Mass Effect 3 Director Didn't Want You To Forget The Game's Ending

Casey Hudson, the Director and Executive Producer of Mass Effect 3, has spoken with Digital Trends about the game's controversial ending sequences, and how it was BioWare's intent all along to "polarise reaction".

"I didn't want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarising reaction that the ends have had with people–debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in", he said.

"That to me is part of what's exciting about this story. There has always been a little bit of mystery there and a little bit of interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the fact."

Mission accomplished, Casey!

Interestingly, he also mentions some "really great single-player content" that's coming as future downloadable content, which given the manner of the trilogy's conclusion, lends the week's most popular conspiracy theory a little more credibility than it might have first warranted.

Exclusive: Mass Effect 3's Director addresses the game's controversies [Digital Trends]


Comments

    There's really no mystery since without the mass relays they will all die anyway due to lack of resources.... how is this thought provoking at all

    They still have FTL drives? how did you get around nebulas without the mass relay? because of FTL Drives, mass relays meant traveling across the galaxy was instantaneous, its just a matter of are there any ships left :P

      Also if I remember correctly couldn't the Protheans build their own ME Relays like the conduit? Surely it would not be too long before some of the more developed planets worked out how to start reconstructing the network. I imagine any further mass effect games would take place in a galaxy with a partially reconstructed network and with the reapers gone, either destroyed or commanded to leave by shepard.
      Although I'm annoyed you don't get a little more info about the fates of your squadmates I think when you look at it like that it makes sense why the endings are so similar. How could they make another game if the endings had huge divergence?

    As grateful as I am for them TRYING to make an interesting and thought provoking finale, I just can't let go of it, the fate of the Normandy. I was supposed to care about my team-mates right? Okay, this is why I'm agitated. No closure.

    And thanks for deleting my previous comment, fantastic. All aboard the censor-ship.

    Oh Casey, sometimes I wonder about you. what lies behind that practiced media friendly smile? Is it a shit eating grin of a troll enjoying their craft? the dejected grimace that could only belong to EA's front man? Or is the metal alloy of an advanced deathbot from the future?

    Would be very suprised if the DLC was meant to be set after the game - pretty sure it is going to be set before you launch to earth and take part in the final mission, especially with the way the galactic map is set after you complete the final (Sorry tried to word it without outright spoiling but since this is an article about the ending i would think most wouldn't care about it).

    While i personally didn't mind the endings that were offered, far from it actually, what i didn't like was that this game was just as much about the characters as it was the story and i found it a little frustrating that they didn't provide closure for them as they did for Shepard. But i wont let those last 2 minutes take away from what was overall a game that 95% of the time read all my decisions and made an impact, large or small on the game somewhere, in some form.

    There's a difference between the endings being "forgettable" and just down-right lacking.

    I hate reading the comments here nowadays, reminds me of YouTube.

    Ambiguous for the sake of ambiguous. A controversial ending only works when it follows the rules set in the fictions universe. Even though Mass Effect has many fantasy elements (biotics are basically space magic) the ending was simply a cop out. Not thought provoking or 'deep', just shit.

    unforgettable? yes.
    mystery?no.
    sheer and utter confusion? is liara's skin blue and ashley's hair brown?

    yeah the endings would have been 'acceptable' if they made sense. without taking into account theories floating around the net it did feel incomplete from a writers point of view.
    i still can't believe haters think the complainers are unhappy sherpard 'died'. its not that but only diehards understand it. i hope they try to fix it but if not, i will just rearrange a suitable ending in my head and substitute it for what we got

      Anyone who has an elementary understanding of storytelling should understand it. The ending is objectively bad, I'd really like to see some other (unbiased writers) weigh in on it to be honest.

        agreed. everything i have seen is biased. even i am but i am willing to read and analyse anothers opinion. all i am seeing though is defend this defend that. disregarding players complaints and calling them whining sissypants isn't helping. i want to encourage a collaborative review of the end sequence of the story but alas that is unlikely to happen with all the bashing and dwelling on minor plot points. i guess for first time players or more casual players like reviewers who don't have a vested interest in the story just shrug us off as acceptable. its not unreasonable to ask for more when its clear that there should have been.

          Sadly, I feel it is next to impossible to defend the ending(s) as they are, simply because it just does not reflect the choices the player has made in all the games up to that point. Even at the very last, nothing you've done matters. This is running in the complete opposite direction of the noises the developers were making before ME 3 launched, where they were saying every little choice you make affects something in the game world.

          At the very end, you get some choices that have nothing to do with what you've done thus far, and get endings with even less to do with all that you've achieved throughout the 3 games. How is that a fitting ending to a great trilogy?

            The thing is, as much as i love Bioware games, they always have pretty poor endings. Remember Dragonage 2? Apparently i was one of the few people who enjoyed it, but only because i can ignore the ending. No matter what side you choose, and who you help, Anders wil always blow up the church, and the mage will always go demon, the Paladin will always mutate and fight you. It was dull, and predictable, and undid all the hard work of the player.

            Sounding familiar? Bioware can start, and make the meat of a game, but at the moment at least, endings are a little...problematic. Still, i enjoyed ME3, warts and all.

    I'm a pretty cynical jerk and most times I recognize that and can admit that I'm being overly negative about a given situation... but...
    Yeah... real ending DLC in 5... 4...

    Well I sure as hell won't be forgetting the ending, I wouldn't forget walking in on my girlfriend having sex with someone else either though.... sooooo

    Thing is though the crappiness of the ending(not resolution, or positive/negativity) but the fact that it's the same BS resolution that nearly every Sci-Fi thing uses to tie the plot together when it's stepped beyond it's bounds.

    And for a series that spent so many years spruiking choice and the effects of said choice. To essentially end up with a DE:Human Revolution type ending where you just pick something. Is rather crap.

    Sure we can argue that the Effective Military strength rating is the sum of your decision's throughout the 3 games. Except that's not really pay off for your decision's. It's an arbitrary disconnected system(More so when you can quickly achieve the best ending by sinking some time into the MP, Further rendering any decisions moot)

      What it does is simply turn all your decisions into numbers. It's a pitiful excuse for anything really. Fleets and armies that I collected during ME 3 were never mentioned, choices that I made were never mentioned or even acknowledged. I am extremely disappointed that it ended the way it did, especially since throughout ME 3 a sterling job was done of tracking all the choices you made in previous games. Even several different choices combined to have one outcome, in one event. It was extremely rewarding to see all that, only to see it flushed down the drain in the final minutes of ME 3.

    What turned me off was:
    -Not telling me what people did during or after the fight, who died in the army i assembled? what did Samara/Grunt/Jacob/others do during/after?

    -No allies showed up during the last few fights, it didn't feel like a final epic fight when there was only 2 people beside me, my army count was 6000, with 100% readiness. not even a small cut scene "I got this, you move on."

    -why did the Normandy crash? its not like the crucible was suppose to affect it...

    -I was a paragon from the start, i understand about surrendering the normandy at the start but what if i was a renegade and complied with cerebus all the way from ME2?

    If you guys can correct plz do.

    There was no polarization, everyone thought it was shit.

    So ALL along they planned to have plot holes in the ending of the story? Riiight.

    in order for something to be polarizing, doesn't that mean it has to have people on both, you know, poles of the argument. No one thinks the ME3 ending was amazing. Everyone thinks it sucks. That's not polarizing.

    the REAL truth is casey has been indoctrinated and wrote this $%##$%#%$ ending LOL !

    It won't be forgotten simply because it's so bad.

    There is a right and a wrong reason to be remembered... almost everyone alive knows who Adolph Hitler was.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now