necessary and will always put the life of others above their own. If BioWare is planning on bringing Shepard back in some capacity, it better make sense and be integral to the story that they are trying to tell. If it is just being done for fan service or brownie points so they can say "Hey look guys Shepard is back!" Then I feel that would be a mistake. The Mass Effect universe is amazing and full of so many storytelling opportunities. Shepard does not have to be included in order for it to be a Mass Effect game. I just want BioWare to take their time and craft an incredible story with compelling characters to get to know and interesting places to explore. They need to lean in the direction of a Baldur's Gate 3 and just make a great game. Don't be like the rest of the gaming industry and give us DEI created, politically driven, virtue signaling nonsense. Fingers crossed BioWare, don't screw this up.
I feel the same way! Thank you for writing this down! Now I don't have to.
My thoughts exactily
Compared to ME chosen one, the way that Starfield screwed up the setup is just comical. You can make an everyday joe who just happens to be digging and gets flashed with their version of the beacon. Its just much worse for immersion reasons from the get go. I was never a fan of bethesda games anyway, but always ME fan.
No it fidnt thenentire theme of m3 was sacrifice if u didnt die it would destroyed the engire theme
This.
Technically the true ending is the destroy ending because he's still alive breathing at the end
My first ending on 3 was synthesis i will admit i was pretty durn upset because well i wanted her to live thats ending was i guess terrible to me. She was only in her 30's that is to young to me just saying. I'm pretty scared to do a second playthrough because im afraid i might choice another ending blindly of her dieing or the same ending.
u can survive. and also the problem if main guy dies in war as a leader and sacrifce. kinda the point that war without sacrice is a lame story .so dont get it. none of the endings were happily ever After.
Morten the Sheldon Cooper of the mass effect universe
Mordin didn’t create the genophage he updated it
I would say they couldn't finish the ending they really wanted so they needed something big to happen😂
Thank you. The explanation you've walked through here makes a lot of sense to me, and I only hope that you're right that Shepard will return, and therefore that "Shepard as Survivor" will be satisfied.
Tbh I like the takes but to me Shepard death needs to happen even if you do everything right in the last 2 games Shepard stated that we are not ready I know a lot of people were mad at the endings and made the extended cut to make them feel better but let’s be honest Shepard had to survive the last 2 games because his promise is not to survive it’s to defeat the reapers no matter the cost illusive man said we can’t lose Shepard because they know about the reapers. Now they defeated the reaper their not needed the other point is to rebuild together in all endings even if they have bad endings but the moral of MASS EFFECT is to work together now you don’t have to choose that but that is how it is in all games us as Humans and aliens is to destroy the threat now Shepard as a character can be a nice person or a ruthless person your choice throughout the games you don’t have to stick with them but you need to be working together even if you do sabotage even if they death felt force it needed to happen so they could change the shape of the galaxy tbh instead of a brand new mass effect with shep we should have gotten a prequel first as to how he/her became an N7 and what they did like you start at the very beginning the mindor flash back or the akuze mission torfan it would make more sense to do that first and would be a hit sense they remastered the games you can now transfer data
I personally ascribe to the Shepherd Indoctrination theory
Agreed!
It was ok they did it because of game dev stuff not because the story had to go that way but it also did not go against existing story or cannon it simply did not have to happen. They did it for exactly the reason you made this video they knew people would not want to let go of shep and let them move on to other stories or even further stories in sheps universe even, they just did not understand that people would simply be weird and refuse to move on. Review bombing and screaming for years. It is all very dramatic and exhausting. I do not want shep back. To get them back we have to re write the whole last game and all the story just so we can get what we want. I want fun and excitement and adventure and wonder not the same old character brought back from the dead over and over again like a 80s horror villain. Or a invincible undying protagonist that I never have to worry about as they will always win and never die that takes away all the stakes.
Ok, ok, hear me out.... what if Shepard isn't the one taking a breath in the perfect destroy ending? If Shepherd is on the Persidum, then why are they surrounded by brick and mortar and not steal and glass? Could the person at the end be the clone. 😅
That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking … 🤔
Wild thought that I hadn't considered....but probably not. The Citadel DLC where the clone was revealed was released a little bit after the original Mass Effect 3 release.
And since Shep took that breath during the rushed extended cuts which was also before the clone reveal, I assume it's not the clone.
IMO, the strange discrepancies of "where the heck is Shepard" in that shot is simply because of a rushed effort to please fans that Shepard could've lived, so the writers or animators didn't know how to portray the shot.
And how Shep's body transferred to Alchera while citadel was right on top of Earth? It's wierred.
It was speculation like this that led to the clone as the protagonist in the Citadel DLC, just so you know. :D I love it! But that was Bioware making fun of the theory. That's not to say they won't retcon it for ME5 though. If it serves their "vision", they will.
@Bethgael I don't know how a game is made. I assume the story is cut for time, and what is cut is used as DLC, to bring more lore. 🤔 but life be lifen.
Shepard is going to return just because EA thinks will make them more money.
They didn't really get the issue in it. It's always impactful to see a Hero die, but tbh having her get found in the wreckage and see that she goes onto help with rebuilding and end up happily enjoying the rest of her life with even a slide reel montage of some happy moments with their romantic partner and/or teammates would have actually been a far more effective way to end the story of Commander Shepard. The way they ended it is why I need more..after so much effort and so much work...with nobody but the team believing in Shepard..to have that end in death is just unfair. I've legit never gotten over that really. I still replay the trilogy to death once a year sometimes twice a year, but I need some closure lolol.