I have to disagree. ME 3 was a game of endings. All the decisions you made from 1 and 2 came to conclusions in 3. You see the aftermath if say you killed wrex, or if say you destroyed the cure in #2, etc. Throughout the game you see the aftermath of your choices. The ending of threads within the story.

I felt the final ending (the 1, 2, 3) was all about grey. Making it not a black and white choice. Down to switching around the colors red and blue (blue being control, which should be a renegade option, and destroy being red, which should be paragon) The choice becomes grey when they throw philosophy in to the mix and make you second guess yourself. Up until you meet the star child, they're trying to convince you that there may be another way than just destroying the reapers.




*spoilers*

Personally I love the ending because it wasn't this clear black and white, Atypical ending. I loved how it made you think, what happened and as you pull the layers away you notice details that suggest something, but doesn't tell you the exact answer. Personally.. I think the indoctrination theory hits it on the head, with the exception that this is all a dream. I feel like you are being indoctrinated (headaches, sudden appearance of blood in a place he was just fine a second before, etc), and are fighting it to the end and once the catalyst docks, then bam there's a rewrite in the citidel's programming and gives you alternate solutions.

My thoughtr about the way mass effect 2 became what it was may be largely due to the fact that it was bought by EA and then went on to another system (PS3) It almost feels like a reboot if you think about it. The game starts by whiping the slate clean and you basically start over.

However, it does accomplish the introduction and building of Cerberus. This to me is the biggest part about Mass Effect 2. Before this game I didn't really know much about Cerberus and the Illusive Man, which plays a large role in the 3rd game, and wouldn't have the same impact if I hadn't played the second game.

So although the arch of the 2nd game isn't directly related to the other two to the point where you could play #1 and then #3 and it wouldn't be a big deal to the reaper story arch, you would lose so much back story and what not with cerberus and characters. Plus you wouldn't have had nearly the investment in the characters if #2 wasn't the way it was.

After thinking while typing, I believe that the thing they screwed up on here was the collector story arch. It made the game feel episodic, rather than a direct continuation, like you could skip one and be okay with the overall story.

*spoilers*

Here's an idea. What if they would have done it in this order: #2, 1, 3. Where you investigated disappearing colonies and the collectors, leading in to the prothean dig, saren, and thwarting the invasion. Then ending with the invasion.

Because the way they did it made it feel like there were two beginnings, 1, and a reboot with #2.

This is neither here nor there, but to me it makes a little more sense with the way #1 ended with the urgency of stopping the reapers from coming.

But I still love this series overall.

*SPOILERS*

So to start, if you choose the refusal, the boy's voice turns to a reaper voice. I'm guessing harbinger. So this implies that there was a reason this form was chosen, it was something sympathetic.

2nd: throughout the series you hear about reoccuring dreams, oily shadows, etc. in indoctrination. I personally believe that the boy was a part of his subconscious + reaper indoctrination. Remember that the rachni queen talked about the sour note and song beeing everywhere.

3rd: at the end you see the black oily whatever it was surrounding the screen accompanied by a harsh sound, which is kinda the same as what was in the dreams. I personally believe that up until meeting the catalyst these events were attempts of indoctrination. oh and don't forget the headaches while this was happening with the harsh sound, also accompanied with indoctrination.

Once you get to the catalyst I feel that the tactics were either changed by harbinger, or he really did decide to give you different options. Though I'm inclined to believe that, with all of the gray areas created around synthetics, etc. that they wanted to make the decision difficult and it was their last ditch effort to get you to choose what they want.

At this point I feel they aren't using force, but rather persuation.

Personally I felt a good chunk of the game was spent closing story lines, you have the genophage, rannoch, etc. where your choices from the other games made a huge impact.

I have absolutely no problems with ME 3's closure after the EC. Really the only closure I had an issue with prior to the EC was the holes, which they filled, about the normandy crew.

The choices you make alter the experience of ME 3 to a pretty big extent throughout the game and that, in turn, changes how everything falls in to place by the end and what kind of galaxy you have forged through your choices.

In regards to the choice you make on the citidel, I feel like that is honestly not the ending, as most people are expecting it. The ending is the culmination of everything you have done and what kind of galaxy you've made based on your choices, which they totally delivered on. When I say delivered on, I mean the missions like rannoch and tuchanka.

When you consider plot lines, there are many endings to mass effect 3 prior to THE ending. The last game was all about closing those plot lines that they had been building on since game 1.

Mass effect as a whole has been their best writing of all the games they have made and I have been playing bioware games since baldurs gate.

I could see it being a part of your conversation with Javik, he share's a memory with you and loads a sidequest in history. It would be an easy way to incorporate it.

I would love to see them expand on some of the characters that took a back seat in this one, ie jacob, jack, miranda, samara, etc in DLC.

But a ME 4 would be interesting.

Personally I don't see why the indoctrination theory is spot on minus the ending being a dream. The way I see it is that shepard is hallucinating while on the citidel. The anderson / illusive man aren't real. The indoctrination theory fits their ending perfectly if you take away the fact that it's all a dream.

Besides what people point to as evidence of dreaming could easily point to hallucinations as well.

SPOILERS

the only part that I disagree on with what most think with the indoctrination theory is that it is all a dream. I think he's hallucinating while in the citidel, but it is really happening because it creates a bigger mess as far as the story goes if you're actually on the ground the whole time having this dream.

I also wonder if the reason they bring you to the choices at the end on the white elevator is because they have given up trying to control you and see their solution as not working, so at that point you really have the universe's fate in your hands.

ie the ending where you say I'm not doing any of these choices and then you hear harbinger say "so be it" and the cycle starts all over again.

I think it would be safe to assume that ashley would meet him again, based on the EC.

This is exactly what bioware was looking for. you make your own end in a way, they give closure, but still there are things to contemplate. The EC just smoothed things over for me.

The key points that really helped:

*SPOLIERS*

1. where they added the scene that shows your squad mates getting on board the normandy, I particularly loved the part where you are saying your "final goodbye" to ashley.

2. where they say, "someone got in to the beam"

3. shows the team leaving the planet, repairing the normanday.

I feel like this totally flushes out my doubts.. except for anderson and the illusive man. The only thing I can think of is that they are not really there and that harbinger is trying to indoctrinate you because at the beam, they said "someone managed to get in to the beam" and didn't say plural(paraphrase), and anderson says he got there from a different way, but there was no other way to get there.

The only explanation that makes sense is that anderson dies on the assault and the illusive man died at some point between the mission on the cerberus base and reaching earth. Why? because he is speaking to anderson in the conversation and interacts with him, when the only thing that makes sense is that anderson really isn't there.

It wouldn't make sense for them to overlook this detail a second time especially - talking about how anderson somehow makes it to there from a different way, when there isn't.