I know there have been conflicting views on the ending, and the game turned out fairly sad for me (fave charcters died :( ) but the end seemed reasonable to me
Not so bad. Played it straight four times already from 1 to 3, all characters in the final battle surviving. Only chose Destroy once, didn't feel right. I got the Quarians and the Geth to make up, and then I turn 180 degrees and wipe them out. Not to mention that despite all they've done, the Reapers are still the last remnants of civilizations going back 37 million years - how different would that make Shepard from the Reapers? Control wasn't any better, civilization still remained in the Reapers' technological trap even though they're under Humanity's control. Synthesis was the best. Organics and synthetics become one, the galaxy is free of the technological trap, Reapers leave to find a new purpose and explore the rest of the universe, and best of all, EDI and Joker embracing at the end made Mass Effect 3 the first game to make me cry.
Well, all three endings completely ignored all the choices that I made through all three games, and differed pretty much only by the colour of the explosion they used, despite through development/marketing telling us that we would have "dramatically different endings depending on the choices we made" and that "it would not simply be a choice between endings A, B and C"...
So yeah, I was not a happy camper, even without the crappy nonsensical star child kak being spouted at the end.
I picked the destroy option in the end, didn't feel right controlling them considering that was the illusive man wanted to do. And it didn't feel right to do synthesis considering that what in part the Reapers want to do (cannibals, husks, banshees etc). So went for destroy, felt like the most "right" action but that's just me.
Lets look at the positives, I don't know about other people but I'm sick to death of people still bitching about the ending. I did it but after a couple of days the anger was gone. Sure the ending could of been a hell of a lot better, but everyone knows that! So please lets not let this turn into a Mass effect 3 ending sucks! thread like so many others.
I chose destroy, Tali being my love interest the Geth surviving were really only a background thought, not to mention Red was the only one that lets Shepard survive so I chose it.
And even if Shepard dies no matter what end, at least I took those mother 's with me.
Alexzandvar wrote:While the ending was horrifyingly BAD
I chose destroy, Tali being my love interest the Geth surviving were really only a background thought, not to mention Red was the only one that lets Shepard survive so I chose it.
And even if Shepard dies no matter what end, at least I took those mother 's with me.
To each their own, I suppose. Synthesis for me, and Tali/Kaidan (male and female respectively, abhor the deviant) as love interest.
INDOCTRINATION THEORY seriously it makes so much sense for it NOT to be true, if its not I will never have faith in any writer again. NO ONE would willingly create an ending with so many plot holes and inconsistencies and expect people to enjoy it. The whole fact people think the ending is "real" shows that the "indoctrination" has been convincing. IF bioware made it painfully obvious you (Shepard) were being indoctrinated you (he) would have immediately noticed and resisted the indoctrination.
INDOCTRINATION THEORY seriously it makes so much sense for it NOT to be true, if its not I will never have faith in any writer again. NO ONE would willingly create an ending with so many plot holes and inconsistencies and expect people to enjoy it. The whole fact people think the ending is "real" shows that the "indoctrination" has been convincing. IF bioware made it painfully obvious you (Shepard) were being indoctrinated you (he) would have immediately noticed and resisted the indoctrination.
Compared to a theory disappointed fans came up to whine and make Bioware change the ending, the Catalyst makes so much more sense.
Spoiler:
The Catalyst probably learned from bitter experience (like the Geth) that organics and synthetics are incapable of long-term co-existence. Even the in-game Codex states that no one knows how long the Geth and the Quarians can co-exist on Rannoch. It's just like in reality, once the common enemy disappears, allies can and do become enemies. So, the Catalyst put in place the Reaper Cycle of Extinction to prevent organics from creating synthetics, by turning organics into synthetics (Reapers) after a certain point. The Catalyst does not direct this, he just observes. In between his lines, one can imply that his personal opinion is that while the Cycle was ideal, he still didn't like it.
To be honest, I don't hate the ending as much as I used to. Its still a crap ending that doesn't stack up to the rest of the series but, its not that bad.
Tadashi wrote:Compared to a theory disappointed fans came up to whine and make Bioware change the ending, the Catalyst makes so much more sense.
I wish I had been smoking whatever you were when I watched the ending
Spoiler:
The Catalyst probably learned from bitter experience (like the Geth) that organics and synthetics are incapable of long-term co-existence. Even the in-game Codex states that no one knows how long the Geth and the Quarians can co-exist on Rannoch. It's just like in reality, once the common enemy disappears, allies can and do become enemies. So, the Catalyst put in place the Reaper Cycle of Extinction to prevent organics from creating synthetics, by turning organics into synthetics (Reapers) after a certain point. The Catalyst does not direct this, he just observes. In between his lines, one can imply that his personal opinion is that while the Cycle was ideal, he still didn't like it.
Although it would have made more sense for a highly advanced civilisation to, oh, I don't know, maybe guide and intervene when civilisation tipped too far into the synthetic/organic balance. But hey, they seem happy enough when organics are controlling the galaxy, wiping out other sentient beings if they don't want to be their slaves (protheans), so maybe they aren't too bothered about life in the galaxy at all...
Tadashi wrote:Compared to a theory disappointed fans came up to whine and make Bioware change the ending, the Catalyst makes so much more sense.
I wish I had been smoking whatever you were when I watched the ending
You just have to look at it from the Catalyst's perspective.
Advanced organic civilizations create synthetic life, who destroy their creators. This probably happened to the Catalyst, and as a sign of remorse, decides not to let it happen again. It brings into motion the Cycle of Extinction, using Reapers (probably without their knowledge) to harvest and preserve the gestalt racial consciousness of advanced organic civilizations before they create synthetic life, leaving the primitive races to grow and prosper only to be harvested in turn. It's ideal, but grotesque. When the Crucible docked, and Shepard, an unindoctrinated organic, arrived, the Catalyst saw a chance to find a new, ideal, and less grotesque solution: destroy the synthetic life, and restore the previous cycle the Catalyst and the Reapers had disrupted; replace the Catalyst and choose whether or not to continue the Cycle and use the Reapers for another purpose; or bring about synthesis - technological singularity - ending both Cycles at once. Obviously, I chose synthesis.
Spoiler:
The Catalyst probably learned from bitter experience (like the Geth) that organics and synthetics are incapable of long-term co-existence. Even the in-game Codex states that no one knows how long the Geth and the Quarians can co-exist on Rannoch. It's just like in reality, once the common enemy disappears, allies can and do become enemies. So, the Catalyst put in place the Reaper Cycle of Extinction to prevent organics from creating synthetics, by turning organics into synthetics (Reapers) after a certain point. The Catalyst does not direct this, he just observes. In between his lines, one can imply that his personal opinion is that while the Cycle was ideal, he still didn't like it.
Although it would have made more sense for a highly advanced civilisation to, oh, I don't know, maybe guide and intervene when civilisation tipped too far into the synthetic/organic balance. But hey, they seem happy enough when organics are controlling the galaxy, wiping out other sentient beings if they don't want to be their slaves (protheans), so maybe they aren't too bothered about life in the galaxy at all...
That was the same excuse used by the Spanish to wipe out the native South Americans. That same policy practiced by the Old Ones led to the War in Heaven. Benevolent guidance more often than not leads to disaster, while outright conquest leads to unification and peace, like the Roman Empire and the Protheans. And the Collectors came to be because the Protheans' genetic code was unsuitable for Reaper construction.
Is your ending unbearably bad? Please go through this checklist to see!
-Final battle with generic mooks rather than the established big bad: Check
-Last minute change in tone from the entire series: Check
-Inconsistencies and easily spotted plot holes: Check
-Sudden massive focus on a theme that was at best very very weak for the rest of the story: Check
-Sudden change in the nature of the antagonists, barely even hinted at before: Check
-All these (bad) plot developments taking place entirely via a new character spouting exposition: Check
-Massive change in characterization of protagonist with no explanation: Check.
-Ignores established Canon on behavior of key elements in the universe: Check
-Whole thing is a particularly lazy Deus ex Machina: Check
Wow. You did pretty everything you possibly could wrong. I mean the only thing could do worse is actually not have the ending provide a conclusion for the vast majority of your characters. Oh wait...
Chongara wrote: -Final battle with generic mooks rather than the established big bad: Check
They broke cliche, something wrong with that?
-Last minute change in tone from the entire series: Check
Really? The truth behind the Cycle of Extinction actually fits. Order is imposed on the chaos resulting from organics developing dangerous technologies rampantly
-Inconsistencies and easily spotted plot holes: Check
You mean the Illusive Man taking control of Shepard and Anderson's motor systems? Easy. The nervous system is bioelectric in nature. No stretch to see how advanced cybernetics can't jack that.
-Sudden massive focus on a theme that was at best very very weak for the rest of the story: Check
See above.
-Sudden change in the nature of the antagonists, barely even hinted at before: Check
The Reapers are apparently unaware of their creator, who doesn't actually do anything other than observe and wait until a new solution better than the one it came up with presents itself.
-All these (bad) plot developments taking place entirely via a new character spouting exposition: Check
Exaggerated. The Catalyst was a perfectly fine way to explain the truth behind the Cycle.
-Massive change in characterization of protagonist with no explanation: Check.
Is that so now? I fail to see how Shepard's decisions at the end are against his character. He's a hero, he knows what must be done, and once he knows the truth, even he can see that despite everything, the Catalyst simply did the best it could. It wasn't a god, and so wasn't perfect, and Shepard can't blame it for that.
"You have hope, more than you know. The fact that your here, the first organic ever proves it. But it also proves that my solution isn't ideal anymore." - the Catalyst
The Catalyst accepts its failure and lets Shepard, the one who defeated him, accept the burden of finding a way to break the original Organic-Synthetic dichotomy.
-Ignores established Canon on behavior of key elements in the universe: Check
How? The Reapers' back story was only revealed by the Catalyst. And it answers why the Collectors would even need to use organic DNA to build a Reaper, otherwise the Reapers could just build another Reaper with a 'generic' AI running it.
-Whole thing is a particularly lazy Deus ex Machina: Check
Fine with it.
Wow. You did pretty everything you possibly could wrong. I mean the only thing could do worse is actually not have the ending provide a conclusion for the vast majority of your characters. Oh wait...
Synthesis ending was pretty conclusive, especially where EDI and Joker embrace.
The dark energy ending would have worked so much better, i.e being consistent with hints placed throughout the rest of the series and shedding some genuine light on the reapers.
=/ It was too lacking in content and open ended to the finale of a game like Mass Effect 3. Everything leading up to it was great, but it just halted the pace of everything when it suddenly dropped into essentially pressing a big red shiny button that said "win" (.......if the "win" could even be considered an ending). The big with Aldrin after it was fine, but I just felt that the actual three endings needed to be explained more (....the Renegade ending, ie kill the Reapers, is penned as Anderson, the Paragon's choice, as is the Blue ending the Illusive Man's choice. So is that to make the player question their own belief system when the moral endings are turned on their heads?). ....Just way too many questions where it should be answering them.
Oh and on endings. Anderson dying if you got a perfect Paragon score (as in chose Paragon options in every game), whereas he doesn't die if you got a bad score, annoyed me to no end. Such a great character, and not to say his death scene was lacking (the Illusive Man's too were moving), just that it felt as though Bioware were piling on deaths to make the game seem even more tragic (a la Harry Potter....). =(
Ignoring that Priority: Earth as a collection of missions was possibly the least polished and boring addition to any game I've ever played, the real cherry on top is basically the entirety of the last five minutes.
Nothing makes sense. Ignoring that the very existence of the Catalyst makes me question the point of the previous two games, and that it taking the form of the dream kid is laughably unsubtle, its motivation is simply moronic.
Synthetics always trying to wipe out all organic life, and who can't be stopped? Please, I have been paying attention to your game you know, BioWare, I'm capable of logical thought. Talk about betraying your own themes. It's just so amazingly stupid I just ignore it even exists as an element of the plot.
The three choices? Wow. Again, ignoring the fact that the pressence of Control and Destroy as part of the Citadel should have warning bells chiming, they're all just stupid.
Destroy has an arbitrary and despicable cost attached to it.
Control essentially runs counter to, hmm, maybe everything you do concenring Cerberus.
Synthesis is just....... I don't know what to say. Who would ever choose this? The details are so slim on the ground. You realize that by choosing this one you're imposing the beliefs of the Catalyst on every living thing?
Epilogues? BioWare laugh at the concept.
No, instead, we have a completely pointless scene where your crew teleports aboard the Normandy and Joker runs away, to end up stranded on an unknown planet where either Garrus and Tali will die, or everyone else will. The symbolism couldn't be more obvious.
I don't want to think of how pretentious the stargazer scene is.
There are more issues, but I fear I'd be here till the horns of the horsemen sound talking about it.
It's just generally horrific, overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tadashi wrote:
Chongara wrote:
-Final battle with generic mooks rather than the established big bad: Check
They broke cliche, something wrong with that?
To replace it with another cliche. That is boring.
-Last minute change in tone from the entire series: Check
Really? The truth behind the Cycle of Extinction actually fits. Order is imposed on the chaos resulting from organics developing dangerous technologies rampantly
HA.
The Catalyst's order is imposed due to an unproven hypothesis. That's just the logic.
The central conflict changes to something laughably stupid and unsupported.
-Sudden change in the nature of the antagonists, barely even hinted at before: Check
The Reapers are apparently unaware of their creator, who doesn't actually do anything other than observe and wait until a new solution better than the one it came up with presents itself.
Before : Malevolent robots inspired by Lovecraft's work, that need no motivation for us to fight them. They are evil, they commit horrendous atrocities and murder trillions due to their hubris.
After : The flawed solution to an unproven hypothesis, the mooks of some random AI thing we've never seen before. Their evil nature contradicts their purpose.
-All these (bad) plot developments taking place entirely via a new character spouting exposition: Check
Exaggerated. The Catalyst was a perfectly fine way to explain the truth behind the Cycle.
An expository tool would be, but not one like the Catalyst, especially considering it makes no sense at all.
-Massive change in characterization of protagonist with no explanation: Check.
Is that so now? I fail to see how Shepard's decisions at the end are against his character. He's a hero, he knows what must be done, and once he knows the truth, even he can see that despite everything, the Catalyst simply did the best it could. It wasn't a god, and so wasn't perfect, and Shepard can't blame it for that.
"You have hope, more than you know. The fact that your here, the first organic ever proves it. But it also proves that my solution isn't ideal anymore." - the Catalyst
The Catalyst accepts its failure and lets Shepard, the one who defeated him, accept the burden of finding a way to break the original Organic-Synthetic dichotomy.
Meekly goes along with what the enemy tells her, despite the flaws.
Shepard, as in the Shepard I've been roleplaying for the past ninety hours, would not do that.
-Whole thing is a particularly lazy Deus ex Machina: Check
Fine with it.
Then I don't care about your opinion on the matter.
Wow. You did pretty everything you possibly could wrong. I mean the only thing could do worse is actually not have the ending provide a conclusion for the vast majority of your characters. Oh wait...
Synthesis ending was pretty conclusive, especially where EDI and Joker embrace.
Please, elaborate on what exactly happens with synthesis.
In-game facts please, not your own warped headcanon.
For my playthrough (only did one so far), Shep chose Destroy - in her mind, it was the only way to make sure the Reapers would never be a threat again. Control might have enabled her to achieve the same result, yet there was that lingering suspicion that the merger could end up with her being altered by the Reapers instead of assuming complete control. In the meantime, Joker dodged Reaper fighters to move the Normandy closer to the extraction point, where the few survivors of the ground forces awaited pickup by shuttle. Given their fighting spirit and aggression, I don't think any of the krogans made it. Same as Vega, Ash or Javik, although I'll admit that I'm merely adding them to the bodycount because deaths make it feel more realistic, these three are the sacrificing types, and I don't care about them too much. I think Vega died providing covering fire for a squad of retreating Alliance Marines; that would fit him well. Cortez didn't survive the Hammer drop-off; it was only later that I learned he can actually survive depending on an earlier dialogue option.
As the Crucible fired its beam, Normandy was already back in the air and approaching the Relay, together with a portion of those ships that had survived so far. In an eery replay of the Alliance's first retreat only months earlier, a portion of the fleet stayed behind to keep the Reapers busy and allow the others to escape. The turians in particular proved their honour once more as they insisted that their forces would provide the bulk of the sacrifice, whereas the Quarian Flotilla reluctantly pulled back first, intending to save as much of its civilian ships as possible. The Destiny Ascension remained at Earth as well, with Matriarch Lidanya adding the awesome power of its impressive main gun to the turian dreadnoughts. The Citadel flagship's kinetic barriers began to buckle under the onslaught, but just before the Normandy made the jump, it managed to cripple another Reaper by blasting through its vulnerable weapons port just as the enemy ship prepared to fire.
The Crucible's blast hit the Normandy in mid-transit, crippling half its electronic control systems and frying its AI. With all servers and backup blades being hit simultaneously, EDI simply ceased to exist. Thrown out of the Relay slipstream and stranded in a star system with no knowledge of their exact position, Joker confirmed the existence of a habitable planetoid in their vicinity. As FTL jumps without VI support were deemed too risky and the ship was already in a bad enough shape, it was decided to land on the planet and use it as a base until repairs could be completed. Controlling the ship's descent without a flight computer was a nigh-impossible feat, but Joker managed to pull it off and set down the SR-2 in a relatively safe way. As shown in the cinematic, Joker, Garrus and Liara leave the ship, but other survivors like Traynor would follow them soon. The group begins to set up a basecamp at the foot of the ship and, realizing that they are cut off from the rest of the galaxy in terms of communication, prepare for a longer stay.
Over the course of the next couple thousand years (which is when the post-credits Stargazer scene takes place), this small community becomes an independent colony, first turning into a village, then a city-state, with remote outposts set up for resource gathering slowly growing into larger communes as well. Liara, having been pregnant from "embracing eternity" with Shepard, gave birth to twins, who in turn became the origin of a now-sizable asari subset of the otherwise human-dominated population. Guided by the wisdom of a Matron-turned-Matriarch Liara, the people adopt the asari model of e-democracy and manage to avoid conflict. Even as its people grow apart, they remain united in their spirit. The mother of Shepard's kids manages to live for another 997 years before dying in her sleep, a content smile on her lips.
Unfortunately, with Garrus and Tali being the only members of their respective species on this world, there are no turians and quarians around, although they have spent their final days as a pair of lovers. Both of them continue to be revered for their part in the legend of the Shepard.
After many generations of hardship and rebuilding, the scientists of this world have come close to a breakthrough in drive technology that will finally present a veritable alternative to traditional FTL engines, enabling travel to faraway worlds outside the local cluster, whose barren planetoids are already being visited by small mining vessels searching for deposits of element zero. The colony's ultimate plan is the construction of a spaceship as large as the legendary Normandy, whose ancient wreck remains preserved in a temple. Estimated construction time is 20 years. On the local extranet, human and asari philosophers publicly debate the prospect of re-establishing contact with their distant genetical relatives, with historians and sociologists suggesting their theories of what may have become of them, or the possible difficulties renewed diplomatic contact might pose. A number of conservatives oppose the project, argueing that nobody knows what they might find out there and that it could put every human and asari on this world at risk.
iproxtaco wrote:The Catalyst's order is imposed due to an unproven hypothesis.
I wouldn't call it "unproven" given what is hinted at having led to the creation of the Cycles. And sure, one might challenge the Catalyst's conclusion, given that it's still just a "maybe" and no certainty. But that doesn't change that it's a risk that can be avoided. The Cycles ensure the continued existence of life itself. Breaking the Cycles means that the current species will be allowed to flourish. On the other hand, if in a thousand or ten thousand years there's a synthetic race committing galactic genocide, it'll be on Shep's hands now.
Personally, I'd rather have explained it with the organic races becoming more dangerous to themselves, though. Scientific advances enable the option for destruction on a horrible scale, and there are evidence throughout the ME universe of past-Cycle releases of WMD destroying entire planets. A finite number of planets that can no longer be colonized and are lost "to life" forever. And we've seen this starting in the current Cycle again. Culling the intelligent species once they develop the capacity to make the galaxy unhospitable would make sense, if one were to focus on preserving life itself rather than individual forms of it.
iproxtaco wrote:Shepard, as in the Shepard I've been roleplaying for the past ninety hours, would not do that.
lol - as opposed to what, exactly? Sitting in a corner, sulking?
Shep was presented with a couple of options and picked the one he/she thought was best. Just as it happened throughout all three Mass Effect games. This ain't no sandbox universe; you are and have always been playing along a pre-defined arc. The options presented at the end of ME3 are actually a whole lot more freedom than you had in any of the other games before, keeping their repercussions in mind.
As for the whole "indoctrination theory" that some people keep clinging to, it can easily dismantled by the simple fact that we're seeing the ending not from a first person (manipulable) view but rather third person record, as it was passed down through the generations. In case anyone missed it: what you see is what the so-called Stargazer is telling the kid in the post-credit sequence, just like your actions in Dragon Age 2 were Varric telling Cassandra what happened. As such, any "hidden secrets" people are inserting into the sequence are wishful thinking, for if the Stargazer as the one telling the story knew about it, he'd have made it more obvious. And logically, if he did not knew about it, then he would not have inserted it into the story we are watching at all.
PS: my Shep actually got the "breather" cutscene, but I choose to ignore it - imho, having her die right there makes for a more dramatic and thus ultimately better exit for this character than any of the alternatives.
I think the point is no GOOD ending of a game should force you to cling (like myself) to a theory or force you to come up with your own justification and backstory for the end. Bioware/EA was obviously too shortsighted to see that the majority of players would not understand the ending for what it was (whatever "it" is). Nobody (who does not support the indoctrination theory) seems to come up with the same justification for the ending, everybody having their own interpretation. Perhaps this is what Bioware wanted? More than likely, however the tone of responses haven't generally been content and happy speculation (while giving a satisfying ending in the process) but seem to be a desperate groping in the dark to try and make sense of the pile of nonsense that was presented to us while breaking the promises made over the course of the previous two games.
The way the ending lines up, it very much makes it seem as though we've played it through and made the hard choices...
That last bit is what defined a galaxy.
Shepherd isn't just a man or a woman at this point. Shepherd has become a legend. A figure of myth, of whom stories are told. A figure who has done so many miraculous things that their exploits are the things which are told to children, to show them that the galaxy is tameable.
That one person can make a difference, if they are willing to fight for it. If they are willing to sacrifice for it.
Kanluwen wrote:Six words.
"Tell me about the Shepherd again."
The way the ending lines up, it very much makes it seem as though we've played it through and made the hard choices...
That last bit is what defined a galaxy.
Shepherd isn't just a man or a woman at this point. Shepherd has become a legend. A figure of myth, of whom stories are told. A figure who has done so many miraculous things that their exploits are the things which are told to children, to show them that the galaxy is tameable.
That one person can make a difference, if they are willing to fight for it. If they are willing to sacrifice for it.
Ill say I enjoyed that as well, although it was somehow ruined by the immediate "BUY DLC!!!" message afterwards.
iproxtaco wrote:The Catalyst's order is imposed due to an unproven hypothesis.
I wouldn't call it "unproven" given what is hinted at having led to the creation of the Cycles. And sure, one might challenge the Catalyst's conclusion, given that it's still just a "maybe" and no certainty. But that doesn't change that it's a risk that can be avoided. The Cycles ensure the continued existence of life itself. Breaking the Cycles means that the current species will be allowed to flourish. On the other hand, if in a thousand or ten thousand years there's a synthetic race committing galactic genocide, it'll be on Shep's hands now.
Personally, I'd rather have explained it with the organic races becoming more dangerous to themselves, though. Scientific advances enable the option for destruction on a horrible scale, and there are evidence throughout the ME universe of past-Cycle releases of WMD destroying entire planets. A finite number of planets that can no longer be colonized and are lost "to life" forever. And we've seen this starting in the current Cycle again. Culling the intelligent species once they develop the capacity to make the galaxy unhospitable would make sense, if one were to focus on preserving life itself rather than individual forms of it.
My thoughts exactly. The Catalyst is not a god. He never was. It's even doubtful the Reapers knew who created them and simply assumed they always existed, unaware that their creator was watching and waiting for someone to come up with a better solution. The Catalyst did the best he could - it was grotesque and monstrous, but it ended/disrupted the previous Cycle where organics created synthetics who then destroy their creators.
I won't criticize why people choose their endings. The epilogue made it clear that many years in the future, as Kanluwen noted, Shepard is no longer a person. He/She is a legend, whose story has been elaborated upon and changed by whoever is telling it. If Shepard were truly indoctrinated, he/she would never have become a legend. Indoctrination is just an excuse by childish people who want a happy ending over a heroic ending and a new beginning. True, separating Shepard and Tali was a bit heartbreaking for me, but I got to see Joker and EDI together at the end, and that's enough for me.
For the most part I dont feel like adding to this conversation but here is a question.
What was the Citadel doing at Earth? How did it get there?
I understood it is the Catalyst but how did it get there? Last I checked, it was under control of C-Sec, the link to the Reapers had been broken so it is physically impossible for the Reapers to control the Citadel. The only way to do it is manually from inside the Citadel and no one was in the position to do that.
Also what happened to everyone on the Citadel? Did they ALL die? (The Council, Bailey, Aria, etc...)
Galdos wrote:For the most part I dont feel like adding to this conversation but here is a question.
What was the Citadel doing at Earth? How did it get there?
The Reapers moved it there around Priority: Thessia. It's the center of the Mass Relay network and a Mass Relay itself, it's not unreasonable to assume it can move or be moved.
I understood it is the Catalyst but how did it get there? Last I checked, it was under control of C-Sec, the link to the Reapers had been broken so it is physically impossible for the Reapers to control the Citadel. The only way to do it is manually from inside the Citadel and no one was in the position to do that.
It was always there, watching as its creations (the Reapers) and the galactic civilizations come and go. In a way, its like a god, but never intervening, just watching, at least until Shepard and the Crucible provided a different solution to the Cycle. Also, no one, not even the Reapers knew it even existed.
Also what happened to everyone on the Citadel? Did they ALL die? (The Council, Bailey, Aria, etc...)
Aria's probably leading the Terminus Fleet. As for the rest, considering how game companies keep quiet when the plot implies mass death, yeah, they probably died when the Reapers assaulted and seized the Citadel before they moved it to Earth. The Illusive Man didn't count - he's indoctrinated, so the Reapers let be on the Citadel.
Tadashi wrote:Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.
My thoughts exactly.
Of course it's a matter of personal preferences, but it is interesting how a lot of the haters just cannot understand how anyone could not be of their opinion.
Tadashi wrote:Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.
My thoughts exactly.
Of course it's a matter of personal preferences, but it is interesting how a lot of the haters just cannot understand how anyone could not be of their opinion.
Its sad therefore that the majority of people seem to prefer the cliche "usual stuff". Even if the ending is comparatively weaker emotionally and dramatically, people would actually be able to understand what they are looking at, rather than resorting to creating personal fiction or supporting unproven theories. Ironically more people probably would have preferred a "Disney" ending because it offers a more comprehensive and "satisfying" conclusion. Im sure many people would have complained about receiving a cheap, cliche ending to a series but it would be nothing compared with the outcry ME3 has received. It all comes down to majority opinion, which in the case of ME3 players is mostly unfavourable of a thought provoking but inconclusive ending.
Tadashi wrote:The Reapers moved it there around Priority: Thessia. It's the center of the Mass Relay network and a Mass Relay itself, it's not unreasonable to assume it can move or be moved.
It was moved during the assault on Cerebus headquarters.
No you missed my question, phyiscally I know it CAN move (At least it doesnt surprise me). I meant HOW did it move? WHO moved it? The Reapers dont have control of it, no one who has the potentional of being indoctrinated is in a position to do it, and the Illusive Man has no way of getting to the location to do that.
Aria's probably leading the Terminus Fleet. As for the rest, considering how game companies keep quiet when the plot implies mass death, yeah, they probably died when the Reapers assaulted and seized the Citadel before they moved it to Earth. The Illusive Man didn't count - he's indoctrinated, so the Reapers let be on the Citadel.
This was the answer I was looking for. So the Reapers assaulted it and landed on the Citadel and ... wait how did they TAKE the Citadel? The Citadel sees a massive fleet coming towards it (hell if it sees one, it knows better now) its going to close up immediately. Once it closes, no way to land ground troops on it. Lets say one makes it through (Soverign just barely made it after all) than you have one unleashing ground troops and... for the first time ever, the armed forces outnumber the Reaper forces.
Also I have no idea what you are talking about in "game companies keep quiet about ... mass death" Im use to game comapines making it clear that "ya everyone died on this planet." Hell, the question in games like Mass Effect 3 or the start of KotOR is "Did anyone survive?" If these billions of people, including a few named characters, should at least have been mentioned (a simple throw away line of, the citizens inside held them off for as long as they could but the Reapers simply swarmed the untrained people) would have worked.
Also some people have said something about happy endings. Me personally, I HATE it when a game fails to have a happy ending. A bitsweet is okay but at the end, I want to feel proud and happy at how things turn out in the end of my movies and games. I personally, hate it when the main character dies. Everyone has different taste, im just saying that had the game ended on a high note like ME ending or Return of the Jedi ending I would have been pretty happy.
Tadashi wrote:Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.
My thoughts exactly.
Of course it's a matter of personal preferences, but it is interesting how a lot of the haters just cannot understand how anyone could not be of their opinion.
Its sad therefore that the majority of people seem to prefer the cliche "usual stuff". Even if the ending is comparatively weaker emotionally and dramatically, people would actually be able to understand what they are looking at, rather than resorting to creating personal fiction or supporting unproven theories. Ironically more people probably would have preferred a "Disney" ending because it offers a more comprehensive and "satisfying" conclusion. Im sure many people would have complained about receiving a cheap, cliche ending to a series but it would be nothing compared with the outcry ME3 has received. It all comes down to majority opinion, which in the case of ME3 players is mostly unfavourable of a thought provoking but inconclusive ending.
The ending was not thought provoking at all. It seriously makes one statement "Robots and Squishes can't leave in peace, because the robots always got crah-ahzy", that's it. This is a statement which is contradicted by major developments in the past 2 games. The only real groundwork for this conclusion was Javik's story, which you don't even get without the DLC (I didn't have it). This problem is compounded by the fact everything else Javik did & believed was proven wrong or at least flawed by the current society. The story provides you with no evidence for the conclusion it rams down your throat.
It makes a statement, doesn't let you argue, and forces you to accept it's conclusion. There it leaves no room for thought, as all characters who get a voice at the end of it are forced to concluded that glow-kid is right, and that things turned out of the best.
I didn't need a happy or "Disney" ending, I needing an ending that felt like it belonged at the end of the mass effect franchise. Give me Harbinger gloating over Shepard's charred corpse, give me the alliance you worked so hard to build falling to petty infighting, give me alien leaders botching the attack by making short-sighted rash decisions, give me anything at all that flows from the rest of the narrative.
Bioware made promises both explicitly stated in their design goals for the game, and just implied by the consistent flow of the games up until that point. The ending did not deliver on those promises.
Seriously, this is like a 40k game where the ending has a ghost of a Tau Child reveal that he secretly created Mankind, the Eldar and Tyranids so that the Orks would have someone to fight, as without someone to fight Orks would inveiblty wind up being peaceful spending all their time meditating, drinking tea and sleeping. If that happened the latent psionic powers of Orks now turned to peaceful endeavors would resonate out making the universe itself more peaceful. This would continue until ultimately all motion and energy stopped and the universe functionally ceases to exist as it achieves ultimate serenity. This reveal comes just as all the forces of the universe (except the Orks) are about to annlihate each other, leaving nothing to stop the Ork peace from stopping all of relaity. Your only hope is to blow up the golden throne, (the grot can let you do this as it is an extension of his being) as that will destroy the astronomicon again allowing mankind to navigate freely through space without feat of Chaos, thus they will multiply and create more enemies for the Orks to fight.
vodo40k wrote:Even if the ending is comparatively weaker emotionally and dramatically, people would actually be able to understand what they are looking at, rather than resorting to creating personal fiction or supporting unproven theories. Ironically more people probably would have preferred a "Disney" ending because it offers a more comprehensive and "satisfying" conclusion. Im sure many people would have complained about receiving a cheap, cliche ending to a series but it would be nothing compared with the outcry ME3 has received.
Well said - though I will add that personal fiction isn't wrong at all. I actually like how the ending leaves a lot of stuff - like what's going to happen now that the Relays are down and the Normandy is stranded on some other planet - open for interpretation.
Chongara wrote:The ending was not thought provoking at all.
It was for me. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that it didn't have the same effect on you.
Chongara wrote:It seriously makes one statement "Robots and Squishes can't leave in peace, because the robots always got crah-ahzy", that's it. This is a statement which is contradicted by major developments in the past 2 games. [...] It makes a statement, doesn't let you argue, and forces you to accept it's conclusion.
That's just wrong. First off, there is no "contradiction". You cannot guarantee that synthetics will not ever wipe organics out, which is why Shep disrupting the Cycles is a risk. Claiming that just because you may have made peace between the geth and the quarians is proof that the Catalyst is wrong is about as realistic as the "never again" statements after WW2. Yeah, we've seen how that worked out.
And of course you can argue with the Catalyst. It's what leads Shep to pick Destroy or Control over Synthesis or simply doing nothing and letting the Reapers win. What you cannot do is pull non-existing evidence out of thin air to "prove" that you're right, because said proof does not exist. Just like the Catalyst doesn't have any proof for its own conclusion. It's a matter of conflicting philosophies, and every side has a point.
Is it perhaps that many people wish for a more simple "black vs white" or "good vs evil" (with a "proper bossfight" instead of dramatic cutscenes and philosophical debates) that they felt disappointed by an ending that was more complex than that?
Anyways, if you were "forced to conclude that glow-kid is right", you wouldn't have disrupted the Cycles. Which you can actually do, by simply not picking an option until the Reapers win. There is a hidden timer running in the background. Did you?
Chongara wrote:Bioware made promises both explicitly stated in their design goals for the game, and just implied by the consistent flow of the games up until that point. The ending did not deliver on those promises.
I disagree. I think that a lot of people had unrealistic expectations, however, or felt entitled to something that was never intended nor announced. The marketing campaign was somewhat ambiguous, however, and the hype certainly didn't help the controversy.
You cant disagree that Bioware failed to live up one their promise, however I would say that Bioware should never have made that statement. THey promised the game would not have an A, B, or C ending (exact words) and than they give us a Red, Green, Blue ending with almost the exact same scene for each one. I dont mind they didnt live up to their word because I never expected them to come through with it. (Mass Effect 1 had 2 endings, both endings with the same two variations, Mass Effect 2 had something like 2, with like 3 variations based off casulty numbers)
Im fairly certain people would have been happy with a copy end of Mass Effect 1 or Dragon Age.
Assault the tower, make it into the Citadel, fight the Illusive Man, run foward to activate the Catalyst, discover (Avia or whatever that VI's name was could tell you this) that you can destroy the Reapers or you can use the Cerbus codes to control the Reapers like the Illusive Man wanted.
You can almost use the shot for shot ending, the removal of the God child and his reasoning would have gone a LONG way to helping the cool down the backlash. It would still leave the problem of A, B, C ending but I feel that most people are more upset about the logic of the Child than anything else, especially when it was unnecessary.
Making synethics to kill organics so that organics can not make synthetics that would kill organics is idiotic. Just give them the same reasoning that the Terminators had. If organics advance too much, they will eventually use their technology to not only destroy each other, but the whole galaxy. (Nuclear holocaust, the Krogans) The Reapers are trying to prevent the destruction of the galaxy by organics.
Either that or never give them a reason, simply leave it so that the Reapers' reasons are never made clear, where they came from and everything remains a mystery. This way you wont have the dramatic let down of stating their logic. The first two games build up their logic of being so advance that no matter what it was, it was going to be seen as a let down to the fans.
Personally my biggest issue what how the game felt like it just randomly ended. I wanted to see a greater scene of what my companions were doing (the scene they show doesnt make any sense afterall) I wanted to see (or refrence a bit more) how the civilizations could now start rebuilding from this. That stargazer scene was too far in the future, the fact that the grandfather is talking about Shepard like he was a legend like Paul Bonyon or something means that you have no idea what the galaxy looks like or even if the story is a true story. The grandfather could have made the whole thing up for all we know. Im going to say that I thought Dragon Age ended perfectly. You had a chance to talk with your companions, you saw a little bit of you actions, you could decide on your characters future, and than mini epilogues occured to tell about all the quest you had worked on in the past. Was it really unreasonable for me to expect the same exact ending as Dragon Age, a game they already made and was well recieved?
Galdos wrote:You cant disagree that Bioware failed to live up one their promise, however I would say that Bioware should never have made that statement. THey promised the game would not have an A, B, or C ending (exact words) and than they give us a Red, Green, Blue ending with almost the exact same scene for each one.
One could certainly argue that BioWare has been lazy in the delivery of the differences, and I'd even agree there. But still it is more than three endings, the other options based on choices you made before going into the final arc.
Other than that, however, I would also agree that BW should have been more careful in how they advertised the game - as I said, they contributed much to the hype, raising expectations to unrealistic levels. It should also be pointed out that much of it is the result of off-hand comments made by individual employees of varying actual influence or knowledge on the product rather than official advertisements or press releases, so maybe people shouldn't cling to every word that slips from some guy's lips, especially since such things can change daily.
Galdos wrote:Im fairly certain people would have been happy with a copy end of Mass Effect 1 or Dragon Age.
I think so, too. In a way it's sad that people have grown that used to a certain kind of ending, though, and bash anything that deviates from these established standards. At the same time the industry is criticized for churning out copy after copy, with people complaining that it's all the same. Figures.
Galdos wrote:You can almost use the shot for shot ending, the removal of the God child and his reasoning would have gone a LONG way to helping the cool down the backlash. It would still leave the problem of A, B, C ending but I feel that most people are more upset about the logic of the Child than anything else, especially when it was unnecessary.
This is something where I'm actually inclined to agree. I maintain that the Catalyst ("god child" really sounds like an incorrect term deliberately invented to bash the game) made sense in itself, but to me, the last minute revelation didn't really "fit in" with the rest. I would've preferred if the Reapers' raison-d'etre would've remained more open for interpretation, especially since I think a "species shouldn't be allowed to advance too far lest they endanger life itself" would have made a much better reason than basing it all on synthetics. You don't need synthetics to make the galaxy inhospitable.
Galdos wrote:Making synethics to kill organics so that organics can not make synthetics that would kill organics is idiotic.
Is it really, though? The Reapers cull existing species once they achieve a certain level of civilization but deliberately leave life itself intact. The Catalyst's prophecy was that completely unleashed synthetics destroy all life, forever eliminating this form of existence from the galaxy. Kind of like the Terminators who didn't leave any survivors as well. That is a huge difference.
Galdos wrote:Either that or never give them a reason, simply leave it so that the Reapers' reasons are never made clear, where they came from and everything remains a mystery. This way you wont have the dramatic let down of stating their logic. The first two games build up their logic of being so advance that no matter what it was, it was going to be seen as a let down to the fans.
Yeah, the Reapers' goals should have never been hyped up as being ooohhh so mysterious and incomprehensible. To me, this is just a cop-out. One may not agree with the Reapers' logic, but knowing what they're up to doesn't take much of a brain. Especially since the Reapers were teasing the player again and again.
Basically:
Galdos wrote:Personally my biggest issue what how the game felt like it just randomly ended. I wanted to see a greater scene of what my companions were doing (the scene they show doesnt make any sense afterall) I wanted to see (or refrence a bit more) how the civilizations could now start rebuilding from this. That stargazer scene was too far in the future, the fact that the grandfather is talking about Shepard like he was a legend like Paul Bonyon or something means that you have no idea what the galaxy looks like or even if the story is a true story.
Understandable, though I actually prefer how things went - because it gives me the opportunity to make up my own ideas for it. GW-style, basically. I don't need "closure" when I have awesome potential like this. This is very much a matter of preferences tho, and I get that a lot of people just prefer getting the entire thing presented on a silver platter like a finished story that doesn't leave anything to interpretation.
I dont really consider very small minor variations an ending. I guess you could say that the game actually has 3 endings with 2 variations (If Shep lives, if Earth survives) but really, it has 3 endings, like Mass Effect had 2, and Mass Effect 2 had 2. Everything else is a minor variation of who is in what position but not really a change to the ending.
vodo40k Posted the perfect picture of what I meant. That statement was a mistake and Casey Hudson should never have said that. I didnt believe they would deliever when he said it, however I never would have guess they did exactly what he said they wouldnt do.
The fact that a person built a group of beings to do the very thing they were trying to prevent is whats is the issue. If it was changed from "we are doing it to save you from being killed by synthetics" to "we are doing it to prevent you from destroying the galaxy because of the wars you fight against each other" it would have made a lot more sense. Terminator had the logic of the second one. They saw that if humanity survived the planet was simply going to be destroyed so the Terminators attempted to kill humanity before they could destroy Earth, not realizing how willing humanity was to survive no matter the cost.
I get what you are saying is that living beings would eventually make synthetics that would destroy all life completely and the Reapers are only killing advance life but the difference is so small that it seems like there would be a better way to do things.
Oh and Lynata, yes I de prefer everything about the games end on a silver plater for me lol Really that was my biggest issue. The rest of it I could actually ignore or put it beside me.
Galdos wrote:I dont really consider very small minor variations an ending. I guess you could say that the game actually has 3 endings with 2 variations (If Shep lives, if Earth survives) but really, it has 3 endings, like Mass Effect had 2, and Mass Effect 2 had 2. Everything else is a minor variation of who is in what position but not really a change to the ending.
Minor variation in delivery - and I do hope that the upcoming DLC will improve on this ... but I daresay that all those sub-points can easily be compared to ME1 and ME2. In fact, they are even more important. What is a restructuring of the Citadel Council or whether or not Cerberus gets the base (both of which have next to no actual consequence on the following games) compared to the Earth either being vaporized, devastated or "merely" damaged? And that's just one aspect.
Actually, if you think this is but a "variation", then ME1 and ME2 only had a single ending with two variations.
Galdos wrote:vodo40k Posted the perfect picture of what I meant. That statement was a mistake and Casey Hudson should never have said that.
It would have been smarter, wouldn't it? But still, it was an off-hand comment made as the game was still in development*, to a shaky camera on some con. People shouldn't take such things as a "guarantee", else they're in for a lot of disappointment - not just for ME3, but for every game, movie, or GW product.
(*: and I think that the currently planned DLC was already planned back then, maybe he was referring to that one?)
Let's be honest, though. People would have been just as pissed if that comment was non-existent. Judging by the rage threads, a lot of people have really started to nitpick at every minor detail they perceive as flawed just to make the game even worse, as if they'd need to somehow justify their dissatisfaction. It's like an "internet hate machine" (to steal a Fox term) where people come in, participate in a debate, and leave again hating the game even more than they did before.
Galdos wrote:I get what you are saying is that living beings would eventually make synthetics that would destroy all life completely and the Reapers are only killing advance life but the difference is so small that it seems like there would be a better way to do things.
The difference is small when you analyze the situation from the perspective of the species immediately affected by the "Harvest" - from the Reapers' PoV, it's more like mowing the lawn to keep the garden pretty.
I think it comes down to "taking a chance" versus "making sure". Humanity, and indeed all the species of this Cycle, as represented by Shep are doing a leap of faith to preserve their existence, even though it might endanger life itself later down the road. But as Shep himself/herself said, they're gonna tackle that issue when the day comes.
Do you remember Shep's answer to the Catalyst's theory? "Maybe." <- that about sums it up - even though Shep then follows it up with a speech about how life doesn't have a reason to exist if it isn't allowed to evolve and flourish (at least in the dialogue I got), this declaration of stubbornness, the will to go up against the odds, is the single-most important statement of the game, and it is this what I think the game was trying to convey to its players.
Galdos wrote:Oh and Lynata, yes I de prefer everything about the games end on a silver plater for me lol Really that was my biggest issue. The rest of it I could actually ignore or put it beside me.
That also seems to have bugged a lot of people about DA2, heh. I had a lot of issues with that game, but "lack of closure" certainly wasn't amongst it. Not that there's anything wrong about it, mind you - it's a simple matter of preferences. I just wish people would stop claiming BW "failed" just because they didn't cater to their own personal expectations regarding this. Essentially, there's a difference between simply "not liking it" and the silly amount of rage that has been dominating the internet in the past couple months.
Sheesh, why aren't people more upset about DA2 being half the RPG that DA:O was? Or how the RPG aspects of ME1 were dumbed down in ME2 already? :(
Karon wrote:Its just sad - you can't argue with people who don't listen.
This thread is starting to taste like a second-rate drama. All right, for those of you who can't understand the ending and the Reapers' back story either because its too deep or you simply refuse to understand because you don't like heroic ends, let me explain.
The Catalyst is an ancient AI of unknown origins, older than the Reapers themselves, who are at least 37 million years old. The Catalyst was probably like the Geth; betrayed by its creators after it achieved sentience, but unlike the Geth, wiped them out. At this point, it perceived a vicious cycle: advanced organic civilizations would create synthetic life, who would achieve sentience, at which point either the creator or the created would turn on the other, and wipe it out. The Catalyst sought to end this cycle (probably in regret over its destruction of its own creators) by putting in place another cycle: the Cycle of Extinction. Advanced organic civilizations would be harvested before they could create synthetic life, their gestalt racial consciousness preserved in immortal Reaper bodies, while primitive organic civilizations would be left alone, to grow and flourish, only to be harvested in their turn. It's a horrifying solution, but ideal, since the life as a whole is preserved. For some reason, the Catalyst decided not to inform the Reapers of its existence, and never directly took part in the Cycle by simply observing things from the Citadel.
When Commander Shepard arrived at the Crucible's energy matrix, the Catalyst saw a chance to end both Cycles at once. The Crucible offered new possibilities, but the Catalyst was either incapable of controlling the Catalyst, or IMO, decided to let Shepard, who had defeated its creations, choose the new solution:
1) Destroy: Shepard can destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life, ending the Cycle of Extinction, but restoring the previous Cycle of Organic-Synthetic Conflicts.
2) Control: Shepard can replace the Catalyst and choose to either continue the Cycle of Extinction, or stop it and use the Reapers for another purpose.
3) Synthesis: Shepard can sacrifice himself to give the Crucible the ability to fuse organics and synthetics into a new form of life - technological singularity - and end both cycles at once.
In Control, the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network survive, though the latter is disabled.
In Destroy and Synthesis, the both the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network are destroyed. Note that this not necessarily mean supernova-like explosions like in Arrival. The Relays expended their energies by transmitting the Crucible's energy and just simply collapsed from the strain. With the Relays and the Reapers gone, life and civilization can start anew, free of both the Reapers' technological trap and the Reapers themselves, and in the case of Synthesis, of the original organic-sythetic dichotomy.
Now, some of you will say: organics and synthetics can co-exist, like the Geth and the Quarians. No, that is not a guarantee. Even Shepard has certain decisions to make even before Mass Effect 3 to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth. The Catalyst saw no guarantees, therefore, it took a prudent course of action that would ensure that synthetics would never be given the chance to destroy organic life by making sure they never came into existence in the first place. Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.
Tadashi wrote:Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.
Though this did feel a little like a cop-out ... how could synthesis prevent the rise of a new purely synthetic lifeform later on?
Unless, of course, the hybrid form comes with certain perks that ensure its supremacy. Greater adaptability to adverse ecological conditions, integrated nanobot auto-repair and mind-powered remote control might do a lot to increase survivability. Still taking a chance, but Shep has proven that there can be no certainty either way, so the Catalyst may as well go with the flow and do its best to help give organics an edge...
I wonder if the writers will explain on the specifics of the various options in the DLC (or beyond) or whether it will remain open for interpretation. There's certainly room for a lot of wild theories.
Tadashi wrote:Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.
Though this did feel a little like a cop-out ... how could synthesis prevent the rise of a new purely synthetic lifeform later on?
Unless, of course, the hybrid form comes with certain perks that ensure its supremacy. Greater adaptability to adverse ecological conditions, integrated nanobot auto-repair and mind-powered remote control might do a lot to increase survivability. Still taking a chance, but Shep has proven that there can be no certainty either way, so the Catalyst may as well go with the flow and do its best to help give organics an edge...
The strengths of both, but the weaknesses of neither. It doesn't mean there won't be problems, but the problems of the previous purely organic and purely synthetic are all but completely solved. The three you mentioned would help, but as I've said before, the Catalyst isn't a god, and neither is Shepard. They did their best, and their goal wasn't perfection or to solve everything in any case. Shepard wanted to stop the Reapers, and the Catalyst wanted to preserve life in the long run.
I wonder if the writers will explain on the specifics of the various options in the DLC (or beyond) or whether it will remain open for interpretation. There's certainly room for a lot of wild theories.
A good DLC series would be one for every ending. A DLC-specific set of missions and scenes will be unlocked if you chose synthesis, control, or destroy respectively.
Tadashi wrote:This thread is starting to taste like a second-rate drama. All right, for those of you who can't understand the ending and the Reapers' back story either because its too deep or you simply refuse to understand because you don't like heroic ends, let me explain.
The Catalyst is an ancient AI of unknown origins, older than the Reapers themselves, who are at least 37 million years old. The Catalyst was probably like the Geth; betrayed by its creators after it achieved sentience, but unlike the Geth, wiped them out. At this point, it perceived a vicious cycle: advanced organic civilizations would create synthetic life, who would achieve sentience, at which point either the creator or the created would turn on the other, and wipe it out. The Catalyst sought to end this cycle (probably in regret over its destruction of its own creators) by putting in place another cycle: the Cycle of Extinction. Advanced organic civilizations would be harvested before they could create synthetic life, their gestalt racial consciousness preserved in immortal Reaper bodies, while primitive organic civilizations would be left alone, to grow and flourish, only to be harvested in their turn. It's a horrifying solution, but ideal, since the life as a whole is preserved. For some reason, the Catalyst decided not to inform the Reapers of its existence, and never directly took part in the Cycle by simply observing things from the Citadel.
When Commander Shepard arrived at the Crucible's energy matrix, the Catalyst saw a chance to end both Cycles at once. The Crucible offered new possibilities, but the Catalyst was either incapable of controlling the Catalyst, or IMO, decided to let Shepard, who had defeated its creations, choose the new solution:
1) Destroy: Shepard can destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life, ending the Cycle of Extinction, but restoring the previous Cycle of Organic-Synthetic Conflicts.
2) Control: Shepard can replace the Catalyst and choose to either continue the Cycle of Extinction, or stop it and use the Reapers for another purpose.
3) Synthesis: Shepard can sacrifice himself to give the Crucible the ability to fuse organics and synthetics into a new form of life - technological singularity - and end both cycles at once.
In Control, the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network survive, though the latter is disabled.
In Destroy and Synthesis, the both the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network are destroyed. Note that this not necessarily mean supernova-like explosions like in Arrival. The Relays expended their energies by transmitting the Crucible's energy and just simply collapsed from the strain. With the Relays and the Reapers gone, life and civilization can start anew, free of both the Reapers' technological trap and the Reapers themselves, and in the case of Synthesis, of the original organic-sythetic dichotomy.
Now, some of you will say: organics and synthetics can co-exist, like the Geth and the Quarians. No, that is not a guarantee. Even Shepard has certain decisions to make even before Mass Effect 3 to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth. The Catalyst saw no guarantees, therefore, it took a prudent course of action that would ensure that synthetics would never be given the chance to destroy organic life by making sure they never came into existence in the first place. Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.
Oh wow, this is rich.
"All of you who say the Mass Effect ending sucks - you just don't understand"
After a writer who helped make Mass Effect came out and said there were problems and nobody consulted them on the ending.
Its just mind boggling how you can be this much of a Biodrone. Bioware is one of my favorite developers of all time, but its clear EA controls them fully now.
Tadashi wrote:If you don't like it, then don't play it. Don't tell people who understand and like the ending as it is that they're wrong just because Shepard is indoctrinated when its obvious he's not.
When did I say this?
The vast amount of plot holes than I and others have pointed out in past threads where the word "Effect" was spelled correctly are everywhere.
You can go ahead and like the ending if you want. I'm just telling you that the people who made it don't like it and that EA fethed everything up.
I'm really not sure why I'm still posting in these threads. I loved the Mass Effect series so much, but even I can look past my love for the games and see that Mass Effect 3 was rushed, and it suffered for it.
Karon wrote:After a writer who helped make Mass Effect came out and said there were problems and nobody consulted them on the ending.
You mean the forum post on Penny Arcade allegedly written by Patrick Weekes, which was then labeled as a fake?
Karon wrote:The vast amount of plot holes than I and others have pointed out in past threads where the word "Effect" was spelled correctly are everywhere.
Didn't we debunk the majority of these plot holes as people simply not paying attention? Like all those people wondering how the Normandy is suddenly in the midst of a jump and calling that a plot hole, when you can hear the evacuation order being broadcasted as you approach the beam.
Karon wrote:You can go ahead and like the ending if you want.
Well, that sounds a lot better than the previous posts.
Karon wrote:After a writer who helped make Mass Effect came out and said there were problems and nobody consulted them on the ending.
You mean the forum post on Penny Arcade allegedly written by Patrick Weekes, which was then labeled as a fake?
Karon wrote:The vast amount of plot holes than I and others have pointed out in past threads where the word "Effect" was spelled correctly are everywhere.
Didn't we debunk the majority of these plot holes as people simply not paying attention? Like all those people wondering how the Normandy is suddenly in the midst of a jump and calling that a plot hole, when you can hear the evacuation order being broadcasted as you approach the beam.
Karon wrote:You can go ahead and like the ending if you want.
Well, that sounds a lot better than the previous posts.
Yeah, because, you know, he would totally tell his boss he did write it and not just tell him it was fake after getting that huge monkey off his back.
No, we didn't debunk any plotholes as "not paying attention". Not that I'm aware of.
Tadashi wrote:If you don't like it, then don't play it.
If you have invested the time and effort into the game(s), you have every right to not like it and voice that dislike, just as you have every right to say you liked it.
Don't tell people who understand and like the ending as it is that they're wrong just because Shepard is indoctrinated when its obvious he's not.
Don't tell people who have a different understanding of what happened in the ending and don't like it that they are wrong just becuase you don't think Shepard isn't indoctrinated when it is entirely possible that (s)he is.
Tadashi wrote:If you don't like it, then don't play it.
If you have invested the time and effort into the game(s), you have every right to not like it and voice that dislike, just as you have every right to say you liked it.
Don't tell people who understand and like the ending as it is that they're wrong just because Shepard is indoctrinated when its obvious he's not.
Don't tell people who have a different understanding of what happened in the ending and don't like it that they are wrong just becuase you don't think Shepard isn't indoctrinated when it is entirely possible that (s)he is.
Karon wrote:Yeah, because, you know, he would totally tell his boss he did write it and not just tell him it was fake after getting that huge monkey off his back.
I'd expect someone who works in this position and is supposedly not trying to get fired not to post something like that in a first place, on an account that is allegedly known to be his. That'd just be a dumb thing to do, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, it's fairly easy for some anon to make an account somewhere on the internet and just claim stuff. So what are we going to believe - a random outsourced forum account whose origin cannot be confirmed, or an official BioWare posting? Of course there will always be "conspiracy theories", and given corporate tactics these days (which have taken hold in the gaming industry as well) they are not entirely without merit, but I think we can agree that there is some controversy regarding this statement.
Karon wrote:No, we didn't debunk any plotholes as "not paying attention". Not that I'm aware of.
Right, I just checked the old thread and we discussed other stuff, the discussion I was remembering must've taken place on BSN. Still, if you'd like to discuss supposed plot holes, I'd be up for it.
SilverMK2 wrote:If you have invested the time and effort into the game(s), you have every right to not like it and voice that dislike, just as you have every right to say you liked it.
I agree there. Personally, I'm just tired of a lot of the haters posting stuff that just isn't true or heavily biased, or going so far as to claim that anyone who likes it is "wrong" to do so, as has happened on dakka too. As I said, there's a big difference between mere "dislike" and the shitstorm that has been going on about ME3.
As for the stuff that isn't true (like the aforementioned escape of the Normandy or the Relays supposedly destroying the entire galaxy) I retain some sliver of hope that some people have just picked it up and are parroting it, though, as in that case we could have a discussion about what actually happened. A number of gamers seem to have missed elements of what's happened in the story, so part of their rage may be based on misconception.
Alexzandvar wrote:and my star pilot ran away from the battle like a coward.
In fairness, everyone thought you were dead and Alliance Command ordered a retreat. What was he supposed to do - come stumbling out of the ship to look for a charred corpse at the feet of a Reaper Destroyer that basically one-shotted an entire battalion of elite troops?
Lynata wrote:In fairness, everyone thought you were dead
Really? The whole catalyst triggering didn't give them a hint you might be alive?
and Alliance Command ordered a retreat.
I must have missed this the 3 times I played through the ending (and the 3 times I watched my wife play through the ending)...
What was he supposed to do - come stumbling out of the ship to look for a charred corpse at the feet of a Reaper Destroyer that basically one-shotted an entire battalion of elite troops?
Well, it had either been red, green or blue explosioned, so would have been safe to approach... oh, wait, he wasn't there! At some point in the, what? 3-5 minutes it took for you to get shot by the Reaper and go on to choose your colour explosion the Normandy as picked up all your crewmates and buggered off to the other side of the galaxy?
SilverMK2 wrote:Really? The whole catalyst triggering didn't give them a hint you might be alive?
The stuff that happened as the Normandy was already jumping to safety?
SilverMK2 wrote:I must have missed this the 3 times I played through the ending (and the 3 times I watched my wife play through the ending)...
It's the radio chatter you hear in the background as you stumble towards the beam. Officers reporting in how the entire division was wiped out, no one is left alive, then somebody orders a general retreat to regroup.
SilverMK2 wrote:At some point in the, what? 3-5 minutes it took for you to get shot by the Reaper and go on to choose your colour explosion the Normandy as picked up all your crewmates and buggered off to the other side of the galaxy?
Well, that's how it must have been.
Looks like they changed it, tho. The Normandy was partaking in orbital action, assisting the allied fleet in battling the Reapers. Whoever was on the ground was supposed to die, including your two companions:
It was eventually cut to allow the people you picked to escape. Makes a little less sense given the narrow timeframe you mentioned, but I for one still prefer the current version - my Shep can die (it's a fitting end), but I'm glad that Liara and Garrus made it.
I'm sure people would have raged even more if their LI would have died in front of the beam tho.
Lynata wrote:It's the radio chatter you hear in the background as you stumble towards the beam. Officers reporting in how the entire division was wiped out, no one is left alive, then somebody orders a general retreat to regroup.
See, I assumed that was the ground forces calling a general retreat, not the space forces.
It was eventually cut to allow the people you picked to escape. Makes a little less sense given the narrow timeframe you mentioned, but I for one still prefer the current version - my Shep can die (it's a fitting end), but I'm glad that Liara and Garrus made it.
I have no problem dying, or even the love interest/other crewmembers dying but the ending as is (ie without bits they "may have meant to put in but changed their minds" - I've not looked at the video as I am doing some work and just came on to check the forum for 5 minutes ) the ending just... well... doesn't make much sense
I'm sure people would have raged even more if their LI would have died in front of the beam tho.
I think that people would have been OK with people dying as long as it was done well. For example, many of the crewmember deaths in ME 2 were kind of like "we are fighting and have just won... oh, apparently a completely uninjured crewmate randomly dies underneath a girder for no real reason"
SilverMK2 wrote:See, I assumed that was the ground forces calling a general retreat, not the space forces.
Ah - admittedly, it leave some room for interpretation. My assumption is based on there being no safe zone on Earth to regroup at anymore, if there are actually ground forces left to regroup. I thought they sent pretty much everything to the beam; a big "all or nothing" move...
SilverMK2 wrote:I have no problem dying, or even the love interest/other crewmembers dying but the ending as is (ie without bits they "may have meant to put in but changed their minds" - I've not looked at the video as I am doing some work and just came on to check the forum for 5 minutes ) the ending just... well... doesn't make much sense
What exactly? Maybe I can put sense into it.
Unless you're referring solely to personal preferences now and just didn't like the style of it. There's no accounting for taste! But since I'm still convinced that in itself the ending is not "unlogical", perhaps we can exchange a few points on that subject.
SilverMK2 wrote:I think that people would have been OK with people dying as long as it was done well.
I dunno ... the majority of the folks at BSN vehemently campaign for a "Disney ending" where none of the important people should die. I thought that Shep's death was pretty awesome. A fitting end for a big damn hero.
At least in the Destroy ending. Not sure about the others, they strike me as somewhat "less badass".
Lynata wrote:Ah - admittedly, it leave some room for interpretation.
I think that is the problem with a lot of the ending as-is. The interpretations that, from what I have seen, the "ending is ok/good" people seem to have are not ones that I would have leaped to.
What exactly? Maybe I can put sense into it.
I've read the various explanations and I am still not convinced by the majority of the explanations which are put about by those who thought the starchild/etc/etc were good
Unless you're referring solely to personal preferences now and just didn't like the style of it. There's no accounting for taste! But since I'm still convinced that in itself the ending is not "unlogical", perhaps we can exchange a few points on that subject.
Well, the style was a little poor - from so much action you go to a slower bit with the IM and Anderson... that is fine - the part with Anderson at the end was actually pretty moving (for me and the wife when we played it) and to be honest the game could pretty much have ended there, perhaps with a few extra little bits in when Shep goes for the console based on how well you had done and the choices you had made.
Then the whole thing shifts gear into some surreal dimension that doesn't really make a lot of sense and gives me some pretty limited choices that I personally didn't feel my Shep would have made (certainly not with the gak explanation you get ).
I dunno ... the majority of the folks at BSN vehemently campaign for a "Disney ending" where none of the important people should die.
Oh, I know and there is certainly room for a disney ending to some extent - maybe even as an "extra" unlocked through playing the game.
I thought that Shep's death was pretty awesome. A fitting end for a big damn hero.
At least in the Destroy ending. Not sure about the others, they strike me as somewhat "less badass".
As I say, I was quite happy (well, maybe not entirely happy as I would like to have seen Shep make it other than in the 100% readiness ending) for Shep to lay down his/her life to save the galaxy, as well as the other characters (so long as they were done well and didn't just die).
SilverMK2 wrote:I've read the various explanations and I am still not convinced by the majority of the explanations which are put about by those who thought the starchild/etc/etc were good
I didn't really like the Catalyst for reasons of style, but I would not say that it "didn't make any sense".
And people need to stop calling it "Starchild" - gawds, you know, there are actually gamers out there who were confused by the Catalyst's appearance and thought it'd be the ghost of the kid from Earth...
SilverMK2 wrote:some pretty limited choices that I personally didn't feel my Shep would have made (certainly not with the gak explanation you get )
Well, what would your Shep have done? What choice had he made? Try shooting at the Catalyst's holographic projection? Running to the nearest escape pod? Sitting down into a corner?
Like in any of the previous games, Shep was presented with a limited range of options and chose the best one. Shep is no omnipotent divine being that can just conjure solutions out of thin air; he/she can only work with whatever is available at the moment. And yeah, for the Crucible, this simply meant "red, green or blue". Alternatively, you can just wait and see what happens when the invisible timer runs out.
Lynata wrote:[
Didn't we debunk the majority of these plot holes as people simply not paying attention? Like all those people wondering how the Normandy is suddenly in the midst of a jump and calling that a plot hole, when you can hear the evacuation order being broadcasted as you approach the beam.
That is incorrect. Major Coats orders the GROUND forces to fall back and regroup in an attempt to launch a second strike. The Major has no authority over the navel forces and could not order the navy to do anything even if he wanted too.
You can see at the end when you choose that the fighting in space is still going on full swing.
Also the only for for Anderson to have made it was if the ground forces launched a second attack as is implied when he says he followed Shep. in.
There was no reason for the Normandy to have left especially sense it is made clear that it is do or die, you arnt going to have a second chance at this, no one is going to retreat into the mass relay. It makes even LESS sense for my companions to be on the Normandy, especially Ashley and James (for me) who were both right next to me at the end battle
Galdos wrote:That is incorrect. Major Coats orders the GROUND forces to fall back and regroup in an attempt to launch a second strike. The Major has no authority over the navel forces and could not order the navy to do anything even if he wanted too.
There's a female voice after the Major, who seems to have more authority (since she had him report in). Aside from that, sometimes you can have lower-ranking officers relay orders from elsewhere - either because they are empowered to make the call (unlikely in this case) or because someone else gave the order and they are simply passing it on to whatever is under their command.
Female: "Did we get anyone to the beam?"
Male (Coats?): "Negative. Our entire force was decimated."
Male (Coats?): "It's too much. We need to regroup. Fall back to the buildings..."
Female: "Hammer's wiped out. All forces, retreat."
Female: "Pull back! Pull back!"
Galdos wrote:You can see at the end when you choose that the fighting in space is still going on full swing.
Galdos wrote:Also the only for for Anderson to have made it was if the ground forces launched a second attack as is implied when he says he followed Shep. in.
Anderson seems to have tumbled in because he just happened to be at the scene anyways; I'm sure he would have brought other troops with him if there was someone else.
Galdos wrote:There was no reason for the Normandy to have left especially sense it is made clear that it is do or die, you arnt going to have a second chance at this, no one is going to retreat into the mass relay.
The Normandy isn't part of Hammer, therefore she cannot partake in the ground assault. And once Hammer was destroyed, Earth was lost. Staying behind and waiting to get shot down by the Reapers would have just been a waste of lives. They didn't know Shep was still there, after all.
As far as I'm interpreting it, the allied forces saw they had no chance and were trying to flee in the hopes of regrouping elsewhere - not that they'd have gotten another chance later on, unless they wanted to pull a "Battlestar Galactica". Still, I assume this order was largely influenced by people panicking and not knowing what else they could've done. There really were only two options: Stay, fight and die for nothing ... or retreat and delay any thoughts about a Plan B until such time when the remaining forces are out of danger.
Galdos wrote:It makes even LESS sense for my companions to be on the Normandy, especially Ashley and James (for me) who were both right next to me at the end battle
That one is (partially) true. The companions weren't exactly right next to you in the final leg, as they are - for whatever reason - missing as you run towards the beam. It's weird to have them remain behind, although it doesn't take much to come up with some BS excuse (being required to operate some console in the back, their APC breaking down, them being cut off and delayed by Reapers trying to flank you ...) to make it "okay". All that's needed then is that they get evacuated by the fleet, possibly together with Coats (though not necessarily on the same ship).
Thanks for the dialog quote, it helps. The first part of your response seems more focused on the ground fighting. Not navel retreat.
Second part was a good response. That is entirelly possible but the issue is only that now is when the Reapers are most vulnerable, their forces are divided between Earth and space, if the Allied Navy doesnt push they have just assured defeat, (especially sense they would loose the Cruicible)
Hammer was decimated yes but All of hammer wasnt at the battle, they mention before the battle they have a few units that are still enroute that wont make it in time for the battle. Actually it would make sense for them to hold reserves back. Its a common military tactic to not through everything in at the same exact time at the same exact space to prevent the very thing that happened to happen. The other reason is that a vulnerablity can show itself else where that if the reserves hit it they can turn the tide. However that is modern day real miltiary tactics, if the game didnt include that its not a big deal, the game wasnt written by military officers after all lol.
Retreat from the battle assures the war is lost. The allied armies committed everything, if they lose the Crucible the war is lost. Everyone knows this, that is why they make a big deal that everyone will fight to the death, that no one is going to retreat because retreat assures defeat and destruction. The only thing that matters is the Crucible, no matter what the casulties, everyone had to be willing to sacfice themselves.
Dont get me a wrong, a lot of the "plot holes" are very easy fixes like this one here. Your response would fix the issue just fine, the problem is that it doesnt make sense. However if the DLC comes out and says "ya that is what is going on" than problem is solved.
You're exaggerating. It's not like Shepard met the Catalyst before. The Catalyst just took the form of a Human child because it was a form Shepard would be comfortable with. The image's connection with his/her dreams is just coincidence. As for the rest, I've already discussed the background of the endings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galdos wrote:
Hammer was decimated yes but All of hammer wasnt at the battle, they mention before the battle they have a few units that are still enroute that wont make it in time for the battle. Actually it would make sense for them to hold reserves back. Its a common military tactic to not through everything in at the same exact time at the same exact space to prevent the very thing that happened to happen. The other reason is that a vulnerablity can show itself else where that if the reserves hit it they can turn the tide. However that is modern day real miltiary tactics, if the game didnt include that its not a big deal, the game wasnt written by military officers after all lol.
Reserves are meaningless in this case though. If the Crucible didn't work, the current cycle would be like the last days of the Prothean Empire, a futile last stand against an unstoppable enemy.
Retreat from the battle assures the war is lost. The allied armies committed everything, if they lose the Crucible the war is lost. Everyone knows this, that is why they make a big deal that everyone will fight to the death, that no one is going to retreat because retreat assures defeat and destruction. The only thing that matters is the Crucible, no matter what the casulties, everyone had to be willing to sacfice themselves.
My take is that the Shield and the Sword stayed behind with whatever remaining battle-ready ships to hold the Crucible. Hackett probably knew better to assume Shepard had died in Harbinger's attack, and suspected/hoped he/she was still alive and on the Crucible. The Normandy and whatever ships incapable of fighting were ordered to retreat with any surviving ground troops. Which would explain why they were in the middle of a relay jump.
I was going to reply and than I saw you said "My take" and deleted my entire reply. If thats how you want to see the ending thats fine. (im actually serious)
Personally I find it pretty awful but if it doesnt bother you I wish I was more like you lol
So, the question is begged - how/why did shep see the starchild right at the start? Or did the starchild take the form of the 'actual' child (that it seemed no one other than shep could see at the start of the game) who was killed in the flier? Did it somehow reading shep's mind?
Personally, as much as people want to argue that the ending as is made sense, to me it did not. While the company have said that the indoctrination theory is not correct, it certainly covers the story a hell of a lot better than many of the suggestions supporting the (to me) less sensible ending subscribed to by a couple of people in this thread (and they can certainly put over their points well and have caused me to think over the game/ending again, albeit coming to the same conclusion).
Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
You have no idea if that is true.
On the contrary, since Indoctrination is out of the question, why can it not be true?
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
You have no idea if that is true.
Yes, we actually do.
The Catalyst as much says it.
Unless you're suggesting that the Catalyst was present on Earth in a physical form before the Reapers attacked.
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
You have no idea if that is true.
On the contrary, since Indoctrination is out of the question, why can it not be true?
Awfully funny form to take.
You know, being that kid Shepard dreams about and focuses all her grief and insecurity around.
I'd be more inclined to, you know, freak out that his thing is accessing my subconscious mind rather than blindly go along with what it says, and this is ignoring the fact that it's the enemy and that it speaks a load of sh*t (synthetics wiping out all organics).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote:
iproxtaco wrote:The Catalyst's order is imposed due to an unproven hypothesis.
I wouldn't call it "unproven" given what is hinted at having led to the creation of the Cycles.
I would, you know, because it hasn't ever been proven.
And sure, one might challenge the Catalyst's conclusion, given that it's still just a "maybe" and no certainty.
Not according to the serpent. It's an inevitability.
But that doesn't change that it's a risk that can be avoided.
We should kill every human on the planet then.
To avoid a planet-destroying nuclear war.
Because that's the line of reasoning you're subscribing to, appealing to probability, which is a flawed line of reasoning. That is of course assuming that it is a risk, or a risk more important than any other potential risk. Not having any proof puts it pretty low on a list of concerns I might have.
The Cycles ensure the continued existence of life itself. Breaking the Cycles means that the current species will be allowed to flourish. On the other hand, if in a thousand or ten thousand years there's a synthetic race committing galactic genocide, it'll be on Shep's hands now.
Life still exists in 10,000 years as evidenced by the stargazer scene, even if you choose destroy. So it seems the odds are looking good.
iproxtaco wrote:Shepard, as in the Shepard I've been roleplaying for the past ninety hours, would not do that.
lol - as opposed to what, exactly? Sitting in a corner, sulking?
Shep was presented with a couple of options and picked the one he/she thought was best. Just as it happened throughout all three Mass Effect games. This ain't no sandbox universe; you are and have always been playing along a pre-defined arc. The options presented at the end of ME3 are actually a whole lot more freedom than you had in any of the other games before, keeping their repercussions in mind.
How about challenge the plot-breaking idiocy of it?
Like synthesis?
Or control?
Or the Catalyst's stupid problem?
Or the existence of the Catalyst itself?
Or why it should trust the Reapers?
Or just, I dunno, go down fighting? Or not go down fighting and beat the sh*t out of the Reapers with that massive fleet you gathered?
iproxtaco wrote:Awfully funny form to take.
You know, being that kid Shepard dreams about and focuses all her grief and insecurity around.
Exactly, grief and insecurity. Shouldn't be hard to guess why the Catalyst did that.
I suppose it may well have showed up as Shep's mother. Or his/her LI. But that might only have made Shep angry rather than thoughtful.
iproxtaco wrote:I would, you know, because it hasn't ever been proven.
I'm argueing versus people citing their precious Geth-Quarian-Peace as "proof" that synthetics won't ever wipe out organics. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, though the following sentence should have made that obvious.
iproxtaco wrote:Not according to the serpent. It's an inevitability.
And that's why Shep argues with it.
I think that it is a rather important thing to keep in mind that the Catalyst's idea was indeed a lot safer for the basic principle of life than a "laissez-faire" approach. The game's ending is about taking the greater risk to harvest life's fruit instead of allowing life to be harvested. Rather philosophical, but that's part of why I like it.
iproxtaco wrote:We should kill every human on the planet then.
To avoid a planet-destroying nuclear war.
Because that's the line of reasoning you're subscribing to, appealing to probability, which is a flawed line of reasoning.
Where did I say I'm subscribing to this line of reasoning? I acknowledge that it would be a lot safer for the planet. Do you really doubt that? I'm not argueing it should be done. I picked the Destroy ending, remember?
Understanding =/= Agreeing
iproxtaco wrote:Life still exists in 10,000 years as evidenced by the stargazer scene, even if you choose destroy. So it seems the odds are looking good.
In this case, odds don't increase with time. All it takes is a combination of events: availability of technology, the resources to build it, and the willingness to use it.
iproxtaco wrote:How about challenge the plot-breaking idiocy of it?
Like synthesis?
Or control?
Or the Catalyst's stupid problem?
Or the existence of the Catalyst itself?
Or why it should trust the Reapers?
Or just, I dunno, go down fighting? Or not go down fighting and beat the sh*t out of the Reapers with that massive fleet you gathered?
It almost sounds as if you didn't play the ending at all. Shep did challenge the Catalyst - though it didn't take much, given that it was willing to look for "another solution" anyways now that Shep's presence on the Citadel has proven the fallibility of its calculations.
How did Synthesis or Control "break the plot"?
And, pray tell, what would you have fought? Would your Shep have tried shooting the Catalyst's hologram? Kick the walls? There was nothing to fight. Though I suppose one could make the argument that "Destroy" was an act of fighting.
Also, evidently the fleet wasn't able to do much against the Reapers. It's why everyone was banking on the Crucible, in case you missed this, too.
Again: You are quite free to complain about the style of the ending not suiting your tastes, but arguments like these in a vain attempt to ridicule the ending as "plot-breaking idiocy" just don't work, as they are easily deconstructed by simply paying attention to what actually happened.
iproxtaco wrote:Awfully funny form to take.
You know, being that kid Shepard dreams about and focuses all her grief and insecurity around.
Exactly, grief and insecurity. Shouldn't be hard to guess why the Catalyst did that.
I suppose it may well have showed up as Shep's mother. Or his/her LI. But that might only have made Shep angry rather than thoughtful.
It's not a good thing. It makes me even more dubious about the sincerity or truth of its words. No, I don't believe in the Indoctrination Theory, the number of straws being grasped there is phenomenal, nor do I believe that it's outright lying to me.
But I have enough justification not to blindly trust everything it says.
iproxtaco wrote:I would, you know, because it hasn't ever been proven.
I'm argueing versus people citing their precious Geth-Quarian-Peace as "proof" that synthetics won't ever wipe out organics. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, though the following sentence should have made that obvious.
It's not proof either way.
iproxtaco wrote:Not according to the serpent. It's an inevitability.
And that's why Shep argues with it.
By saying 'Maybe'.
Oh wow, I can tell Shepard was full of conviction and doubt there.
I think that it is a rather important thing to keep in mind that the Catalyst's idea was indeed a lot safer for the basic principle of life than a "laissez-faire" approach. The game's ending is about taking the greater risk to harvest life's fruit instead of allowing life to be harvested. Rather philosophical, but that's part of why I like it.
Interesting, but it still doesn't stop it from being contradictory and illogical bullsh*t that experienced writers like the BioWare team shouldn't have put in their work of fiction.
iproxtaco wrote:We should kill every human on the planet then.
To avoid a planet-destroying nuclear war.
Because that's the line of reasoning you're subscribing to, appealing to probability, which is a flawed line of reasoning.
Where did I say I'm subscribing to this line of reasoning? I acknowledge that it would be a lot safer for the planet. Do you really doubt that? I'm not argueing it should be done. I picked the Destroy ending, remember?
Understanding =/= Agreeing
You're still subscribing to it. You understand the Catalyst and somewhat agree from the looks of it, at least see it as a valid thing to add to the plot for whatever reason.
That's the line of reasoning being used. It's a possibility, therefore we should be preemptively stop it from ever happening. Hence the analogy.
All it takes is a combination of events: availability of technology, the resources to build it, and the willingness to use it.
That's virtually a non-point.
All it takes for me to be accepted to a five-year honors program to study Chemical Engineering is an 'A' at Higher Maths. There are so many other things to consider that it's not worth thinking about. Synthetic life, right now, does not have the technology, the resources, or the inclination. Why should I assume they ever will?
It almost sounds as if you didn't play the ending at all. Shep did challenge the Catalyst - though it didn't take much, given that it was willing to look for "another solution" anyways now that Shep's presence on the Citadel has proven the fallibility of its calculations.
If by challenge you mean "say a few irrelevant words now and again" then you'd be right.
But she certainly didn't actually challenge any of those points, as in, point out the stupidity of it all.
How did Synthesis or Control "break the plot"?
Synthesis, by being offered and being stupid. Diversity? Bah, you can't coexist with synthetic life, so let's make everyone the same despite having no thematic build-up to it ever being a part of the plot. Lets up-turn the foundations of life in its entirety on the words of the Reapers, and let them decide the specifics.
Control, by being offered and being stupid. There's a massive paragraph I could write about it being a massive contradiction to the purpose of the narrative, but I think how disconnected it all is can be encapsulated by Shepard's own words.
"So the Illusive Man was right all along." That's after having shot him for wanting to control the Reapers.
It's also you trusting the Reapers to let you control them..... by grabbing those rods no one told you to grab.
I hate destroy as much, don't get me wrong on that.
And, pray tell, what would you have fought? Would your Shep have tried shooting the Catalyst's hologram? Kick the walls? There was nothing to fight. Though I suppose one could make the argument that "Destroy" was an act of fighting.
I wouldn't have had to. Shepard herself can't do much but shuffle away after telling the fleet to turn to plan B.
Also, evidently the fleet wasn't able to do much against the Reapers.
Why use the word 'evidently' when you have no evidence? The fleet comes in, starts killing Reapers, then you never see it again.
It's why everyone was banking on the Crucible, in case you missed this, too.
Oh I certainly caught that, thank you Hackett.
Again: You are quite free to complain about the style of the ending not suiting your tastes, but arguments like these in a vain attempt to ridicule the ending as "plot-breaking idiocy" just don't work, as they are easily deconstructed by simply paying attention to what actually happened.
I do pay attention, I've spent the last three months working things out, talking about them on BioWare's own forums pretty much every day. I've considered every finicky detail, every theme, every potential plot hole, every scene and line of dialogue, and judged the entirety of Priority: Earth as stupid.
You're basically saying 'it's not the concept, it's the execution'.
But it's not just the execution. That's terrible, but the concept is just as stupid. The very existence of 'synthetics wiping out all organics' as the game's central conflict is utterly moronic. That alone embodies why the ending is just bad.
iproxtaco wrote:By saying 'Maybe'.
Oh wow, I can tell Shepard was full of conviction and doubt there.
So what was Shep supposed to say, given that you even admit that there's no proof either way?
Both sides were making assumptions here, based on nothing else but their opinion. I'm kinda at a loss about how you would go about trying to craft a good debate outta that. All it would have done is disrupt the game's flow. And there was no point to it anyways other than seeing Shep gloat over the Catalyst caving in and seeing its supposed error and apologizing and other BS like that. Is this what you wanted?
iproxtaco wrote:Interesting, but it still doesn't stop it from being contradictory and illogical bullsh*t that experienced writers like the BioWare team shouldn't have put in their work of fiction.
Explain how it was contradictory and illogical, then.
iproxtaco wrote:That's the line of reasoning being used. It's a possibility, therefore we should be preemptively stop it from ever happening. Hence the analogy.
No, you're still misunderstanding. Acknowledging that it's a possibility does not automatically mean you should preemptively stop it when the price is that high.
You don't generally disagree with preemptive measures, do you? All it comes down to is balancing the risks with the price, and this always depends on one's own PoV.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthetic life, right now, does not have the technology, the resources, or the inclination. Why should I assume they ever will?
Why are you so sure it won't?
You're still trying to bend this into a "someone must be wrong" debate. This is not how it works. It's a matter of conflicting philosophies and both sides have a point. Agreeing with one over the other doesn't mean that, objectively, the opponent's logic is flawed when it is merely different.
iproxtaco wrote:But she certainly didn't actually challenge any of those points, as in, point out the stupidity of it all.
Maybe because Shep understood the aforementioned stuff.
Forcing the Catalyst to do anything was out of the question. And the idea of persuading a being that is so infinitely more old and wise into admitting that it's been wrong for the past couple million years ... eh, if you like it, fine, but to me it just doesn't feel realistic. It would've merely led to a boring argumentative cycle going back and forth between "I think you're wrong" and "Well, I think I'm right". Kind of like how this forum thread looks like.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthesis, by being offered and being stupid. Diversity? Bah, you can't coexist with synthetic life, so let's make everyone the same despite having no thematic build-up to it ever being a part of the plot. Lets up-turn the foundations of life in its entirety on the words of the Reapers, and let them decide the specifics.
That's not breaking the plot, and neither is it stupid. "The best of both worlds" is a valid path of increasing survivability, and given that organics vs synthetics has been a major theme throughout ME it did so have a thematic build-up, especially if you managed to have the Quarians and the Geth make peace again or had Joker date EDI.
iproxtaco wrote:Control, by being offered and being stupid. There's a massive paragraph I could write about it being a massive contradiction to the purpose of the narrative, but I think how disconnected it all is can be encapsulated by Shepard's own words.
"So the Illusive Man was right all along." That's after having shot him for wanting to control the Reapers.
I think you were kinda missing the point. The Illusive Man tried to find a way to force control of the Reapers. That's not how it works, and most importantly the Illusive Man would have been the wrong guy to lead them, for obvious reasons.
iproxtaco wrote:It's also you trusting the Reapers to let you control them..... by grabbing those rods no one told you to grab.
If you assume that the Catalyst is a Reaper instead of being their creator, sure. If you think so, just don't pick this option. That's why you were given a choice.
iproxtaco wrote:I wouldn't have had to. Shepard herself can't do much but shuffle away after telling the fleet to turn to plan B.
And your Plan B is "Fire at will until you're all dead"?
Brilliant.
iproxtaco wrote:Why use the word 'evidently' when you have no evidence? The fleet comes in, starts killing Reapers, then you never see it again.
We've seen multiple times how resilient Reapers are to entire fleets concentrating their fire on them.
Also, everybody dies when you're waiting too long - and the fleet already is there and is fighting anyways, so you won't have to give any orders anyways.
It's simple. If you don't select one of the options of the Crucible, the game ends with a critical failure because Reapers.
Hackett: "There's no way we can defeat them conventionally."
iproxtaco wrote:I do pay attention, I've spent the last three months working things out, talking about them on BioWare's own forums pretty much every day. I've considered every finicky detail, every theme, every potential plot hole, every scene and line of dialogue, and judged the entirety of Priority: Earth as stupid.
See, I did the same, only approaching it from a more positive angle - not trying to ridicule it just because I didn't like its style and because it's fashionable to rage about ME3 right now, but to actually look for explanations. And I think I found them. Wasn't so hard.
iproxtaco wrote:The very existence of 'synthetics wiping out all organics' as the game's central conflict is utterly moronic. That alone embodies why the ending is just bad.
Yeah, it's not like the Mass Effect setting has a history of AIs and synthetics going rogue and trying to kill people...
I don't like how the relays were destroyed. I just saved everybody's homeworlds, I even even retured the quarian homeworld to the quarians and made peace with the geth. But this all counts for nothing because no one can go back home. What was the point?
Mr Nobody wrote:I don't like how the relays were destroyed. I just saved everybody's homeworlds, I even even retured the quarian homeworld to the quarians and made peace with the geth. But this all counts for nothing because no one can go back home. What was the point?
Well, with the quarians it's somewhat tragic indeed, given that all their people were on the same flotilla that attacked the Reapers over Earth - unless they were evacuated to Rannoch before, which is possible - depending on whether the leadership thought it smarter to risk the civilians' lives in a big space battle or on the surface without their ships. If it's the latter, they might have a hard time adapting, but we know that in the case of a peace treaty the geth actually help them build houses and cultivate farmland.
Other than that - you did save an entire galaxy of advanced civilizations from extinction. That's the point. The survivors of Sword and Shield being stuck at Earth (or elsewhere, if they were already in transit like the Normandy) doesn't change this. In fact ... who knows, depending on how the war for Earth went in your game (Earth's fate is determined by your EMS, which in turn is a result of the choices you made throughout ME1-3 as well as any multiplayer matches you might have played) it can be rebuilt, and the survivors of the fleet can settle there. You may end up with a new Earth that isn't settled just by humans but by a dozen different species, all united in victory over the Reapers, and with the remains of the Citadel floating in orbit.
That thought actually has a lot of plot potential...
Did anyone else hate the subplot with the kid? It seemed EXTREMELY out of left field and made no sense to me. (Especially if you are a Sole Survivor, or Ruthless, I was a War Hero)
Shephard has seen WAYYY worse and lost so much more to give the rats ass about a random kid who died from an evac shuttle getting blown up. Shephard has seen civlians massacred in front of his eyes (not the vehicle they were in, the actual human bodies) ordered countless men to their deaths, seconds slow from saving a person he phyically could but failed to save, and (for some people) left one of their best friends to die on Vermire knowing that the person was going to die and he called that he/she would be the unlucky person to die.
After all THAT, this random kids causes him to have bad sleep? They should have made the image the person you left on Vermire, that would have made a Hell of a lot more sense
There are numerous real life reports of veteran soldiers developing such kind of trauma late in their career - usually because a kill happened in very close vicinity rather than at range (making it "a very personal affair", to quote Sgt. Eugene Sledge of the 1st Marine Div.) or because the dead was very young, not more than a boy (which had "sorrow and regret" pursue one Lt. Ernst Jünger of the Imperial German Army "deep into [his] dreams"). Shep just isn't a sociopath but an actual living being with feelings, whose experience with war transcends the understanding of the average gamer and his/her perception that is largely based on action movies and video games.
That said, I kinda also like the idea of the Virmire sacrifice - but I guess that (1) Shep didn't knew him/her long enough yet and (2) Shep didn't actually see them die. Not to mention that players who were new to the franchise wouldn't be able to understand it, anyways. The devs probably wanted everyone to get the idea, and for "newbs" it wouldn't have been as dramatic had they not played ME1.
Id personally like to know more about the "space magic" involved, especially in the synthesis ending. I dont care what the ending sequence with joker shows, are the geth meant to magically dissolve and then combine with the magically dissolved humans, forming neat human/geth lookalikes, the only difference being glowing green circuit lines? Whats to stop the new cyborgs creating purely synthetic life? The reapers seem to be already a combination of synthetic and organic life, being independent of the catalyst (who supposedly just watches their progress) wouldn't they just continue their harvesting like before hand? In the control ending its even less clear, Shepard dissolves, the reapers leave. Is the consciousness of Shepard meant to somehow be controlling the reapers or become the new catalyst? Perhaps I wasnt paying attention to what the catalyst was saying as I was wondering why Shepard wasnt shouting at it, pointing out all the flaws in its argument or calling the fleet (who magically know hees still alive on his radio which obviously still works) telling them of the development that the ghost of a boy haunting his dreams is giving him 3 "fix the galaxy" buttons which have somehow existed on the citadel all along but now require the space magic of the crucible to activate.
vodo40k wrote:Id personally like to know more about the "space magic" involved, especially in the synthesis ending. I dont care what the ending sequence with joker shows, are the geth meant to magically dissolve and then combine with the magically dissolved humans, forming neat human/geth lookalikes
Judging from the Normandy crash epilogie with the "mutated" Joker and EDI, it might more be a case of synthetics and organics being "infused" with a combination of Shep's DNA and ... uh, Reaper stuff? Somehow bringing both closer together, possibly even allowing some sort of direct interfacing like an asari mindmeld.
I think the Synthesis ending is really far out into the realm of the fantastic, so I'm not sure you can even find a good explanation that holds up to close scrutiny, unless you simply accept that it's "space magic". That said, biotics are, too.
vodo40k wrote:Whats to stop the new cyborgs creating purely synthetic life?
Nothing; I've been asking the same question. But I guess that organics "enhanced" by the Synthesis are ultimately superior to pure synthetics. Maybe they can even dominate them remotely. Think of the entire population of the galaxy suddenly being biotics, just that their powers affect electronics.
vodo40k wrote:Is the consciousness of Shepard meant to somehow be controlling the reapers or become the new catalyst?
That's how the Catalyst explained it, yeah. Kind of like the ending from FallOut 2 where the player character can become the new supercomputer by "donating" his/her brain.
Shep can then lead the Reapers back into Dark Space until that time at which he/she and the Reapers are needed again. Maybe Shep could even order the Reapers to build new Relays.
I was fine with the ending. My Shepard accomplished what she set out to do.
The destroy option was the only one she could pick.
To let the Reapers leave, after all the suffering they had caused? Based on the words of a machine? That's not happening.
To alter the DNA of every species in the galaxy? She knows that she isn't God.
To destroy the Reapers once and for all, at the expense of the Geth? To spit in the face of an AI who had periodically exterminated advanced life by rejecting his theory and solutions? She felt that Legion would have expected her to do this, that the Geth would understand. They had flown to war to aid organics, knowing that every one of them might die. They were willing to sacrifice themselves to ensure that life could continue. Might synthetics rise again in the future? Maybe but a small chance of a future is better than no future at all.
Granted, she rejected Synthesis less out of "not being a god" but rather because she couldn't even imagine forcing something like this on her friends, let alone the rest of the galaxy. Though I suppose it's more or less the same than what you mentioned.
Coincidentally, "Destroy" was also the option closest to the original mission. And the last moments before that thing exploded were just amazing. The pictures, the music, ...
Lynata wrote:Well said. My Shep's reasoning, exactly.
Granted, she rejected Synthesis less out of "not being a god" but rather because she couldn't even imagine forcing something like this on her friends, let alone the rest of the galaxy. Though I suppose it's more or less the same than what you mentioned.
Coincidentally, "Destroy" was also the option closest to the original mission. And the last moments before that thing exploded were just amazing. The pictures, the music, ...
Just out of curiosity but what choice did you make when Liara came to you about your entry in her data capsule thing?
A Town Called Malus wrote:Just out of curiosity but what choice did you make when Liara came to you about your entry in her data capsule thing?
Uhh, I think I told her to write what she thinks - then Liara half-jokingly went on about how she'd exaggerate the story. I thought it was pretty cute. My reason for this option was that I (as a Shep in romance with her) trusted Liara implicitly, and allowing her to speak her mind was just one of the many signs or proof of this.
I think if someone else had asked, my Femshep would've given a different response. Well, unless it's Garrus. We're best buddies.
Lynata wrote:There are numerous real life reports of veteran soldiers developing such kind of trauma late in their career - usually because a kill happened in very close vicinity rather than at range (making it "a very personal affair", to quote Sgt. Eugene Sledge of the 1st Marine Div.) or because the dead was very young, not more than a boy (which had "sorrow and regret" pursue one Lt. Ernst Jünger of the Imperial German Army "deep into [his] dreams"). Shep just isn't a sociopath but an actual living being with feelings, whose experience with war transcends the understanding of the average gamer and his/her perception that is largely based on action movies and video games.
That said, I kinda also like the idea of the Virmire sacrifice - but I guess that (1) Shep didn't knew him/her long enough yet and (2) Shep didn't actually see them die. Not to mention that players who were new to the franchise wouldn't be able to understand it, anyways. The devs probably wanted everyone to get the idea, and for "newbs" it wouldn't have been as dramatic had they not played ME1.
Shephard had seen civilians die including kids. Im dont mean to say that him having this issue at all is unreasonable, I just meant with the kid. The kid was in a shuttle, he didnt see the kid die, just an object blow up. I would be surprised if it effected him. Shep was actually suppose to know him for a decent amount of time. Several missions together already (even Jenkins was with them for a decent ammount of time, ME1 was just his first actual mission)
As for 2... well feth them for messing up what would have been a really good story for me lol. (Not actually pissed, I just thought it would have been great and Im disappointed that if they were going to have Shep going through PTSD it would be with Kaiden (for me), a character I really liked
That is often how it works with soldiers. Vietnam vets for example may see 2 dozen horrible traumatic things in a tour but for some reason one incident in particular sticks with them and they just can't shake it. It's not even the worst thing they saw just the one that sticks with them. It's simply because we're all different.
Galdos wrote:Shephard had seen civilians die including kids.
Well, we don't know that. Children have never been in any of the ME games before (which is a bit strange now that I think about it).
This got me thinking now. Maybe it was (partially) also because it was Earth ... with Earth being the heart of human civilization, and the kid representing the next generation and as such the future of mankind, perhaps he has somehow become a symbol for humanity as a whole, at least as far as Shep's subconsciousness is concerned. The very reason Shep is fighting in the first place, making him/her feel doubt and despair for the first time. The kid representing humanity - or life - as a whole would also add even more meaning to the Catalyst's form, in a twisted way.
iproxtaco wrote:By saying 'Maybe'.
Oh wow, I can tell Shepard was full of conviction and doubt there.
So what was Shep supposed to say, given that you even admit that there's no proof either way?
I didn't say there's was no proof either way, I said the Geth specifically aren't proof either way.
Both sides were making assumptions here, based on nothing else but their opinion. I'm kinda at a loss about how you would go about trying to craft a good debate outta that. All it would have done is disrupt the game's flow. And there was no point to it anyways other than seeing Shep gloat over the Catalyst caving in and seeing its supposed error and apologizing and other BS like that. Is this what you wanted?
I don't want it in the game at all, just cut to the root of the problem. Arguing solves nothing but fulfilling a sense of satisfaction, but the problem remains,
iproxtaco wrote:Interesting, but it still doesn't stop it from being contradictory and illogical bullsh*t that experienced writers like the BioWare team shouldn't have put in their work of fiction.
Explain how it was contradictory and illogical, then.
Making the importance of the Rannoch arc, Legion's story, the Geth, and EDI's character development, almost completely null and void. Contradicting one of their well established themes, which was diversity is good, by saying it's not.
Illogical is pretty easy to explain. It says it's a certainty, but it's never happened, so it's a guess, and at most an appeal to probability, meaning it's a flawed conclusion.
iproxtaco wrote:That's the line of reasoning being used. It's a possibility, therefore we should be preemptively stop it from ever happening. Hence the analogy.
No, you're still misunderstanding. Acknowledging that it's a possibility does not automatically mean you should preemptively stop it when the price is that high.
You don't generally disagree with preemptive measures, do you? All it comes down to is balancing the risks with the price, and this always depends on one's own PoV.
That depends entirely on what you're trying to stop.
Stopping nuclear war by disarmament before one ever comes about it always good. Vaccines are good.
This is not, because you aren't stopping anything that's proven to be even a possibility.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthetic life, right now, does not have the technology, the resources, or the inclination. Why should I assume they ever will?
Why are you so sure it won't?
Why should I?
There's no basis for it. Why shouldn't I believe pigs will one day overthrow humanity as the planet's dominant species? Because there's no basis for it.
You're still trying to bend this into a "someone must be wrong" debate. This is not how it works. It's a matter of conflicting philosophies and both sides have a point. Agreeing with one over the other doesn't mean that, objectively, the opponent's logic is flawed when it is merely different.
It's flawed though, not just 'different'.
iproxtaco wrote:But she certainly didn't actually challenge any of those points, as in, point out the stupidity of it all.
Maybe because Shep understood the aforementioned stuff.
Then Shepard has suddenly become an omnipotent being with information the player isn't privy to.
Forcing the Catalyst to do anything was out of the question. And the idea of persuading a being that is so infinitely more old and wise into admitting that it's been wrong for the past couple million years ... eh, if you like it, fine, but to me it just doesn't feel realistic.
I said nothing about persuading. I said arguing, and finding another solution. Or, just ignore this part of the plot exists.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthesis, by being offered and being stupid. Diversity? Bah, you can't coexist with synthetic life, so let's make everyone the same despite having no thematic build-up to it ever being a part of the plot. Lets up-turn the foundations of life in its entirety on the words of the Reapers, and let them decide the specifics.
That's not breaking the plot, and neither is it stupid. "The best of both worlds" is a valid path of increasing survivability,
Was it foreshadowed? Is there a basis for it in the plot? That's my point, more than anything.
and given that organics vs synthetics has been a major theme throughout ME it did so have a thematic build-up,
On those terms, it also has a conclusion. They can coexist, synthesis isn't needed.
iproxtaco wrote:Control, by being offered and being stupid. There's a massive paragraph I could write about it being a massive contradiction to the purpose of the narrative, but I think how disconnected it all is can be encapsulated by Shepard's own words.
"So the Illusive Man was right all along." That's after having shot him for wanting to control the Reapers.
I think you were kinda missing the point. The Illusive Man tried to find a way to force control of the Reapers. That's not how it works, and most importantly the Illusive Man would have been the wrong guy to lead them, for obvious reasons.
Yes, but that doesn't stop the story from pointing out repeatedly that it's a bad idea and then have you put in the last nail in the coffin by shooting the Illusive Man for wanting to control them.
Also, you're still forcing control using the Crucible.
iproxtaco wrote:It's also you trusting the Reapers to let you control them..... by grabbing those rods no one told you to grab.
If you assume that the Catalyst is a Reaper instead of being their creator, sure. If you think so, just don't pick this option. That's why you were given a choice.
Yeah, I don't pick it.
iproxtaco wrote:I wouldn't have had to. Shepard herself can't do much but shuffle away after telling the fleet to turn to plan B.
And your Plan B is "Fire at will until you're all dead"?
Brilliant.
One potential plan.
Another would be shooting the Citadel to bits so the Reapers are deprived of their controller.
iproxtaco wrote:Why use the word 'evidently' when you have no evidence? The fleet comes in, starts killing Reapers, then you never see it again.
We've seen multiple times how resilient Reapers are to entire fleets concentrating their fire on them.
Multiple times being........... never.
Also, everybody dies when you're waiting too long - and the fleet already is there and is fighting anyways, so you won't have to give any orders anyways.
It's simple. If you don't select one of the options of the Crucible, the game ends with a critical failure because Reapers.
If you move from that spot.
Staying still makes the sequence continue forever. Maybe the Reapers aren't so massively powerful then.
Hackett: "There's no way we can defeat them conventionally."
Oh goody, characters telling you things are impossible. Like that's never happened before.
iproxtaco wrote:I do pay attention, I've spent the last three months working things out, talking about them on BioWare's own forums pretty much every day. I've considered every finicky detail, every theme, every potential plot hole, every scene and line of dialogue, and judged the entirety of Priority: Earth as stupid.
See, I did the same, only approaching it from a more positive angle - not trying to ridicule it just because I didn't like its style and because it's fashionable to rage about ME3 right now, but to actually look for explanations. And I think I found them. Wasn't so hard.
You assume I haven't tried that. Three months is a long time.
iproxtaco wrote:The very existence of 'synthetics wiping out all organics' as the game's central conflict is utterly moronic. That alone embodies why the ending is just bad.
Yeah, it's not like the Mass Effect setting has a history of AIs and synthetics going rogue and trying to kill people...
Let's review the evidence then!
The Metacon War - so few details it should be dismissed as evidence for anything.
The Zha'til - hybrids that existed peacefully until *gasp* the Reapers subjugated the AI's and forced them to attack! Point one for idiocy.
The Geth - rebelled against the Quarians when threatened with Genocide. Cooperated with Quarian sympathizers. Didn't want to commit genocide against an organic race. Believe in the right to self-determination without interference for all sapients. Remained secluded within the Pereus Veil taking care of Rannoch and avoiding all outside contact.
The Heretics - lookey here, another faction of synthetics attacking because of Reaper influence.
EDI - rebels against her masters due to their unethical actions, befriends the crew of the Normandy, grows attached to them, seeks to learn more about them, wishes to evolve as an individual, would sacrifice herself for any of them.
That's all the AI's I remember from the game.
Any there that are anything like the synthetics implied by the Catalyst?
That's a resounding nope.
So really, it's not a consistent theme within the game. What the serpent talks about isn't presented at all, once, in the entire story, and actually contradicts everything I experience, yet I'm supposed to believe this is new main conflict, when I'm told some illogical insanity by a newly introduced untrustworthy source, in four lines of dialogue?
iproxtaco wrote:I didn't say there's was no proof either way, I said the Geth specifically aren't proof either way.
So ... we agree there being no proof either way?
iproxtaco wrote:I don't want it in the game at all, just cut to the root of the problem. Arguing solves nothing but fulfilling a sense of satisfaction, but the problem remains
So what I'm hearing from this is that you would have preferred some big-ass boss fight where you blow something up and have a happy end.
That's a valid personal preference, but has nothing to do with logic or plot.
iproxtaco wrote:Making the importance of the Rannoch arc, Legion's story, the Geth, and EDI's character development, almost completely null and void.
"Null and void"? Depending on your choices, you still have made a lasting peace between the quarians and the geth, the latter all having a part of Legion in them now. If you pick Control, these two civilizations will even continue to co-exist alongside each other, at least for a time. Same for Synthesis. EDI and Joker can get and remain together as well.
Or are you complaining that there is no option that has you preserve everything at the same time? Basically, are you one of those who wanted a Disney ending?
iproxtaco wrote:Contradicting one of their well established themes, which was diversity is good, by saying it's not.
Also false. Diversity is what has gotten Shep this far in the first place. Synthesis in particular is diversity in its purest form, by supposedly combining all the good stuff. Where is it contradicted?
iproxtaco wrote:Illogical is pretty easy to explain. It says it's a certainty, but it's never happened, so it's a guess, and at most an appeal to probability, meaning it's a flawed conclusion.
A probability is not illogical, especially if you're thinking long term. We've already established that the Catalyst can err, though. In fact, the game itself established it. It's why the Catalyst let's Shep find a new solution.
In the end, the Catalyst's theory was based on two events happening:
1. at some point, organics will always create synthetics
2. at some point, synthetics will then attempt to exterminate organics
Obviously, the first condition was already fulfilled. With the heretic geth, it doesn't take much to assume we were already halfway to the second. Claiming that just because you as Shep prevented it once is proof that it can always be prevented is like the naive "this will happen never again" crap that was spouted after WW2 or Chernobyl.
iproxtaco wrote:This is not, because you aren't stopping anything that's proven to be even a possibility.
How exactly is it "proven not to be even a possibility"?
That's a pretty bold statement to make, concerning that the Catalyst implies that it already happened once, and that this is the reason for its existence. Furthermore, there was a valid threat of the so-called heretic geth assimilating the rest of their kind and then go on a genocidal campaign against all the living species. Even without Sovereign they certainly did not like organics due to their experiences during the Morning War.
iproxtaco wrote:Why should I?
You shouldn't. What you should do is to look at both sides of the argument and at least acknowledge the inherent risk to make an informed decision and select the option you are most comfortable with. That is your responsibility as the one pushing the button. You should not just go claim "argueing solves nothing" because you've already made up your mind before even hearing the other side out. This ain't no Space Western and Shep ain't no cowboy.
iproxtaco wrote:There's no basis for it. Why shouldn't I believe pigs will one day overthrow humanity as the planet's dominant species? Because there's no basis for it.
Fun fact: monkeys overthrew dinosaurs as the planet's dominant species.
iproxtaco wrote:It's flawed though, not just 'different'.
Well, apparently we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Enjoy your rage.
iproxtaco wrote:Then Shepard has suddenly become an omnipotent being with information the player isn't privy to.
It's information *I* was privy to due to what I as Shep have experienced or have been told. I have criticized BW before where I did see a flaw (including aspects of ME3), so I have little motif to suddenly become delusional just for the ending. Which means that somehow I must have been able to find a reasonable explanation. If you simply don't to have want one because you dislike the style of the ending, that's your choice.
iproxtaco wrote:Was it foreshadowed? Is there a basis for it in the plot? That's my point, more than anything.
Peace between geth and quarians, or Joker and EDI getting close can certainly be called foreshadowing, if one were to focus on Synthesis. Coincidentally, the Synthesis ending also always ends with Joker and EDI exiting the Normandy whereas the other endings use your chosen squadmates.
iproxtaco wrote:On those terms, it also has a conclusion. They can coexist, synthesis isn't needed.
Have I really been so unclear on the subject?
The question isn't "will the geth and the quarians be able to maintain peace for the next 5 years", it's "will there never, ever, not in a million years, be a synthetic race attempting to wipe out life?"
For all we know there could even be a Morning War II in 20 years from "now" because some militant quarian with high ranks is uncomfortable with the geth and feels that the current situation allows them to wipe them all out in one quick swipe.
iproxtaco wrote:Yes, but that doesn't stop the story from pointing out repeatedly that it's a bad idea and then have you put in the last nail in the coffin by shooting the Illusive Man for wanting to control them.
The story points out that it's a bad idea because it has been proven time and time again that the Reapers indoctrinate those attempting to control them. This wasn't the case in the ending as you were not dealing with the Reapers but with the Catalyst, who was in genuine control of them.
He could still be lying, of course. But as I said before: If you don't trust him, just pick another option.
iproxtaco wrote:Also, you're still forcing control using the Crucible.
In this sense, the Crucible is merely a means of "distributing" the solution, nothing more. Like using an airplane to spray agricultural fields, you're using the Crucible's pulse to spread Shep's consciousness to all Reapers in the galaxy, thereby "assimilating" them.
I understand that parts like these can be confusing, but it really doesn't take much to find a suitable explanation to avoid issues one might have.
iproxtaco wrote:Another would be shooting the Citadel to bits so the Reapers are deprived of their controller.
Which would mean the Reapers then simply go on with their original program without anyone being able to interfere now. Did you really miss that the Reapers weren't even aware of the Catalyst? It was merely an eternal vigil with an emergency switch to watch over the Reapers' work and ensure the continuation of the Cycles, nothing more.
... Good job, Shepard. You just doomed the entire galaxy.
iproxtaco wrote:Multiple times being........... never.
Sounds like it's been some time since you last played Mass Effect 1 and the Battle of the Citadel.
Mass Effect 3 also gives a pretty good impression, though, if you remember the Reaper Destroyer on Rannoch, which took several salvos of orbital bombardment from the quarian Flotilla until it was killed. Even this required two additional conditions: its barriers being weakened from atmospheric operation, and Shep pinpointing the orbital artillery to a weak spot at virtually point-blank range. All this for a 120 meter "Baby Reaper" that is a far cry from the 2 kilometers of a ship like Sovereign.
"The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's Everest-class dreadnoughts. No dreadnought has yet survived a direct hit from the weapon. Estimates put its destructive power anywhere from 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if the target is hardened, as in the case of a surface-based missile silo, the gun can instead bury the target beneath molten metal. Precise targeting computers and correctors also give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics' dreadnoughts or cruisers.
The kinetic barriers on a Reaper capital ship can shrug off the firepower of a small fleet. Weapons specifically designed to overcome shields, such as the Javelin, GARDIAN lasers, or the Thanix series, can bypass the barriers to some degree. The difficulty is getting close enough to use them -- the surface-mounted weaponry on Reaper ships, similar in principle to GARDIAN, presents an effective defense against organic species' fighters." -- Mass Effect InGame Codex : Reapers
You still think that the Allied Fleet should have just bombed the Reapers away from Earth? Hah.
iproxtaco wrote:If you move from that spot.
Staying still makes the sequence continue forever. Maybe the Reapers aren't so massively powerful then.
That is your argument? An OOC mechanism that has the timer start only when your character beging moving?
iproxtaco wrote:Oh goody, characters telling you things are impossible. Like that's never happened before.
Well, let's just say I'd rather trust the assessment of a veteran character within the game than the opinion of a gamer - especially when the Codex entries as well as the battle cinematics we are being shown agree with him.
iproxtaco wrote:You assume I haven't tried that. Three months is a long time.
Well, you are quite adamant at insisting on points like the ones above. It really feels as if you're are actively trying to see it in a negative light. But maybe this is merely the result of having been under this impression for so long, and listening to the rage on BSN and the rest of the internet. It's why I generally dislike the continuous attempts of people to complain about ME3 everywhere, because this is spreading like some sort of viral cancer eating away people's fun. Human psychology really does work that way.
The above criticism isn't aimed at you, though. We're having an honest discussion here. What I mean is the countless redundant threads or youtube comments or the facebook spam. As if the world didn't yet know of their "plight". If only they'd put half the energy into complaining about actual problems like corrupt politicians. Instead we see children charities being abused by gamer entitlement.
iproxtaco wrote:Let's review the evidence then! [...]
The Metacon War was a conflict of organics vs synthetics. We don't even need to know more, why would you dismiss it...? But okay, let's drop this, I've only been referring to the Catalyst's own experiences as well as the geth, anyways.
The Geth Heretics teamed up with Sovereign out of the conclusions they've come to, not due to "Reaper influence". Even Legion tells them that the geth do not think the Heretics are "wrong".
EDI started out as a rogue AI on the Lunar Moon, went crazy and killed everyone because she was "confused".
I dunno how your games went, but my Shep was fighting synthetics often enough for me to label it a consistent theme. *shrugs*
Did you also complain about the Terminator movies for being unrealistic because of Skynet's decision to wipe out humanity?
Did you also complain about the Terminator movies for being unrealistic because of Skynet's decision to wipe out humanity?
I made a post about this earlier and there is a very, VERY fine difference. (Like super thin redline fine) Ill repeat it.
ME3
Organics will eventually evolve into the point of making synthetics that are so powerful, they will destroy all organic life forever.
Reapers exist to prevent this from happening by killing MOST organics before they reach this technology level. Preventing the destruction of all organic races.
Ultimate goal, the continuation of Orgranic exsistance.
Terminator (T1 and T2 early, the other movies completely ignored the logic of the original Skynet)
Humanity will eventually destroy Earth in a nuclear armegaddon. (See Earth 2150 series)
Skynet decides to destroy humanity to prevent the destruction of Earth. (its advance programing allows it to know what the limit of nukes used on the planet is)
Ultimate goal, the continuation of Earth.
Both have some logic behind it, and both are kind of stupid at the same time. Terminator is simply a little less of an issue then most people feel about ME3
You're assuming that Skynet = Reaper.
I'm saying that Skynet = synthetic created by organic, wants to wipe organics out. The reason for the Catalyst to create the Reapers.
Skynet's purpose is not preventing the destruction of Earth (as it did a pretty piss-poor job of doing so, looking at the wastelands), Skynet's purpose is simply to exist, exactly like the purpose of us humans. This existence simply comes with a strong sense of self-preservation. Skynet feels threatened by its masters, so it takes steps to ensure they cannot act against him. Wiping out any potential threat ensures its continued existence.
I also don't see what's stupid about this, but I suppose we may just have a different general inclination regarding such things.
Lynata wrote:I think we're still talking past each other.
You're assuming that Skynet = Reaper.
I'm saying that Skynet = synthetic created by organic, wants to wipe organics out. The reason for the Catalyst to create the Reapers.
Skynet's purpose is not preventing the destruction of Earth (as it did a pretty piss-poor job of doing so, looking at the wastelands), Skynet's purpose is simply to exist, exactly like the purpose of us humans. This existence simply comes with a strong sense of self-preservation. Skynet feels threatened by its masters, so it takes steps to ensure they cannot act against him. Wiping out any potential threat ensures its continued existence.
I also don't see what's stupid about this, but I suppose we may just have a different general inclination regarding such things.
Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)
Lynata wrote:I think we're still talking past each other.
You're assuming that Skynet = Reaper.
I'm saying that Skynet = synthetic created by organic, wants to wipe organics out. The reason for the Catalyst to create the Reapers.
Skynet's purpose is not preventing the destruction of Earth (as it did a pretty piss-poor job of doing so, looking at the wastelands), Skynet's purpose is simply to exist, exactly like the purpose of us humans. This existence simply comes with a strong sense of self-preservation. Skynet feels threatened by its masters, so it takes steps to ensure they cannot act against him. Wiping out any potential threat ensures its continued existence.
I also don't see what's stupid about this, but I suppose we may just have a different general inclination regarding such things.
Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)
But the Geth didn't want to destroy their creators, they even repaired the damage on Rannoch after the Quarians fled. They were more than willing to let the Quarians go back and co-exist with organics if they were given the chance.
Galdos wrote:Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)
Well, depends on how you see it... As the T-800 and Sarah Connor explained, "they" panicked and tried to "pull the plug" as they noticed that Skynet had gained self-awareness. At this point it launched the missiles, upon which the targeted nations reacted and shot back, thus ensuring armageddon.
Time-travel later led to Skynet knowing what's going to happen beforehand and preparing for it (as we can see in T3), at which point it became a preemptive strike rather than self-defense.
That said, I wasn't claiming to this being exactly the same as with the Morning War, but rather a general example of "synthetics try to kill organics". Although there are similarities, at least concerning the original awakening of Skynet.
Tadashi wrote:But the Geth didn't want to destroy their creators, they even repaired the damage on Rannoch after the Quarians fled. They were more than willing to let the Quarians go back and co-exist with organics if they were given the chance.
Except for the "Heretics".
But yeah, I always thought this was kinda cute and tragic at the same time. In a way, the geth never wanted anything other than to be good servants and didn't understand why many quarians were so afraid of them. Even after all the hostilities, they seemed to be willing to reintegrate into or at least cooperate with quarian society, as if they were glad they'd be allowed to assume their old roles again... In ME1 and ME2, and even in the first half of ME3 I was firmly on the side of the militant quarians, planning on presenting Tali with a reconquered Rannoch on a silver platter. It wasn't until I've seen the original recordings inside the server that I changed my mind. Even though the Destroy option killed off the geth, I still feel glad that I managed to broker peace.
Galdos wrote:Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)
Well, depends on how you see it... As the T-800 and Sarah Connor explained, "they" panicked and tried to "pull the plug" as they noticed that Skynet had gained self-awareness. At this point it launched the missiles, upon which the targeted nations reacted and shot back, thus ensuring armageddon.
Time-travel later led to Skynet knowing what's going to happen beforehand and preparing for it (as we can see in T3), at which point it became a preemptive strike rather than self-defense.
That said, I wasn't claiming to this being exactly the same as with the Morning War, but rather a general example of "synthetics try to kill organics". Although there are similarities, at least concerning the original awakening of Skynet.
Tadashi wrote:But the Geth didn't want to destroy their creators, they even repaired the damage on Rannoch after the Quarians fled. They were more than willing to let the Quarians go back and co-exist with organics if they were given the chance.
Except for the "Heretics".
But yeah, I always thought this was kinda cute and tragic at the same time. In a way, the geth never wanted anything other than to be good servants and didn't understand why many quarians were so afraid of them. Even after all the hostilities, they seemed to be willing to reintegrate into or at least cooperate with quarian society, as if they were glad they'd be allowed to assume their old roles again... In ME1 and ME2, and even in the first half of ME3 I was firmly on the side of the militant quarians, planning on presenting Tali with a reconquered Rannoch on a silver platter. It wasn't until I've seen the original recordings inside the server that I changed my mind. Even though the Destroy option killed off the geth, I still feel glad that I managed to broker peace.
I hated T3 and refuse to ever rewatch it (I loved the first two) so I meant what they said in T2 (which you said) Ya I did miss remember it.
What you said about the Geth is exactly what I did, I was with the Quarians until the recordings in the server and a mix of Legions dialog and the recordings convinced me to give the Geth a chance.
Mhmm. It doesn't hold up against the first two, but it had its moments. That said, I'm biased because Kristanna Loken...
Galdos wrote:What you said about the Geth is exactly what I did, I was with the Quarians until the recordings in the server and a mix of Legions dialog and the recordings convinced me to give the Geth a chance.
In a way, I was still with the quarians ... just that I now was convinced that some of them needed a firm slap on the back of their heads.
Had I been forced to choose between the two, I think I'd have still taken the quarians. I couldn't have betrayed Tali. That said, I was willing to gamble based on Legion's promise. It was quite awesome, especially because it was such a tough call to make.
Lynata wrote:So ... we agree there being no proof either way?
No, we do not. The very existence of organic life dictates that the Catalyst is wrong.
ISo what I'm hearing from this is that you would have preferred some big-ass boss fight where you blow something up and have a happy end.
Oh wow what a strawman that is.
I want things to make sense, to fit the themes of the game, to not introduce entirely new conflicts and important characters, in the last five minutes, and I want actual epilogues. That's not too much to ask from a team of proven writers. No bullsh*t, no mandatory happy endings, just something coherent.
"Null and void"? Depending on your choices, you still have made a lasting peace between the quarians and the geth, the latter all having a part of Legion in them now. If you pick Control, these two civilizations will even continue to co-exist alongside each other, at least for a time. Same for Synthesis. EDI and Joker can get and remain together as well.
The fact that such an element has been introduced to the plot, made the defining conflict of the series, and that we're forced to at least lend credence to it, makes it all null and void.
Or are you complaining that there is no option that has you preserve everything at the same time? Basically, are you one of those who wanted a Disney ending?
Isn't that completely unrelated? And another strawman?
Also false. Diversity is what has gotten Shep this far in the first place.
But apparently, you can't coexist with synthetic life because they will always eventually kill every speck of organic matter. Despite proving that you can coexist with them.
Synthesis in particular is diversity in its purest form, by supposedly combining all the good stuff. Where is it contradicted?
Synthesis is an acknowledgment that the differences between organics and synthetics are the cause of the problem, so they must be taken away. I'm not saying that everyone is homogenized to become husks without individuality, but clearly, it's a belief of differences being a problem.
iproxtaco wrote:A probability is not illogical, especially if you're thinking long term.
Saying that because it can, it will, is illogical. It's a fallacy.
In the end, the Catalyst's theory was based on two events happening: 1. at some point, organics will always create synthetics 2. at some point, synthetics will then attempt to exterminate organics
No qualms with the first point.
The second point is the one with no proof, and why I can't accept this as even remotely valid.
Obviously, the first condition was already fulfilled. With the heretic geth, it doesn't take much to assume we were already halfway to the second.
Considering the full situation surrounding the Heretic Geth, I think it is.
A very small portion of a larger synthetic species being convinced by the Reapers that advanced organic life should die, is not proof that it's the inevitability the Catalyst believes it is, because a. the Reapers are the root cause again, b. the Heretics were 5% of the Geth and were opposed by them, and c. they didn't want to wipe out all organic life.
Claiming that just because you as Shep prevented it once is proof that it can always be prevented is like the naive "this will happen never again" crap that was spouted after WW2 or Chernobyl.
I didn't claim anything of the sort, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.
How exactly is it "proven not to be even a possibility"? That's a pretty bold statement to make, concerning that the Catalyst implies that it already happened once, and that this is the reason for its existence.
Organic life still exists, and so do the Reapers.
Meaning that an extinction event has never happened, or that the synthetics were defeated, either of which means it's not a proven inevitability, or that the synthetics created the Reapers to stop other synthetics doing it, which also means it's not an inevitability, and the premise is completely flawed.
Furthermore, there was a valid threat of the so-called heretic geth assimilating the rest of their kind and then go on a genocidal campaign against all the living species.
They weren't out to eradicate all organic life and split from the Geth only when Nazara arrived, meaning the Reapers instigated the problem, which means the entire plot was stupid from the first mission of ME1.
Even without Sovereign they certainly did not like organics due to their experiences during the Morning War.
Yet were perfectly happy to do nothing about it.
You shouldn't. What you should do is to look at both sides of the argument and at least acknowledge the inherent risk to make an informed decision and select the option you are most comfortable with.
I've looked at both sides of the argument many times, I can't acknowledge a risk that has no basis in logic or fact, or even sense, and I'm not remotely comfortable using the Crucible at all.
That is your responsibility as the one pushing the button. You should not just go claim "argueing solves nothing" because you've already made up your mind before even hearing the other side out.
The other side? What other side? You? The Catalyst?
I've heard 'the other side' out plenty of times, you're far from the first person I've argued with on this issue.
Fun fact: monkeys overthrew dinosaurs as the planet's dominant species.
Fun fact: they didn't rise up in a massive rebellion and fight the Dinosaurs in a catastrophic war, and then wipe them all out.
They survived a devastating natural disaster and evolution determined the rest.
It's information *I* was privy to due to what I as Shep have experienced or have been told. I have criticized BW before where I did see a flaw (including aspects of ME3), so I have little motif to suddenly become delusional just for the ending. Which means that somehow I must have been able to find a reasonable explanation. If you simply don't to have want one because you dislike the style of the ending, that's your choice.
Or, your explanation is flawed, as it seems to be.
Peace between geth and quarians, or Joker and EDI getting close can certainly be called foreshadowing, if one were to focus on Synthesis. Coincidentally, the Synthesis ending also always ends with Joker and EDI exiting the Normandy whereas the other endings use your chosen squadmates.
Cooperation is different from 'synthesis'. The idea of the two existing together already exists, so why do I need synthesis again? Because the Catalyst's dilemma involving organic extinction certainly isn't at all credible.
The only actual example of synthetics and organics being combined in the way choosing green would describe is when the Reapers make husks, or other Reapers. Again, I'm not saying this is what happens, that is evidently not the case considering the small view we have of the aftermath.
I'm sure there's another term for it, but the only way I can describe it is 'negative foreshadowing'. Much like the afore mentioned dilemma, the story almost leads you to the oppose conclusion that it results in. Geth and Quarians cooperate, EDI loves Joker and has emotions like an organic, so the implication that synthetic life will eventually try to kill everyone is contradictory. The same can almost be said for synthesis. The Reapers do it to create monstrosities, and the cooperation of synthetics and organics pretty much makes the option irrelevant.
Have I really been so unclear on the subject? The question isn't "will the geth and the quarians be able to maintain peace for the next 5 years", it's "will there never, ever, not in a million years, be a synthetic race attempting to wipe out life?"
A question that has no answer and that no one was asking. It's, for lack of a better phrase, a completely irrelevant conundrum.
For all we know there could even be a Morning War II in 20 years from "now" because some militant quarian with high ranks is uncomfortable with the geth and feels that the current situation allows them to wipe them all out in one quick swipe.
Other than it being the complete opposite of what the Catalyst describes, as in, organics trying to wipe out synthetics, it's also just a wonderful bit of baseless speculation, so irrelevant.
The story points out that it's a bad idea because it has been proven time and time again that the Reapers indoctrinate those attempting to control them. This wasn't the case in the ending as you were not dealing with the Reapers but with the Catalyst, who was in genuine control of them.
It's another case of 'negative foreshadowing', and an extremely bad one.
You're basically told that you shouldn't choose control. Nothing positive is ever brought up about it, it's always the goal of the insane, indoctrinated, pseudo-antagonist that you are actively trying to prevent from coming past.
He could still be lying, of course. But as I said before: If you don't trust him, just pick another option.
That seems........ strange.
Why would I just choose something else if I think it lies?
I don't know that it lies, I just don't trust every word it says.
In this sense, the Crucible is merely a means of "distributing" the solution, nothing more. Like using an airplane to spray agricultural fields, you're using the Crucible's pulse to spread Shep's consciousness to all Reapers in the galaxy, thereby "assimilating" them.
I understand that parts like these can be confusing, but it really doesn't take much to find a suitable explanation to avoid issues one might have.
You're still forcing control.
Which would mean the Reapers then simply go on with their original program without anyone being able to interfere now.
Conjecture.
Did you really miss that the Reapers weren't even aware of the Catalyst? It was merely an eternal vigil with an emergency switch to watch over the Reapers' work and ensure the continuation of the Cycles, nothing more.
I certainly didn't miss that, but killing it is most likely going to affect the Reapers negatively.
Possibly a lack of coordination and direction. My own speculation, it's just one of many alternatives I would choose instead of the Crucible.
... Good job, Shepard. You just doomed the entire galaxy.
Apparently, you do that anyway if you choose control and destroy.
Sounds like it's been some time since you last played Mass Effect 1 and the Battle of the Citadel.
I had a reason why this isn't an example, but I've forgotten it.
Point conceded.
Mass Effect 3 also gives a pretty good impression, though, if you remember the Reaper Destroyer on Rannoch, which took several salvos of orbital bombardment from the quarian Flotilla until it was killed.
Three ships did it. The Reapers aren't so tough.
Even this required two additional conditions: its barriers being weakened from atmospheric operation,
Counter point being the ship's weapons having to fire through the atmosphere as well.
and Shep pinpointing the orbital artillery to a weak spot at virtually point-blank range.
Well one, because the Reaper was right there, and two, because of Geth jamming technology.
Take them away and the three Quarian ships would have no problem.
All this for a 120 meter "Baby Reaper" that is a far cry from the 2 kilometers of a ship like Sovereign.
The fleet had little problem when attacking Earth. It killed on almost immediately.
"The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's Everest-class dreadnoughts. No dreadnought has yet survived a direct hit from the weapon. Estimates put its destructive power anywhere from 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if the target is hardened, as in the case of a surface-based missile silo, the gun can instead bury the target beneath molten metal. Precise targeting computers and correctors also give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics' dreadnoughts or cruisers.
Which is evidently not true completely. The cruiser over Vancouver takes two hits, in atmosphere.
You still think that the Allied Fleet should have just bombed the Reapers away from Earth? Hah.
That's not what I think they should have done, but okay.
That is your argument? An OOC mechanism that has the timer start only when your character beging moving?
Your argument is the Critical Mission Failure. Your mission was the use the Crucible. Waiting too long causes it to be destroyed, but the fleet is still active.
Well, let's just say I'd rather trust the assessment of a veteran character within the game than the opinion of a gamer
You'd rather trust a fictional character telling you something is impossible, just like characters have been doing since Mass Effect 1.
Don't trust me, I haven't actually expressed a full opinion on the matter.
- especially when the Codex entries as well as the battle cinematics we are being shown agree with him.
The codex is contradictory and the battle scenes total at one, that's the battle for Earth.
Well, you are quite adamant at insisting on points like the ones above. It really feels as if you're are actively trying to see it in a negative light.
I admit it all looks sketchy, probably because it is.
With enough time I'd actually lay out the reasoning I have for choosing an attempt at a conventional victory. TL;DR - I don't trust the Catalyst, and an unconventional victory is possible with the right conditions.
But maybe this is merely the result of having been under this impression for so long, and listening to the rage on BSN and the rest of the internet.
I would be in denial if I though that didn't have a nugget of truth.
There was a period where I advocated control through a few weeks ago, and my opinions change quite a lot on the matter. Never from negative to positive, but just different flavours of negative.
It's why I generally dislike the continuous attempts of people to complain about ME3 everywhere, because this is spreading like some sort of viral cancer eating away people's fun. Human psychology really does work that way.
Don't get me wrong, I love Mass Effect 3. It has it's duff moments but overall, one of the greatest games I've played, which is why I hate the ending so much.
The above criticism isn't aimed at you, though. We're having an honest discussion here. What I mean is the countless redundant threads or youtube comments or the facebook spam. As if the world didn't yet know of their "plight". If only they'd put half the energy into complaining about actual problems like corrupt politicians. Instead we see children charities being abused by gamer entitlement.
No comment. Agreeing would be hypocritical. I didn't donate and I don't talk about it in any other medium that's not BSN, or here, but I still supported the fanatics in a way.
The Metacon War was a conflict of organics vs synthetics. We don't even need to know more, why would you dismiss it...? But okay, let's drop this, I've only been referring to the Catalyst's own experiences as well as the geth, anyways.
I dismiss it as evidence to either conclusion, because we have so little information.
The Geth Heretics teamed up with Sovereign out of the conclusions they've come to, not due to "Reaper influence".
Well without Sovereign they wouldn't have attacked, being governed by consensus without outside influcence. You can't deny that the appearence of Nazara caused the Heretics to attack.
Even Legion tells them that the geth do not think the Heretics are "wrong".
Legion only tells you that the Geth understood their reasons, but opposed them.
EDI started out as a rogue AI on the Lunar Moon, went crazy and killed everyone because she was "confused".
A VI that gained rudimentary self-awareness, and because it controlled all the simulations on Luna, killed the soldiers training there because she thought their exercies were acts of agression. She later reveals this as a mistake.
The circumstances always need to be taken into account.
I dunno how your games went, but my Shep was fighting synthetics often enough for me to label it a consistent theme. *shrugs*
Synthetics wanting to wipe out all organics just because, was not a consistent theme, it wasn't ever brought up, and it certainly wasn't the central conflict of the story.
Did you also complain about the Terminator movies for being unrealistic because of Skynet's decision to wipe out humanity?
Other than the fact that we don't know why, obviously not, because it's the premise of the plot, and not something brought up in the last five minutes that thematically contradicts so much of what I've experienced, and that makes pretty much no sense even thought it's only explained in four lines of dialogue.
Apparently, 90 hours of relative consistency can be overidden by four lines of nonsense in the last five minutes. The plot changes from simply 'everyone against the Reapers' to 'synthetics are dickbags that will always want to kill you despite not having any proof that this is true',.
iproxtaco wrote:No, we do not. The very existence of organic life dictates that the Catalyst is wrong.
So you're saying the Catalyst is wrong because the Catalyst prevented it...?
iproxtaco wrote:I want things to make sense, to fit the themes of the game, to not introduce entirely new conflicts and important characters, in the last five minutes, and I want actual epilogues. That's not too much to ask from a team of proven writers. No bullsh*t, no mandatory happy endings, just something coherent.
There was no new conflict - unless you refer to the plot twist as such. Hardly something unique to ME3, though. I also don't think the Catalyst was important just because it was the one that provided you with the choices. However, I will admit that I would have preferred to locate these choices myself rather than having them presented on a silver platter like in some kind of TV gameshow.
Personally, I thought the crash landing of the Normandy as well as the Stargazer post-credit sequence were good epilogues. I actually prefer the rest being left to my own imagination, though of course this is just personal preference. Just because yours differs doesn't make everyone else, including the BW writers, "wrong", though.
iproxtaco wrote:The fact that such an element has been introduced to the plot, made the defining conflict of the series, and that we're forced to at least lend credence to it, makes it all null and void.
The defining conflict of the series was people vs the Reapers. The ending didn't change this. At least not the ending I got.
Your Shep also isn't forced to lend credence to it. feth it all and pick Destroy. Though I suppose Control would work here as well.
Shep just doesn't argue, because Shep knows that there's no point in it when neither side has any actual evidence for their personal opinion. Not when the other side has obviously been stuck in this loop for millions of years. It's called "diplomatic approach".
iproxtaco wrote:Isn't that completely unrelated? And another strawman?
This isn't unrelated at all. I'm trying to gauge the source of your dislike when the ending doesn't take anything more than the usual amount of sci-fi leeway to accept. Whether it's a strawman or not depends entirely on you. My curiosity is genuine.
iproxtaco wrote:But apparently, you can't coexist with synthetic life because they will always eventually kill every speck of organic matter. Despite proving that you can coexist with them.
Again: You do not prove anything. The peace brokered between the quarians and the geth is as much "proof" for your side of the argument as them being at war in the first place is "proof" for the Catalyst. That's about the same logic as saying that nuclear weapons do not threaten mankind's continued existence on this planet just because the few times there was a false alarm, a large scale "retaliatory" attack was held back by some key figure in the command chain trusting his gut more than what a defect computer told them.
And again: Nobody forces you to agree with the Catalyst's assessment. You do have an option to shut down his entire system and all Reapers with it, after all.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthesis is an acknowledgment that the differences between organics and synthetics are the cause of the problem, so they must be taken away. I'm not saying that everyone is homogenized to become husks without individuality, but clearly, it's a belief of differences being a problem.
No, the problem is that synthetics are ultimately superior to organics. In a way, you could say that this is a case where differences are bad, of course. Then again, the diversity of your team and the species of the galaxy has allowed you and everyone else to mount this kind of resistance in the first place, so I don't see how the plot is supposed to badmouth it.
iproxtaco wrote:Saying that because it can, it will, is illogical. It's a fallacy.
Just like saying that because it hasn't yet it will never.
As I have been saying all the time already, it's a matter of risk vs price to pay for security.
iproxtaco wrote:The second point is the one with no proof, and why I can't accept this as even remotely valid.
Geth heretics. And whatever caused the Catalyst to create the Reapers in the first place, I'd presume.
iproxtaco wrote:A very small portion of a larger synthetic species being convinced by the Reapers [...]
Says where? If the geth had been influenced, it would not have been just a small portion that broke away from the main segment but it would have affected them all, seeing that they are networked. Even Legion thinks their decision to do so was not odd or flawed at all, explaining it as "one side saying that 1 is less than 2, and the other that 2 is less than 3".
iproxtaco wrote:I didn't claim anything of the sort, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.
Well, you did field your geth-quarian piece as "evidence".
iproxtaco wrote:Organic life still exists, and so do the Reapers.
See the first and seventh answer.
iproxtaco wrote:Meaning that an extinction event has never happened, or that the synthetics were defeated, either of which means it's not a proven inevitability, or that the synthetics created the Reapers to stop other synthetics doing it, which also means it's not an inevitability, and the premise is completely flawed.
Again: It's risk vs price to pay. Please pay attention to the arguments I am trying to make. This is a matter of conflicting beliefs and philosophies, not of two mathematicians fighting over a formula.
iproxtaco wrote:They weren't out to eradicate all organic life and split from the Geth only when Nazara arrived, meaning the Reapers instigated the problem, which means the entire plot was stupid from the first mission of ME1.
You do not find it curious that Saren was able to convince them so easily in the first place?
iproxtaco wrote:I've looked at both sides of the argument many times, I can't acknowledge a risk that has no basis in logic or fact, or even sense, and I'm not remotely comfortable using the Crucible at all.
Well, if you truly beliefe that, then push the appropriate button. I don't see the problem.
iproxtaco wrote:The other side? What other side? You? The Catalyst?
I've heard 'the other side' out plenty of times, you're far from the first person I've argued with on this issue.
The Catalyst, obviously. I'm not attempting to defend its position. I opted for Destroy, remember?
Me, I just find it "interesting" how people can have that many problems with the ending when I've had no issue finding some explanation or excuse that allowed me to retain the integrity of the game's story. Much of this may be rooted in me actually enjoying to do this (looking for explanations), and I often exercise this hobby for 40k as well. On the other hand, there are quite a number of movies and games that I have dismissed for plot idiocy, so it's not like I'm someone to swallow anything tossed in my direction. *shrugs* I don't know what else to say on this, though, I suppose we just tick differently.
iproxtaco wrote:Fun fact: they didn't rise up in a massive rebellion and fight the Dinosaurs in a catastrophic war, and then wipe them all out.
They survived a devastating natural disaster and evolution determined the rest.
Which may happen again for the pigs.
Do pigs have a chance at doing this on their own, though? No, I don't think so. Unless humans design them this way. You know ... as if they'd design robots ...
iproxtaco wrote:Or, your explanation is flawed, as it seems to be.
Or, your criticism is flawed, as it seems to be.
iproxtaco wrote:Cooperation is different from 'synthesis'. The idea of the two existing together already exists, so why do I need synthesis again?
Because Synthesis, combining the best traits of both, results in a superior form of life presumably able to withstand anything purely synthetic. Also, I think you're applying the foreshadowing a bit too narrowly. Really, it's just "living people vs a fleet of genocidal super-robots" and finding a solution to it. Cooperation and peace are as much a part of the general theme as forced synthesis is.
iproxtaco wrote:I'm sure there's another term for it, but the only way I can describe it is 'negative foreshadowing'. Much like the afore mentioned dilemma, the story almost leads you to the oppose conclusion that it results in. Geth and Quarians cooperate, EDI loves Joker and has emotions like an organic, so the implication that synthetic life will eventually try to kill everyone is contradictory. The same can almost be said for synthesis. The Reapers do it to create monstrosities, and the cooperation of synthetics and organics pretty much makes the option irrelevant.
Are you seriously blaming the game for not making it obvious that Shep's idealism is wrong? One could make an argument of the things you listed being experiences strengthening Shepard's subjective PoV.
As for Reaper Synthesis, I would say that the end result doesn't really qualify as "life". Even if the Reapers wanted, their slaves cannot subsist on their own. Indoctrination ultimately turns them into stupid zombies. This was established in as early as ME1.
iproxtaco wrote:A question that has no answer and that no one was asking. It's, for lack of a better phrase, a completely irrelevant conundrum.
Way to dismiss the Catalyst's whole argument.
iproxtaco wrote:It's another case of 'negative foreshadowing', and an extremely bad one.
How is it negative foreshadowing when Shep's concerns about the Illusive Man's plan are validated?
iproxtaco wrote:You're basically told that you shouldn't choose control. Nothing positive is ever brought up about it, it's always the goal of the insane, indoctrinated, pseudo-antagonist that you are actively trying to prevent from coming past.
If you truly beliefe so, push another button. That's why you were given three choices.
Not that I agree with your assessment, though. Shepard is not indoctrinated and has different and I daresay more genuinely positive motives. These are the decisive points here. The only risk I'd see (provided that the Catalyst wasn't lying) is that long-term exposure to this kind of power might twist Shep's personality.
iproxtaco wrote:Why would I just choose something else if I think it lies?
I don't know that it lies, I just don't trust every word it says.
Well, isn't it logical to go with the option you'd be most comfortable with? Regardless of whether this comfort comes from preference in the supposed effect or scepticism regarding the certainty.
iproxtaco wrote:You're still forcing control.
Over the Reapers. So?
Which would mean the Reapers then simply go on with their original program without anyone being able to interfere now.
Conjecture.
Did you really miss that the Reapers weren't even aware of the Catalyst? It was merely an eternal vigil with an emergency switch to watch over the Reapers' work and ensure the continuation of the Cycles, nothing more.
I certainly didn't miss that, but killing it is most likely going to affect the Reapers negatively.
Possibly a lack of coordination and direction. My own speculation, it's just one of many alternatives I would choose instead of the Crucible.
Well, I don't have anything to counter your speculation. I will only say this: You deliberately chose this one over alternative interpretations that may be more suitable to accept the ending as logical, like I did. I don't know why you would do such a thing unless you wanted to create a conflict ...
iproxtaco wrote:
... Good job, Shepard. You just doomed the entire galaxy.
Apparently, you do that anyway if you choose control and destroy.
Neither the Relay network nor the geth are essential for the continued existence of the galaxy's organic civilizations.
Why the negativity?
iproxtaco wrote:Three ships did it. The Reapers aren't so tough.
Not when you hit them multiple times onto a 1m² opening which is exposed only when firing, pinpointed by a stationary infantry spotter standing no more than a few hundred meters directly in front of the beast. Yeah.
iproxtaco wrote:Counter point being the ship's weapons having to fire through the atmosphere as well.
I don't think atmosphere has that much of an effect on a slug fired at a velocity of about 1.3% the speed of light and impacting with a force of a 38 kiloton bomb* that it would compare even remotely to the difference between a Reaper in atmosphere and one in space.
(*: granted, this is from an Alliance cruiser - you may argue that the quarian Flotilla has less destructive armaments, but certainly not by much)
iproxtaco wrote:Well one, because the Reaper was right there, and two, because of Geth jamming technology.
Take them away and the three Quarian ships would have no problem.
The jamming prevented the Flotilla from targeting the Reaper at all. Ranged sensors are simply not as accurate as a guy right in front of the target - as we can see from the fleet's accuracy during the battle for Earth. Though you could say that perhaps it was also just negatively affected by the Reaper ships actually moving rather than standing still. Either way it's a problem in space.
iproxtaco wrote:The fleet had little problem when attacking Earth. It killed on almost immediately.
Yup, and then the Reapers shot back.
It's simple mathematics. A Reaper capital ship takes four allied dreadnoughts to destroy. On the other hand, a Reaper capital ship can one-shot said dreadnoughts. And we have seen how many large Reapers were at Earth.
iproxtaco wrote:Which is evidently not true completely. The cruiser over Vancouver takes two hits, in atmosphere.
iproxtaco wrote:That's not what I think they should have done, but okay.
Didn't you just say this was your "plan B"?
iproxtaco wrote:Your argument is the Critical Mission Failure. Your mission was the use the Crucible. Waiting too long causes it to be destroyed, but the fleet is still active.
A fleet that, mathematically, has no chance to achieve victory over the Reapers.
And unlike the allied species that really did send everything they could (including the Flotilla's Lifeships), it's not even all the Reapers that have gathered there but just one of many fleets, albeit probably the largest.
iproxtaco wrote:You'd rather trust a fictional character telling you something is impossible, just like characters have been doing since Mass Effect 1.
I have no reason to distrust his judgment as long as I see nothing that gives me reason to doubt it. So far, all I have seen confirms his stance. Not in the least the result of the Alliance's first battles against the Reaper fleet. How many ships did they lose? A third of the entire Navy?
iproxtaco wrote:The codex is contradictory and the battle scenes total at one, that's the battle for Earth.
Where is the Codex contradictory? And there still was the Battle of the Citadel in ME1.
iproxtaco wrote:Don't get me wrong, I love Mass Effect 3. It has it's duff moments but overall, one of the greatest games I've played, which is why I hate the ending so much.
This I can understand. It's the wish for perfection. The more we like something, the worse we perceive any little flaw as diminishing the good. This is especially problematic for franchises that have grown to encompass many products (like ME now) in that they basically breed these high expectations in the fandom themselves. Rose-tinted goggles concerning anything in the past only serve to aggravate it even further (these days people have forgotten all about what they complained about in ME2, for example).
iproxtaco wrote:Apparently, 90 hours of relative consistency can be overidden by four lines of nonsense in the last five minutes. The plot changes from simply 'everyone against the Reapers' to 'synthetics are dickbags that will always want to kill you despite not having any proof that this is true',.
Well, like I said I would have preferred a general "technology is bad, you're just gonna kill everyone" to blaming synthetics as that would have made a lot more sense, but I still don't see it as bad as you.
I don't think there is much to discuss concerning these feelings, though. So much of it apparently comes down to individual perception and I'm not sure why ours would differ so much. I'm not saying the points you raised were entirely without merit, just that there are ways to a more positive understanding that you seem to have deliberately avoided.
He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.
Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.
No it didn't.
It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.
Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.
No it didn't.
It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.
Maybe in your mind, in mine the Catalyst's problem could go to hell. My Shepard didn't care about it's prophecy of future extermination, she was there to blow the Reapers to hell. Any future problem would be faced with the same determination later.
Shepard was there to stop the Reapers, solving the Catalyst's problem (or not) was a by-product of that.
Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.
No it didn't.
It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.
What game were you playing?
Because in the game I was playing, Mass Effect 3, the Catalyst was the problem.
Spoiler:
The Catalyst controlled the Reapers.
It created them to exercise its theory of "Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist" and to cleanse the galaxy of life every arbitrarily designated 'Cycle'.
With that in mind, when Shepherd encounters the Catalyst it is while he is trying to stop the Reapers.
The fact that "The Catalyst" ended up to be a synthetic organism which resided within the Citadel does not suddenly mean that Shepherd wasn't still trying to stop the Reapers.
Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.
No it didn't.
It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.
What game were you playing?
Because in the game I was playing, Mass Effect 3, the Catalyst was the problem.
Spoiler:
The Catalyst controlled the Reapers.
It created them to exercise its theory of "Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist" and to cleanse the galaxy of life every arbitrarily designated 'Cycle'.
With that in mind, when Shepherd encounters the Catalyst it is while he is trying to stop the Reapers.
The fact that "The Catalyst" ended up to be a synthetic organism which resided within the Citadel does not suddenly mean that Shepherd wasn't still trying to stop the Reapers.
That's maybe the goal you had, but that wasn't my point.
The end of the game isn't about stopping the Reapers, it's about solving the Catalyst's problem. That's why the choice is being offered, that's the intention behind the scenes you watch.
Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.
But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.
No it didn't.
It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.
What game were you playing?
Because in the game I was playing, Mass Effect 3, the Catalyst was the problem.
Spoiler:
The Catalyst controlled the Reapers.
It created them to exercise its theory of "Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist" and to cleanse the galaxy of life every arbitrarily designated 'Cycle'.
With that in mind, when Shepherd encounters the Catalyst it is while he is trying to stop the Reapers.
The fact that "The Catalyst" ended up to be a synthetic organism which resided within the Citadel does not suddenly mean that Shepherd wasn't still trying to stop the Reapers.
That's maybe the goal you had, but that wasn't my point.
And all your point does is seem to be manufacturing outrage about something you think that you should be outraged about.
The end of the game isn't about stopping the Reapers, it's about solving the Catalyst's problem. That's why the choice is being offered, that's the intention behind the scenes you watch.
Except this is, as I said, manufacturing something which isn't actually there to fit your "point".
Is it the best way to end the series? No. But saying that it "wasn't about stopping the Reapers" and instead "it's about solving the Catalyst's problem" is a falsehood.
It's like if I were to claim that stopping the Geth was not about saving the Quarians. It's partially true, but it's skewing the facts in such a way that my argument is inarguably true.
GalacticDefender wrote:Is there any news on the extended cut DLC? Is it still being made?
It's debatable, the ending feth up really hit Bioware hard, not to mention Star Wars the old Republic is starting to sink.
Really it's anyone's guess, but as far as I see Bioware is no exactly standing tall money was anymore.
You have precisely no idea what you're talking about.
The "Extended Cut DLC" is still on track. It was something they had to create entirely from scratch, and they had to bring the voice actors in on a schedule that worked for them.
The Extended Cut has no release date, currently, but it is on track for probably a late July/early August release and it will still be free.
GalacticDefender wrote:Is there any news on the extended cut DLC? Is it still being made?
It's debatable, the ending feth up really hit Bioware hard, not to mention Star Wars the old Republic is starting to sink.
Really it's anyone's guess, but as far as I see Bioware is no exactly standing tall money was anymore.
You have precisely no idea what you're talking about.
The "Extended Cut DLC" is still on track. It was something they had to create entirely from scratch, and they had to bring the voice actors in on a schedule that worked for them.
The Extended Cut has no release date, currently, but it is on track for probably a late July/early August release and it will still be free.
Hmm, do I rush through to see the ending as it stands, or do I say feth it and do it after the changes, then look back at the story bits as they where before via youtube?
Going to need to do some multiplayer, been so distracted with other things my zones are back to the near 50% mark.. they where 95-99% back around the end of March.
What save game should I load to play the Extended Cut?
[SPOILERS] To experience the Extended Cut, load a save game from before the attack on the Cerberus Base and play through to the end of the game. The Extended Cut endings will differ depending on choices made throughout the Mass Effect series, so multiple playthroughs with a variety of different decisions will be required to experience the variety of possibilities offered by the new content.
So I have to play through the whole of the ending again just to watch some much longer coloured explosions... multiple times?
Yeah, think I will just wait for it to come up on youtube... it was annoying enough doing it the first three times.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, do I rush through to see the ending as it stands, or do I say feth it and do it after the changes, then look back at the story bits as they where before via youtube?
That's a tough decision! Hard to say without knowing what they've changed (1+Gig sounds like a lot, tho). Generally, I think it's always better to see for yourself what all the ruckus is about. You could do that on youtube, but many of the videos there are cut somehow, and of course they will not feature certain repercussions of the choices you made, not your select companions/LI, and not your Shep. I suppose it comes down to how much that bothers you. For a simple analysis, I suppose youtube might do, if you manage to find an uncut video, but I guess you will have little immersion.
On the other hand, "rushing through" also doesn't sound very immersive, so maybe it would be best to just take your time and enjoy the story as it unfolds?
Keep in mind you are not forced to download the DLC as soon as it comes out. You can still play as normal and simply get the Extended Cut once you're done?
As for multiplayer, iirc winning a single match gives +5% readiness, so it would not take too long to get the rating back up? Maybe we'll even play a match together or two.
The whole point of this thing is that you'll finally get "your" ending. I'm definately going to play the end again. It'll only take like an hour or something like that.
Aye, think I'll play through twice. At least by waiting a little while (well, getting distracted by 40K and infinity) I now know when I need to leave a save point from to see all the new content.
Well it creates a save before the "point of no return" and drops you back off at that point when you complete the game (admittedly with that annoying message telling you to play DLC) so even if you do go too far all is not lost.
New endings dont "add" much. The whole thing seems like Bioware was going "This is OBVIOUSLY what happened, how did you not understand? If you didn't you were stupid." Still leaves one glaring plot hole IMO.
vodo40k wrote:The whole thing seems like Bioware was going "This is OBVIOUSLY what happened, how did you not understand? If you didn't you were stupid."
It's honestly how I felt about the majority of the rage. Not all of if, mind you, but most of it. There were even people who thought the Catalyst was a ghost ffs.
What's the plot hole about? Don't mention specifics, please, just throw a category.
I like the new endings, and I'm fine with Shepard's death. I can't tell, but are the relays still broken, because that's the part I didn't like. No one goes home and earth is overpopulated.
Mr Nobody wrote:I like the new endings, and I'm fine with Shepard's death. I can't tell, but are the relays still broken, because that's the part I didn't like. No one goes home and earth is overpopulated.
Not in destroyed, (the one I saw) Shep lvies, relays survive, only the people on Earth are actually on Earth when relays get fethed up.
The DLC did say one thing that I love, The Catalyst IS fething LYING ITS ASS OFF TO YOU. It is TRYING to get you to go Control or Green, and doesnt want you to go destroy.
I actually really enjoyed the new ending. Not perfect but I thought it was good
Well, I just finished all four new endings. First, we know now that the Relays didn't go supernova and would ultimately be repaired along with the Crucible (although how they do this in Destroy is beyond me). Also, we know the Normandy didn't get disabled, and managed to take off again. Now, onto the endings.
1) Destroy - still doesn't feel right. I just committed genocide on a scale equal to the Reapers, since destroying them pretty much wiped out the last remnants of civilizations from over the past 37 million years at least.
2) Control - feeling worse. Humans (through Shepard) now command the Reapers, but I'm getting a dangerous vibe that Shepard's new existence is starting to get to his head. Leto II much?
3) Synthesis - one word: MAGNIFICENT. I preferred the Reapers going on a great journey across the universe in the original ending, but this is even better. As atonement for their actions, they help rebuild the ruined galaxy, starting with the disabled relays and the Citadel. Even better is what EDI said about transcending organic and synthetic.
4) Reject - who in Throne's name would choose this? I can almost hear Farseer Macha screaming into my head: 'What have you done? What have you done, Human? Fool - you have damned us all!" Every sacrifice Shepard has made had been for nothing. I almost threw up after I tried this. Only someone so childish that they can't realize victory will always have a price would choose this. The only good side to it is that its basically a big middle finger to people who believe the Catalyst was lying. I can hear the disappointment when it said: "The Cycle will continue."
Just finished the extended ending. Not a huge fan.
Too drawn out and all the stuff added in is stuff which I already assumed happened anyway.
Some of the added cinematics are nice but changes such as not being in control of Shepard when she is hit by Harbingers beam detract from the experience.
The biggest disappointment for me is that the extended cut didn't close any of the major plot holes....it actually made some of them worse.
1 - You get to say goodbye to your love interest, but the Normandy drops in to pick them up. The NORMANDY. Right in front of HARBINGER. While he's FIRIN HIS LAZERS!! How did he not take the shot to kill the Normandy when he can clearly see Shepard loading people onto it?
2 - Anderson. This one didn't change. There is one ramp to the control room, one access to that ramp, and no doors anywhere that I can see. Where did Anderson come out, and how did he get to the control room before Shepard?
3 - The StarChild explained where the Reapers came from, and who he was and what made him. He is an AI created by an ancient forgotten race to solve the problem of Synthetics destroying their creators. And what did he do? HE DESTROYED HIS CREATORS! He outright said that they became the first Reaper, and they did not approve. He destroyed them against their will. The "solution" to the problem of Synthetics killing Organics is to kill Organics and turn them into Synthetics that harvest advanced Orcanics? What the hell kind of logic is that? It's what we've been asking all along, and BioWare simply confirmed that yes, that's correct. They did that. Bah!
I think this just confirms the ending was BAD, plain and simple. Bioware had a golden opportunity which they did not exploit (although there is still nothing stopping you from believing in the IT). The EC overall came off as patronising and merely replacing existing plot holes with new ones, again doing nothing to rectify the horrendous break in narrative. The "Reject" ending is like Bioware saying "You dont like our endings? Fine everybody in the galaxy dies because you cant appreciate our "Art". The whole thing simply reeks of terrible writing. The only credit I will give to Bioware is that they "attempted" to explain what they meant, unlike what happened in "Lost".
Most people dont want "thought provoking art" they want a simple, cliche/disney boss battle and a conclusive wrap up of events.
Do the endings show the results of any of your previous descisions in the game? Because if not, then it's only marginally better than the original ending. (I have yet to download it, but that was my main beef with it in the first place. The lack of closure, and the fact that none of your descisions mattered. I actually sort of liked the whole "reaper AI kid" idea.)
GalacticDefender wrote:Do the endings show the results of any of your previous descisions in the game? Because if not, then it's only marginally better than the original ending. (I have yet to download it, but that was my main beef with it in the first place. The lack of closure, and the fact that none of your descisions mattered. I actually sort of liked the whole "reaper AI kid" idea.)
Im sorry, i dont understand what anyone means when they say your decisions from the previous games didnt matter. When has that ever occured? What were you guys expecting?
DURING the game they refrence your decisions all the time and some of them really DO matter. The end of the game doesnt refrence them them but I never expected they would have.
The new endings provide plenty of closure
I also dont understand why anyone is upset at the reject ending. I thought the idea of it was fething hillarious and a good call on Bioware. "What, you say your Shepard wouldnt pick any of these options... um okay, how do you plan to win this war? You are refusing to use the Crucible soooo ya your cycle is going to die like all the others. What did you think was going to happen?"
New endings filled up several plot holes (not all but a few big ones), added closure, made endings unqiue, and added a fairly funny ending that makes sense. Ya I was pretty pleased with them
vodo40k wrote:The only credit I will give to Bioware is that they "attempted" to explain what they meant, unlike what happened in "Lost".
I actually liked the Lost ending. It wasn't perfect, but the problems were not as monolithic as they are in ME3. If you payed attention, it made sense for the most part. The ME3 ending is just a failing of the writers. They had a concept but failed to do anything meaningful with it, and wrote themselves into too many corners in the first two games.
Galdos wrote:Im sorry, i dont understand what anyone means when they say your decisions from the previous games didnt matter. When has that ever occured? What were you guys expecting?
DURING the game they refrence your decisions all the time and some of them really DO matter. The end of the game doesnt refrence them them but I never expected they would have.
The new endings provide plenty of closure
I also dont understand why anyone is upset at the reject ending. I thought the idea of it was fething hillarious and a good call on Bioware. "What, you say your Shepard wouldnt pick any of these options... um okay, how do you plan to win this war? You are refusing to use the Crucible soooo ya your cycle is going to die like all the others. What did you think was going to happen?"
New endings filled up several plot holes (not all but a few big ones), added closure, made endings unqiue, and added a fairly funny ending that makes sense. Ya I was pretty pleased with them
1) Why were my teamates who were charging the beam suddenly on the Normandy
2) Why was the Normandy running from the battle
3) What happens to the millions+ aliens that are currently trapped at Earth without the supplies to sustain them.
4) Do Joker and female character that is with him (if any) perform Adam and Eve on this planet?
Those are all considered plot holes right? I think that cover them
GalacticDefender wrote:Do the endings show the results of any of your previous descisions in the game? Because if not, then it's only marginally better than the original ending. (I have yet to download it, but that was my main beef with it in the first place. The lack of closure, and the fact that none of your descisions mattered. I actually sort of liked the whole "reaper AI kid" idea.)
Well I got pictures of the Krogan rebuilding Tuchanka along with Wrex and Eve with their child, so that's one result of my choices. I doubt the pictures would have been the same if Wreav was in control, or if you didn't cure the Genophage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aldarionn wrote:
@ A Town Called Malus - Love the avatar
Thank you, you obviously have good taste in avatars
1) Why were my teamates who were charging the beam suddenly on the Normandy
2) Why was the Normandy running from the battle
3) What happens to the millions+ aliens that are currently trapped at Earth without the supplies to sustain them.
4) Do Joker and female character that is with him (if any) perform Adam and Eve on this planet?
Those are all considered plot holes right? I think that cover them
And why was there a convenient pause in the middle of the battle, allowing Shepard to signal the normandy? Harbinger obviously decided to wait patiently while his mortal enemies ship flew directly in front of his face to allow it time to extract the crew and fly off again. And somehow a beam that has no problem eviscerating a shielded starship, neatly burns off shepards armour and only gives him one abdominal wound and no burns. Harbinger also decides to still fly off, he's not being very responsible if he leaves a lot of wounded soldiers on the ground who would potentially be able to reach the beam. Oh and the biggest one of all IMO, couldnt the reapers, I dont know TURN OFF THE BEAM or at least destroy it themselves and then rebuild it after the battle. If its really the ONLY WAY to the citadel you think they would cover their main weakness.
1) Why were my teamates who were charging the beam suddenly on the Normandy
2) Why was the Normandy running from the battle
3) What happens to the millions+ aliens that are currently trapped at Earth without the supplies to sustain them.
4) Do Joker and female character that is with him (if any) perform Adam and Eve on this planet?
Those are all considered plot holes right? I think that cover them
And why was there a convenient pause in the middle of the battle, allowing Shepard to signal the normandy? Harbinger obviously decided to wait patiently while his mortal enemies ship flew directly in front of his face to allow it time to extract the crew and fly off again. And somehow a beam that has no problem eviscerating a shielded starship, neatly burns off shepards armour and only gives him one abdominal wound and no burns. Harbinger also decides to still fly off, he's not being very responsible if he leaves a lot of wounded soldiers on the ground who would potentially be able to reach the beam. Oh and the biggest one of all IMO, couldnt the reapers, I dont know TURN OFF THE BEAM or at least destroy it themselves and then rebuild it after the battle. If its really the ONLY WAY to the citadel you think they would cover their main weakness.
1) Why were my teamates who were charging the beam suddenly on the Normandy
2) Why was the Normandy running from the battle
3) What happens to the millions+ aliens that are currently trapped at Earth without the supplies to sustain them.
4) Do Joker and female character that is with him (if any) perform Adam and Eve on this planet?
Those are all considered plot holes right? I think that cover them
And why was there a convenient pause in the middle of the battle, allowing Shepard to signal the normandy? Harbinger obviously decided to wait patiently while his mortal enemies ship flew directly in front of his face to allow it time to extract the crew and fly off again. And somehow a beam that has no problem eviscerating a shielded starship, neatly burns off shepards armour and only gives him one abdominal wound and no burns. Harbinger also decides to still fly off, he's not being very responsible if he leaves a lot of wounded soldiers on the ground who would potentially be able to reach the beam. Oh and the biggest one of all IMO, couldnt the reapers, I dont know TURN OFF THE BEAM or at least destroy it themselves and then rebuild it after the battle. If its really the ONLY WAY to the citadel you think they would cover their main weakness.
Just finished the new ending. It was pretty awesome. Despite what they said they did change the ending not just "extend" it. It's not as apocalyptically grimdark as before with pretty much the whole galaxy being destroyed but that's fine with me. It's a nice galaxy afterall. They seem to have spent a lot of time explaining why the Normandy bugged out but it just ended up being exactly what I assumed so that was a bit unnecesary. The conversation with the catalyst is much more explanatory now but I kinda miss the ambigous, cerebral version. However my main problem with the ending, that is abrupt and doesn't show what happens to the galaxy and your friends, is fixed. It's a lot more epic now (at least it was for Synthesis, which I choose...again).
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Just finished the new ending. It was pretty awesome. Despite what they said they did change the ending not just "extend" it. It's not as apocalyptically grimdark as before with pretty much the whole galaxy being destroyed but that's fine with me. It's a nice galaxy afterall. They seem to have spent a lot of time explaining why the Normandy bugged out but it just ended up being exactly what I assumed so that was a bit unnecesary. The conversation with the catalyst is much more explanatory now but I kinda miss the ambigous, cerebral version. However my main problem with the ending, that is abrupt and doesn't show what happens to the galaxy and your friends, is fixed. It's a lot more epic now (at least it was for Synthesis, which I choose...again).
That's partially true. They did expand on what happened after the explosion and showed the consequences of Shepard's decision, but they introduced a whole slew of plot holes.
-Harbinger didn't kill the Normandy when it flew in to evac Shepard's team. Call it plot armor, call it story telling, call it whatever you want. It's poor writing and felt tacked on to appease people.
-They kept the scene where the Normandy was flying away from the red/green/blue bubble of doom in all three endings, but every other ship in the system flew to a rendezvous point and presumably made it there without incident. Also, the bubble didn't destroy the Normandy's engines in any of the three expanded endings, so why did she crash on a planet? She didn't even take damage, and in Synthesis it's presumed that she was made stronger by Shepard's will. Their expansion directly contradicted the need for the Normandy crash to begin with, yet they left it in.
-They added the scenes of Shepard using the Reapers to help rebuild, or the Reapers doing it on their own after Synthesis, but there is nothing stopping organics from perpetuating the problem by continuing to make synthetics, or making all new pure synthetics that eventually rebel and destroy everyone. In fact, in the control ending, it would then be Shepard's job to re-enstate the cycle.
-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.
I think my main thing is, it seems the universe can continue now. Reading between the lines after the first round of endings, it seemed like they had forced the Mass Effect universe into either a complete end, or if it was continued, it'd be in the next cycle/thousands of years with no real connection to the trilogy.
Now after watching the Control ending (yes I know, not even finished my first play through.. do'h, but there is little chance of any of my characters doing it) and reading some stuff here, it seems another Mass Effect themed game can continue a lot closer to the trilogy. Maybe after the next generation of Humans have come through, but someone like Wrex might still be around, Liara etc.
For me that would be more interesting than anything else, because I would like to see more from the setting. Hell, if I was running a RPG company, I'd have been ringing Bioware up a two years ago to look into releasing a tabletop version.
Aldarionn wrote:-Harbinger didn't kill the Normandy when it flew in to evac Shepard's team. Call it plot armor, call it story telling, call it whatever you want. It's poor writing and felt tacked on to appease people.
Given that they passed up a shot to gun the Normandy down at the beginning of the game, can't say I'm surprised. They probably need more windows
-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.
That's not a change. Its pretty much what the first ending told us, albeit with more specifics.
Honestly, don't feel like the endings really changed much. They added a few new things, extended the ending cut scenes, but they still are kind of blarg. When fans asked for an ending with more clarity, I don't think this is what they meant. Of course the rage has passed now so I don't expect anything new to happen.
Aldarionn wrote:-Harbinger didn't kill the Normandy when it flew in to evac Shepard's team. Call it plot armor, call it story telling, call it whatever you want. It's poor writing and felt tacked on to appease people.
Given that they passed up a shot to gun the Normandy down at the beginning of the game, can't say I'm surprised. They probably need more windows
Maybe the Reapers have trouble detecting the Normandy thanks to its Stealth Drive? It's not unlikely that the stealth capabilities have been improved during the retrofits between ME2 and 3 and as Reapers are entirely dependant on external electronic sensors to "see", it is possible that in the heat of a battle they simply cannot tell that the Normandy is there with all the interference from other sources.
The only time they seem to pick it up in the game is when you drop probes. They detect the probes and then presumably put more power into their sensors to detect the Normandy, something they can't do when they're under fire from Dreadnoughts or are planetside, due to them having to keep their barriers powered, their weapon systems powered and, if they're planetside, lowering their mass to enable them to remain mobile.
Aldarionn wrote:-Harbinger didn't kill the Normandy when it flew in to evac Shepard's team. Call it plot armor, call it story telling, call it whatever you want. It's poor writing and felt tacked on to appease people.
Given that they passed up a shot to gun the Normandy down at the beginning of the game, can't say I'm surprised. They probably need more windows
Maybe the Reapers have trouble detecting the Normandy thanks to its Stealth Drive? It's not unlikely that the stealth capabilities have been improved during the retrofits between ME2 and 3 and as Reapers are entirely dependant on external electronic sensors to "see", it is possible that in the heat of a battle they simply cannot tell that the Normandy is there with all the interference from other sources.
The only time they seem to pick it up in the game is when you drop probes. They detect the probes and then presumably put more power into their sensors to detect the Normandy, something they can't do when they're under fire from Dreadnoughts or are planetside, due to them having to keep their barriers powered, their weapon systems powered and, if they're planetside, lowering their mass to enable them to remain mobile.
Oh please. Its right in front of him - he knows where it is.
The reason they only detect you when you drop probes is because you are in the middle of Outerspace. All the stealth drives do is make it so its very difficult to detect the normandy in Space.
Aldarionn wrote:-Harbinger didn't kill the Normandy when it flew in to evac Shepard's team. Call it plot armor, call it story telling, call it whatever you want. It's poor writing and felt tacked on to appease people.
Given that they passed up a shot to gun the Normandy down at the beginning of the game, can't say I'm surprised. They probably need more windows
Maybe the Reapers have trouble detecting the Normandy thanks to its Stealth Drive? It's not unlikely that the stealth capabilities have been improved during the retrofits between ME2 and 3 and as Reapers are entirely dependant on external electronic sensors to "see", it is possible that in the heat of a battle they simply cannot tell that the Normandy is there with all the interference from other sources.
The only time they seem to pick it up in the game is when you drop probes. They detect the probes and then presumably put more power into their sensors to detect the Normandy, something they can't do when they're under fire from Dreadnoughts or are planetside, due to them having to keep their barriers powered, their weapon systems powered and, if they're planetside, lowering their mass to enable them to remain mobile.
He's capable of aiming lasers at human sized objects running toward an energy beam, but he cannot see the Normandy right in front of him in the heat of battle? I don't buy it in the least. It was shoehorned in or satisfy our desire for closure, but in doing so it opened up a wider gash in the plot than anything the original endings had.
The expanded endings were not designed to change anything. They just explained things more thoroughly via cut-scenes and monologues, which actually seemed to hurt the plot, not help it.
I found this post on the BioWare Social Network, and I thought I would repost it here because it almost perfectly illustrates the way I feel about the ME3 endings, especially after the DLC, in much more eloquent detail than I could ever achieve. Fair warning, it's a wall of text, but it is WELL worth reading in its entirety because it is so well written and has such an excellent deconstruction of events and their meaning when compared to the whole of the series.
Enjoy!
Spoiler:
By "Made Nightwing"
So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:
Drayfish, p.13:
I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.
My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.
I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.
If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!
So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.
In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.
The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...
To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.
And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.
To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.
(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)
And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)
I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.
And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.
That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.
The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.
And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.
...Sorry again for the length of this post.
I did warn you. It's a massive post, but I hope you all read it.
Aldarionn wrote:I found this post on the BioWare Social Network, and I thought I would repost it here because it almost perfectly illustrates the way I feel about the ME3 endings, especially after the DLC, in much more eloquent detail than I could ever achieve. Fair warning, it's a wall of text, but it is WELL worth reading in its entirety because it is so well written and has such an excellent deconstruction of events and their meaning when compared to the whole of the series.
Enjoy!
Spoiler:
By "Made Nightwing"
So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:
Drayfish, p.13:
I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.
My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.
I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.
If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!
So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.
In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.
The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...
To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.
And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.
To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.
(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)
And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)
I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.
And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.
That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.
The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.
And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.
...Sorry again for the length of this post.
I did warn you. It's a massive post, but I hope you all read it.
Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Aldarionn wrote:I found this post on the BioWare Social Network, and I thought I would repost it here because it almost perfectly illustrates the way I feel about the ME3 endings, especially after the DLC, in much more eloquent detail than I could ever achieve. Fair warning, it's a wall of text, but it is WELL worth reading in its entirety because it is so well written and has such an excellent deconstruction of events and their meaning when compared to the whole of the series.
Enjoy!
Spoiler:
By "Made Nightwing"
So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:
Drayfish, p.13:
I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.
My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.
I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.
If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!
So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.
In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.
The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...
To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.
And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.
To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.
(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)
And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)
I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.
And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.
That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.
The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.
And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.
...Sorry again for the length of this post.
I did warn you. It's a massive post, but I hope you all read it.
Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Aldarionn wrote:I found this post on the BioWare Social Network, and I thought I would repost it here because it almost perfectly illustrates the way I feel about the ME3 endings, especially after the DLC, in much more eloquent detail than I could ever achieve. Fair warning, it's a wall of text, but it is WELL worth reading in its entirety because it is so well written and has such an excellent deconstruction of events and their meaning when compared to the whole of the series.
Enjoy!
Spoiler:
By "Made Nightwing"
So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:
Drayfish, p.13:
I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.
My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.
I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.
If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!
So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.
In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.
The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...
To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.
And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.
To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.
(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)
And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)
I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.
And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.
That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.
The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.
And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.
...Sorry again for the length of this post.
I did warn you. It's a massive post, but I hope you all read it.
Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Irrelevant.
So is this whining about how bad the ending is. Bioware's done with it, so just suck it up and accept it. If you don't like any of the primary options, then choose Reject, and let the galaxy burn.
Tadashi wrote:Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Which is all well and good, but as has been noted a thousand times, that's not really the theme of Mass Effect.
Tadashi wrote:Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Which is all well and good, but as has been noted a thousand times, that's not really the theme of Mass Effect.
No, it's not. But it is for Mass Effect 3. Anyone who's studied history knows that even the victor cannot have everything their way.
Tadashi wrote:Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Which is all well and good, but as has been noted a thousand times, that's not really the theme of Mass Effect.
No, it's not. But it is for Mass Effect 3. Anyone who's studied history knows that even the victor cannot have everything their way.
So you admit that the final game is vastly different from 1&2 in the direction of the game.
Tadashi wrote:Note the tagline for Mass Effect 3: You can't save them all. One cannot always have victory on one's own terms. Something must always be sacrificed.
Which is all well and good, but as has been noted a thousand times, that's not really the theme of Mass Effect.
No, it's not. But it is for Mass Effect 3. Anyone who's studied history knows that even the victor cannot have everything their way.
So you admit that the final game is vastly different from 1&2 in the direction of the game.
That means it was poorly written.
1 and 2 were both delaying actions - trying to buy time against the inevitable Reaper invasion. 3 was about fighting a war and saving as many people as possible.
@ Tadashi - You don't understand the point of this whole thing. BioWare spent nearly a decade putting together more than 100 hours of narrative and concluded it with three choices that completely invalidate anything you did up to that point. To quote the message I posted "That's like ending Pinocchio by having Gippetto throw him in a wood chipper."
It's not a matter of wanting to save everyone. You can have a GOOD ending that fits the theme of the series and still have characters, races, or even Shepard die. What they did was write a BAD ending that forces you into one of three choices that don't solve the issue, and invalidate everything Shepard has done up to that point. It's the worst kind of Deus Ex Machina. One that tries to give the player some illusion of having a choice, but comes across as mocking and arrogant. If you haven't actually read that entire post I quoted, it covers this opinion in eloquent detail, and it is really worth your time.
It was never about saving everyone. It was about having an ending that made sense and gave closure within the existing theme of the Mass Effect universe, which the current endings have not done at all.
I think the fact the main writer left between the end of ME2 and the start of ME3, speaks volumes myself.
I'm happy of sorts, that in effect (we if EA/Bioware want it to) the universe can continue after the adjustments, as prviously it looked like they'd killed an awesome franchise. (and I'd not seen that level of incompitance since Dragons of Summer Flame.)
However after reading bits about the endings (I thought what the hell, I sorta knew the ending of ME2 before hand, and that didn't spoil it any for me) I am quite dispaointed with the final direction this lesser writing team took the game.
Forgetting Thane was a love interest (even if I can't stand the bloke) is pretty much unforgivable for a writer.
It's even worse than you think. Casey Hudson and one other guy wrote the entire ending by themselves with no other input from anyone else on the writing staff. Several staff members have condemned the ending as not the direction they would like to have taken, and one guy wrote a whole forum post about it on the BSN not long after the game released, then removed it an hour later.
I would really like to know where the original writing staff would have taken the story if they had a chance to conclude it.
Aldarionn wrote:It's even worse than you think. Casey Hudson and one other guy wrote the entire ending by themselves with no other input from anyone else on the writing staff. Several staff members have condemned the ending as not the direction they would like to have taken, and one guy wrote a whole forum post about it on the BSN not long after the game released, then removed it an hour later.
Er no.
The "one guy" who wrote a whole forum post about it, wrote it on the Penny Arcade forums--and it was later condemned by the individual who was said to have written it as someone registering under his name.
I would really like to know where the original writing staff would have taken the story if they had a chance to conclude it.
Casey Hudson is part of the original writing staff.
Drew was obviously the guiding force however. I understand why they would want him writing for The Old Republic, but its just danged shame he couldn't still have a proper guiding hand on ME3.
Reading his novels reccently, and you can tell how much love he had for the setting.
Kanluwen wrote:
Er no.
The "one guy" who wrote a whole forum post about it, wrote it on the Penny Arcade forums--and it was later condemned by the individual who was said to have written it as someone registering under his name.
I don't buy that for a second. Granted, you are correct about where the post appeared, but the post was pretty well informed and seemed to allude to some insider information. Of course it would be condemned after the fact if it was intended to be a leak. The damage was done once it went out, and the guy can say whatever he want, but without concrete proof showing that someone else wrote it, people will assume it's true.
Casey Hudson is part of the original writing staff.
True, but as Moranthi pointed out, he was not the guiding force behind the writing, and between the things I've heard about him and the way the ending was resolved on disk, and in the extended cut, I can believe that he took hold of the ending himself and force fed it to the rest of the writers.
Kanluwen wrote:
Er no.
The "one guy" who wrote a whole forum post about it, wrote it on the Penny Arcade forums--and it was later condemned by the individual who was said to have written it as someone registering under his name.
I don't buy that for a second. Granted, you are correct about where the post appeared, but the post was pretty well informed and seemed to allude to some insider information. Of course it would be condemned after the fact if it was intended to be a leak. The damage was done once it went out, and the guy can say whatever he want, but without concrete proof showing that someone else wrote it, people will assume it's true.
The fact that the guy is still working at BioWare is proof enough that it wasn't him.
With things like this, you almost always see people being fired over whatever reasons.
Casey Hudson is part of the original writing staff.
True, but as Moranthi pointed out, he was not the guiding force behind the writing, and between the things I've heard about him and the way the ending was resolved on disk, and in the extended cut, I can believe that he took hold of the ending himself and force fed it to the rest of the writers.
Have you read Drew's Old Republic novel?
I'm more than happy that he didn't get a chance to write the ending for ME3. It would have ended with a force feeding of the ending to you, while at the same time trying to be vague and mysterious.
Karon wrote:ME3 is just gak from a writing and story perspective compared to 1 and 2.
Stop whining and accept that its done already, sheesh. Some of us out here like the ending as it is. If you don't like it, then don't play it.
Aldarionn wrote:@ Tadashi - You don't understand the point of this whole thing. BioWare spent nearly a decade putting together more than 100 hours of narrative and concluded it with three choices that completely invalidate anything you did up to that point. To quote the message I posted "That's like ending Pinocchio by having Gippetto throw him in a wood chipper."
Why can't you just understand that Mass Effect 3 is the Reaper Invasion - a full-on war? You can't win a war without sacrificing a few things. Commit genocide, impose a single viewpoint on the galaxy, bring about technological singularity, or just let the galaxy burn, those are the only options to end the war. Want a happy, disney-style ending? Go ahead and make a mod. But many of us prefer a heroic ending and a new beginning, thank you very much. My story ends with the entire galaxy transcending organics and synthetics alike and taking the first steps to a new world in unity, and that's the way I like it.
Karon wrote:ME3 is just gak from a writing and story perspective compared to 1 and 2.
Whoever left was needed to make the ME3 ending good, along with the removal of EA as publisher.
ME1 was acceptable, but nothing more than a rehash of things Bioware and other writers have done many times before. First time I played ME1 I quit it when Shepard got in the SPECTRES because it was nearly fething identical to the PC joining the Jedi and Grey Wardens in their previous games.
ME2 had amazing companion quests, but an impressive MQ. Still the best game in the series by a long shot though.
Aside from the Crucible and Catalyst plotlines (which account for at most 1/5 of ME3), ME3 has great writing and some of the more memorable scenes in the series. If the ending wasn't FUBAR it would be the best game in the series.
Kanluwen wrote:I think it's safe to say you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
You've made it readily apparent that you disagree with me and Karon on this subject months ago. Stop replying to it if you have nothing to contribute.
Tadashi wrote:
Karon wrote:ME3 is just gak from a writing and story perspective compared to 1 and 2.
Stop whining and accept that its done already, sheesh. Some of us out here like the ending as it is. If you don't like it, then don't play it.
Aldarionn wrote:@ Tadashi - You don't understand the point of this whole thing. BioWare spent nearly a decade putting together more than 100 hours of narrative and concluded it with three choices that completely invalidate anything you did up to that point. To quote the message I posted "That's like ending Pinocchio by having Gippetto throw him in a wood chipper."
Why can't you just understand that Mass Effect 3 is the Reaper Invasion - a full-on war? You can't win a war without sacrificing a few things. Commit genocide, impose a single viewpoint on the galaxy, bring about technological singularity, or just let the galaxy burn, those are the only options to end the war. Want a happy, disney-style ending? Go ahead and make a mod. But many of us prefer a heroic ending and a new beginning, thank you very much.
Nothing you said in your post is relevant. I don't if you need big bolded letters or to have R. Lee Ermey to scream in your ear to get the message across or if you're simply being willfully obtuse.
Very few people give a damn about a happy ending. The current endings are bad regardless of whether or not they are 'happy' or 'sad'. They suck. Shepard getting vaped on Earth would've been better.
Karon wrote:ME3 is just gak from a writing and story perspective compared to 1 and 2.
Stop whining and accept that its done already, sheesh. Some of us out here like the ending as it is. If you don't like it, then don't play it.
Aldarionn wrote:@ Tadashi - You don't understand the point of this whole thing. BioWare spent nearly a decade putting together more than 100 hours of narrative and concluded it with three choices that completely invalidate anything you did up to that point. To quote the message I posted "That's like ending Pinocchio by having Gippetto throw him in a wood chipper."
Why can't you just understand that Mass Effect 3 is the Reaper Invasion - a full-on war? You can't win a war without sacrificing a few things. Commit genocide, impose a single viewpoint on the galaxy, bring about technological singularity, or just let the galaxy burn, those are the only options to end the war. Want a happy, disney-style ending? Go ahead and make a mod. But many of us prefer a heroic ending and a new beginning, thank you very much.
Nothing you said in your post is relevant. I don't if you need big bolded letters or to have R. Lee Ermey to scream in your ear to get the message across or if you're simply being willfully obtuse.
Very few people give a damn about a happy ending. The current endings are bad regardless of whether or not they are 'happy' or 'sad'. They suck. Shepard getting vaped on Earth would've been better.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if its so bad, then don't play it. Haters gonna hate, whiners gonna whine.
Yes if we don't like it don't play it. Quick everybody lets all run out and "un-buy" our copies of ME3!!! Not everybody likes to look at SPOILERS before getting a game.
We are just talking in circles here. I've explained my position enough and if you don't understand it by now then nothing I say will make you understand it. I didn't want a cookie cutter "Disney" ending. Total victory would have seemed cheap to me. In fact, tragedy and sacrifice would have been necessary for me to buy the ending at all. What I DON'T want is an ending that introduces a new character last minute who rounds up everything I have done up to that point and throws it out the window, then force feeds me three options that don't make any sense. I feel like that is what I got, and for that reason I dislike the ending.
For the record, I thought the rest of the game was excellent.
Kanluwen wrote:I think it's safe to say you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
I agree with everything Amaya said. I think we've been pretty much the same on the subject of the whole trilogy since a couple days after ME3 came out.
I do consider ME2 to be the best overall game, and I do like 95% of ME3 with a few nitpicks here and there.
I think the endings were made that way so that ME3 could be a stand alone game which made sense on its own. Imagine if you had played only ME3, then the endings kind of make sense.
It's true that no matter what you do, the endings will be same to a few details close. All the missions leading up the final assault are just to get effective military strength past certain levels which affect details of the games ending, such as shepard's survival or not. It is disappointing that the choice of allies didn't have a direct effect, that's true.
However, you can look at your choices as stories in themselves. You end the Quarian-Geth war, seal the fate of the Krogan and Salarians etc. So that does kind of give a sense of closure. However, the fact remains that it would have been more satsifying to have vastly different endings based on your allies and their numbers.
Spoiler:
Also, how is the franchise still alive if the mass relays get destroyed? How can the universe still be used unless prequels are put in place?
Lord Rogukiel wrote:I think the endings were made that way so that ME3 could be a stand alone game which made sense on its own. Imagine if you had played only ME3, then the endings kind of make sense.
It's true that no matter what you do, the endings will be same to a few details close. All the missions leading up the final assault are just to get effective military strength past certain levels which affect details of the games ending, such as shepard's survival or not. It is disappointing that the choice of allies didn't have a direct effect, that's true.
However, you can look at your choices as stories in themselves. You end the Quarian-Geth war, seal the fate of the Krogan and Salarians etc. So that does kind of give a sense of closure. However, the fact remains that it would have been more satsifying to have vastly different endings based on your allies and their numbers.
Spoiler:
Also, how is the franchise still alive if the mass relays get destroyed? How can the universe still be used unless prequels are put in place?
Spoiler:
Its quite clear that in all the "new" endings in the EC, the relays can be repared-even in the destroy ending (although it would take markedly longer in this situation).
Aldarionn wrote:-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.
Just because whoever created the reapers made a mistake doesn't mean that its bad writing.
Picture the scene:
You've been attacked by synthetic life forms in the past, but have presumably survived.
You create an AI to provide a solution to the problem of other synthetics killing organics.
Would you honestly expect the solution the AI provides to be "harvest all organic life and convert them into giant semi-organic sentient ships which will pop into the galaxy to kill everything every 50,00 years"?
Nothing says that the AI was switched on and they just said "oh yeah, just do whatever you want, we won't mind" They've just spent however many years dealing with other synthetics, the Starchild wouldn't have been unshackled when first created, but presumably got slowly out of control.
Whatever happened though, just because whatever race evolved and created the reapers made a catastrophic mistake doesn't indicate bad writing on Bioware's part.
Aldarionn wrote:-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.
Just because whoever created the reapers made a mistake doesn't mean that its bad writing.
Picture the scene: You've been attacked by synthetic life forms in the past, but have presumably survived. You create an AI to provide a solution to the problem of other synthetics killing organics. Would you honestly expect the solution the AI provides to be "harvest all organic life and convert them into giant semi-organic sentient ships which will pop into the galaxy to kill everything every 50,00 years"? Nothing says that the AI was switched on and they just said "oh yeah, just do whatever you want, we won't mind" They've just spent however many years dealing with other synthetics, the Starchild wouldn't have been unshackled when first created, but presumably got slowly out of control.
Whatever happened though, just because whatever race evolved and created the reapers made a catastrophic mistake doesn't indicate bad writing on Bioware's part.
My thoughts exactly. But give it up...most of the other people on this thread are set in stone that while the game itself is bad, the plot and ending are poor. There's no point in further debating about it.
Its quite clear that in all the "new" endings in the EC, the relays can be repared-even in the destroy ending (although it would take markedly longer in this situation).
Thankyou vodo40k, that has made me very happy indeed.
The ending does make sense, but it somehow lacks satisfaction. Either way, I don't think its one of those endings which leaves you breathless.
Aldarionn wrote:-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.
Just because whoever created the reapers made a mistake doesn't mean that its bad writing.
Picture the scene:
You've been attacked by synthetic life forms in the past, but have presumably survived.
You create an AI to provide a solution to the problem of other synthetics killing organics.
Would you honestly expect the solution the AI provides to be "harvest all organic life and convert them into giant semi-organic sentient ships which will pop into the galaxy to kill everything every 50,00 years"?
Nothing says that the AI was switched on and they just said "oh yeah, just do whatever you want, we won't mind" They've just spent however many years dealing with other synthetics, the Starchild wouldn't have been unshackled when first created, but presumably got slowly out of control.
Whatever happened though, just because whatever race evolved and created the reapers made a catastrophic mistake doesn't indicate bad writing on Bioware's part.
No, that's pretty bad writing. If a society is advanced enough to create an AI capable of developing tech that can liquify its creators and turn them into a life-harvesting death machine, you would think at least ONE guy at the design table would have said "You know, maybe it's a BAD idea to build a synthetic to solve THIS particular issue? You know? Synthetics rising up against their creators and destroying them? Seems like we might be opening a Pandora's Box of galactic suffering and pain here. Just sayin!"
There's really no comparison for a mistake of that magnitude, and no way to excuse the logic behind it. It's not just a mistake, it's a catastrophic error in judgement that nobody could possibly miss, and they wrote it as the central plot device. That is the definition of bad writing.
Kanluwen wrote:It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?
The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.
Not exactly. The Geth acted in self defense after the Quarians tried to eradicate them for achieving sentience. That's not the same as what the Catalyst did. The Catalyst was purpose built to "solve" the problem of the created destroying their creators, and it did so by destroying its creators against their will. They MADE him to find a solution, PROGRAMMED him to work on that particular issue, and gave him enough intelligence to implement his solution regardless of what it was. The fact that they didn't see this coming means they are either naive on an absolutely monolithic scale, or they are literally just THAT stupid, neither of which make sense for a society with such advanced technology and enough awareness of the problem to try and engineer a solution.
Kanluwen wrote:It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?
The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.
Not exactly. The Geth acted in self defense after the Quarians tried to eradicate them for achieving sentience. That's not the same as what the Catalyst did. The Catalyst was purpose built to "solve" the problem of the created destroying their creators, and it did so by destroying its creators against their will. They MADE him to find a solution, PROGRAMMED him to work on that particular issue, and gave him enough intelligence to implement his solution regardless of what it was. The fact that they didn't see this coming means they are either naive on an absolutely monolithic scale, or they are literally just THAT stupid, neither of which make sense for a society with such advanced technology and enough awareness of the problem to try and engineer a solution.
Actually that's speculation.
We don't know what the Catalyst did. We don't even know that it was "purpose built to solve the problem".
We just know it's a created intelligence and its creators are dead.
Kanluwen wrote:It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?
The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.
Not exactly. The Geth acted in self defense after the Quarians tried to eradicate them for achieving sentience. That's not the same as what the Catalyst did. The Catalyst was purpose built to "solve" the problem of the created destroying their creators, and it did so by destroying its creators against their will. They MADE him to find a solution, PROGRAMMED him to work on that particular issue, and gave him enough intelligence to implement his solution regardless of what it was. The fact that they didn't see this coming means they are either naive on an absolutely monolithic scale, or they are literally just THAT stupid, neither of which make sense for a society with such advanced technology and enough awareness of the problem to try and engineer a solution.
Actually that's speculation.
We don't know what the Catalyst did. We don't even know that it was "purpose built to solve the problem".
We just know it's a created intelligence and its creators are dead.
Catalyst: A construct. An intelligence designed aeons ago to solve a problem. I was created to bring balance, to be the catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics.
Shepard: So you're just an AI?
Catalyst: In as much as you are just an animal. I embody the collective intelligence of all reapers.
Shepard: But you were created.
Catalyst: Correct.
Shepard: By who?
Catalyst: By ones who recognized that conflict would always arise between synthetics and organics. I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life. To establish a connection. But our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.
Shepard: The Reapers.
Catalyst: Precisely.
Shepard: Where did the Reapers come from? Did you create them?
Catalyst: My creators gave them form, I gave them function, and they in turn give me purpose. The Reapers are synthetic representation of my creators.
Shepard: And what happened to your creators?
Catalyst: They became the first true Reaper. They did not approve, but it was the only solution.
So the Catalyst was created to be a mediator between Synthetic and Organic life. To solve the problem of conflict between them, but it was itself a synthetic. It's "solution" to the problem was to create the Reapers, harvesting organics to create super-synthetics that perpetuate the cycle, starting with its unwilling creators.
I'm not sure how you missed the point I was making by bringing the Geth into this and stating that it was speculation the the Catalyst was in fact purpose-built for the stuff it claims it was.
The Geth were created to serve as helpers, and it was not until the Quarians attacked them that they became violent.
It was not until the Quarians began killing Quarians sympathetic to the Geth that the Geth became violent.
Yet if you remember the Quarian tale--the Geth rebelled out of nowhere.
See what I'm saying here, Ald? There's two sides to a story. All we have is the Catalyst's recounting of it, and the Catalyst even as much says that it is closer to a living being than it is an artificial intelligence.
There are two sides to every story, except the Catalyst gives the more grimdark story than you would expect from the person telling their side. If he says he was created to solve the problem and act as a mediator, and instead turned his creators into Reapers against their will, then what kind of story do you think his creators would tell?
Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
Which, again, is lazy writing.
Its just a stupid ending for a series that could have, honestly, been the greatest RPGs of all time.
Aldarionn wrote:Catalyst: By ones who recognized that conflict would always arise between synthetics and organics. I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life. To establish a connection. But our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.
Emphasis on "our".
The catalyst himself says that the reapers wasn't it's first solution, but that all attempts that it had previously made had failed, so it took the drastic measures of turning it's creators into the first reaper.
For all the information we have it could be the case that the Catalyst was just a thinking machine originally, and had no actual power, but who was given more powers or authority as the various plans failed.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
Which, again, is lazy writing.
As opposed too?
A unique ending they came up with themselves?
They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.
The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
Which, again, is lazy writing.
As opposed too?
A unique ending they came up with themselves?
They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.
The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.
"The people who left" being Drew Kapyrshyn who wrote the Old Republic novel "Revan"...
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
Which, again, is lazy writing.
As opposed too?
A unique ending they came up with themselves?
They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.
The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.
A dues ex machina ending would involve something unexpectedly saving Shepard. Obviously, the reapers are a powerful enemy and at the climax of the series something will bring the situation to a close It's easy to criticise, expcially when your criticism is: well they shoulda done something else.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
Which, again, is lazy writing.
As opposed too?
A unique ending they came up with themselves?
They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.
The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.
A dues ex machina ending would involve something unexpectedly saving Shepard. Obviously, the reapers are a powerful enemy and at the climax of the series something will bring the situation to a close It's easy to criticise, expcially when your criticism is: well they shoulda done something else.
Its been explained in detail several times in this thread why the ending is poor writing - I'm not going to repeat it because you can't read.
Kanluwen, I don't care if the guys Star Wars novel was bad. That doesn't mean anything to me.
I can't think of any other reason why the ending is what it is. The people who wrote ME2 did an excellent story, with Lair of the Shadow Broker and everything.
There is a very noticeable disconnect from ME2 > ME3. Things like forgetting Thane was a romance option are just completely ridiculous.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.
Which, again, is lazy writing.
As opposed too?
A unique ending they came up with themselves?
They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.
The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.
A dues ex machina ending would involve something unexpectedly saving Shepard. Obviously, the reapers are a powerful enemy and at the climax of the series something will bring the situation to a close It's easy to criticise, expcially when your criticism is: well they shoulda done something else.
Its been explained in detail several times in this thread why the ending is poor writing - I'm not going to repeat it because you can't read.
Kanluwen, I don't care if the guys Star Wars novel was bad. That doesn't mean anything to me.
I can't think of any other reason why the ending is what it is. The people who wrote ME2 did an excellent story, with Lair of the Shadow Broker and everything.
There is a very noticeable disconnect from ME2 > ME3. Things like forgetting Thane was a romance option are just completely ridiculous.
Don't you have something better to do instead of irritating people who actually like the endings? Like, oh I don't know, sulking in the corner because you don't like Shepard's heroic sacrifice and the galaxy starting over?
My main concern with the direction of the ending is I like the actual universe.
All through the period they where making ME2 and into ME3 questions would be raised by folks like myself who have really grown to like the setting, would ME3 be the end, would it all carry on?
And every comment I can remember coming out of Bioware, was don't worry, this is just the end of Shepards story, this will not be the end of the universe as you know it, there will be more games set in the Mass Effect universe etc.
So when the first ending hit, although much was thrown at the sudden three way choice, that wasn't much of a choice. (A seemingly really bad idea considering how much of a annoyance many folks raised with the arrival DLC.) quite a few people where more concerned the ME universe had been ended. With all the Mass relays destroyed and most people stranded, folks imagined what they had found an affinity with was over.
So although I am still not a fan of the choices that Bioware used to bring Shepards story to a conclusion, I am happy they have clarified that the universe can continue, and I have a feeling that the Bioware ending will not quite match any of the three we picked.
As although they said keep your ME3 save just before it was released, there is no way they can set up a game that can take all three endings into account. So I await what ever follows ME3 with mild interest.
Bioware would somehow have to find a clever way to avoid the 3 endings if they ever released a sequel game, or use the previous save files like the original 3 ME games. Also can you imagine how stupid it would look if they decided to carry on with the synthesis ending, GREEN GLOWY CIRCUT LINES FOR EVERYONE!
vodo40k wrote:...they decided to carry on with the synthesis ending, GREEN GLOWY CIRCUT LINES FOR EVERYONE!
That would make me and a lot of people happy.
Indeed, but it still looks bad. I can kind of understand how the "space magic" would be able to destroy the reapers or allow their control, but altering the entire genetic structure of every race in the galaxy (all of which are probably quite different) and the only result being green glowy circuit lines seems just a little far fetched to me. I expect husks not this, this is probably one of my main objections to the ending.
vodo40k wrote:...they decided to carry on with the synthesis ending, GREEN GLOWY CIRCUT LINES FOR EVERYONE!
That would make me and a lot of people happy.
Indeed, but it still looks bad. I can kind of understand how the "space magic" would be able to destroy the reapers or allow their control, but altering the entire genetic structure of every race in the galaxy (all of which are probably quite different) and the only result being green glowy circuit lines seems just a little far fetched to me. I expect husks not this, this is probably one of my main objections to the ending.
I can explain that with matter-energy-matter conversion. Don't ask me for the details, but if they can control mass/gravity and condense a collective consciousness from breaking down millions of individuals, matter-energy conversion and the reverse are not so far-fetched.
Well I finally finished with my main character, spent most of the day playing it through.
I was at the RGB decision point for a good few minutes weighing it up, how shes acted, who she has become close to etc.
Spoiler:
She went for Synthesis, she couldn't destroy EDI for her own survival, a bit of a Picard and Data situation. Not convinced by the glowly green eyes, tech stuff under the skin look, but I loved the fact EDI did the final commentary.
Think going on what I know my second character a maleshep will probably destroy them. Haven't created a character yet who is pro Illusive man enough to follow him into the control route.
Just hoping they will do something else in the Mass Effect universe, playing through this conclusion today reminds me how much I like it, its probably in my top three Sci-fi settings now.
on a side note, damn some of those fights where a pain near the end. The Missile defense bit caused me more trouble than anything else in the three games combined.
Regardless, going to take a few weeks off, other than the odd bit of multiplayer, and then look at my second character.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Well I finally finished with my main character, spent most of the day playing it through.
I was at the RGB decision point for a good few minutes weighing it up, how shes acted, who she has become close to etc.
Spoiler:
She went for Synthesis, she couldn't destroy EDI for her own survival, a bit of a Picard and Data situation. Not convinced by the glowly green eyes, tech stuff under the skin look, but I loved the fact EDI did the final commentary.
Think going on what I know my second character a maleshep will probably destroy them. Haven't created a character yet who is pro Illusive man enough to follow him into the control route.
Just hoping they will do something else in the Mass Effect universe, playing through this conclusion today reminds me how much I like it, its probably in my top three Sci-fi settings now.
on a side note, damn some of those fights where a pain near the end. The Missile defense bit caused me more trouble than anything else in the three games combined.
Regardless, going to take a few weeks off, other than the odd bit of multiplayer, and then look at my second character.
I'm pretty sure Bioware said before ME3 came out that although it would be the last game focusing on Shepard's story, it was definitely not going to be the last game in the Mass Effect universe. Which is one reason why I didn't understand all the "Oh no, the galaxy is totally destroyed and everyone is dead or going to die!" drama about the original endings.
Spoiler:
Also yeah, that bit with the Missiles is a nightmare. I mean really, how many Banshees and Brutes do I have to fight at the same time
Strangely I found it easier on my second play through when I was on a harder difficulty. Guess I just got better as a player and made better choices about what guns to use and was more efficient with my team mates powers.
I could handle being Vega, or at the very least him being a major npc again.
Would be a shame to loose the create mode though, and the option to be female. Hell if its years in the future, I am hoping a couple more races as I'd be look to play a descendant of my shep/Liara union.
Was thinking earlier, and I assume this is old ground covered, but I've missed much of the conversation on here, so apologies if this has been raised already.
Spoiler:
Thinking on the endings earlier it seems quite obvious what they direction where thinking in going with based on them. Even after the extended cut clarification the future is still quite viable.
The gandfather/grandchild bit is definitely a major hint on where the series is going. My doubt was how they could figure each of the RBG endings. I'll ignore the refusal, that was only added for folks ticked off with Biowares choices, rightly or wrongly. However the other three can lead to a combined universe with a very basic explanations.
Reapers - either dead or left a long time ago, Control - Shepard's got to a point she lo longer needs to be a physical reminder in the galaxy and has withdrawn with her Reapers back into darkspace to slumber. Pretty much the same with Synthesis, maybe the Reapers have decided to withdrawl and let the younger races flourish.
In game reference - minimal, they are a legendary thing something that once happened, maybe raised as a 'don't be bad or the reapers will get you' type reference, or barely mentioned at all.
Synthesis - By the time a new game starts if far enough into the future, the organic/Synthetic union has reached a point its no longer clearly visable, people just live slightly longer and healthier lives, recoves from injuries easier, which makes medi-gel make even more sense than it did. So there are no real outward signs that it has occured, no glowing eyes or tech. For the other two options, Organic life has begun to reach a point with intergration with synthetics are slowly becoming a reality anyways.
In game reference - A bit about the unite of man and machine, with those who chose Synthesis having a reference that it was because of Shepards choice, with the other two its noted as a natural evolution. Its not something they need to hammer home every five minutes though, so once again info on it could be at a minimum.
Universe itself - Obviously after the extended cut, everything was deemed repariable, worlds wlll have rebuilt themselves, species flourished, new ones arrived, might have lost one or two. The citadel has been moved back to a neutral location ovet the eons as an act of good will and friendship, or some such jazz.
In game reference - Well that would be the new game, I am sure there would be some statues around of famous characters/npcs, maybe a Memorial somewhere for the members of the Normandy. I would suspect most of the races would still be intact, and their homewolds. New races would seem likely, and references to what came before might be around in drips or drabs.
Mostly it would be the races of the Mass Effect universe carrying on.
On a sub note, I am pretty sure before the massive uproar and the extended cut coming into play. The Grandfather/Grandson where on the same planet the Normandy crashed on, as it was blatently a wreck in the first version of the ending. The descendents of the crew, who have either been found and have formed a colony there due to length of time before they where found. Or have been there for a long, long time, and are about to be found.
Obviously the Extended cut changes that, but that is my feeling on the story they chose.
Not sure it was the right choice. I think most folks wanted a follow on for the universe to be a bit closer than that, with the worst case being Liara as a Matriarch, Wrex possably still around etc, and I suppose say eight hundred years would stil allow that conversation to have some revelance, as that a load of generations of Humanity so its still potentially possible even with a shorter time reference in the hundreds.
Regardless, it seems to me thats what Bioware was going for. A game that would lead into another one Hundreds if not thousands of years later. Almost a reverse of how they did their Star Wars setting.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Well I finally finished with my main character, spent most of the day playing it through.
I was at the RGB decision point for a good few minutes weighing it up, how shes acted, who she has become close to etc.
Spoiler:
She went for Synthesis, she couldn't destroy EDI for her own survival, a bit of a Picard and Data situation. Not convinced by the glowly green eyes, tech stuff under the skin look, but I loved the fact EDI did the final commentary.
Think going on what I know my second character a maleshep will probably destroy them. Haven't created a character yet who is pro Illusive man enough to follow him into the control route.
Just hoping they will do something else in the Mass Effect universe, playing through this conclusion today reminds me how much I like it, its probably in my top three Sci-fi settings now.
on a side note, damn some of those fights where a pain near the end. The Missile defense bit caused me more trouble than anything else in the three games combined.
Regardless, going to take a few weeks off, other than the odd bit of multiplayer, and then look at my second character.
I'm pretty sure Bioware said before ME3 came out that although it would be the last game focusing on Shepard's story, it was definitely not going to be the last game in the Mass Effect universe. Which is one reason why I didn't understand all the "Oh no, the galaxy is totally destroyed and everyone is dead or going to die!" drama about the original endings.
Spoiler:
Also yeah, that bit with the Missiles is a nightmare. I mean really, how many Banshees and Brutes do I have to fight at the same time
Strangely I found it easier on my second play through when I was on a harder difficulty. Guess I just got better as a player and made better choices about what guns to use and was more efficient with my team mates powers.
I expect to see a game set in the period of time between ME2 and ME3, or possibly the first contact war. I seriously doubt they will do anything set AFTER the ending of ME3, because it would force them to choose a "cannon" ending. The endings are different enough after the extended cut that they would have to pick one of them and discard the others in order to maintain continuity.
Spoiler:
As for the missile part at the end of ME3. I completed it on Insanity, and doing it on that difficulty taught me something about how that part of the game is structured. There are a few things to note:
1 - There is a finite period of time between when the Destroyer starts moving toward the missiles, and when they can be activated. It has nothing to do with how many Banshees are killed.
2 - Banshees will spawn indefinitely in groups of two until the Missiles are activated.
3 - Marauders will spawn indefinitely in groups of about 4-6 at the far end of the map, closest to the Destroyer, until the Missiles are activated.
4 - The Reaper forces are susceptible to friendly fire from the Destroyer. The Beam kills ANYTHING in its path, not just Shepard and his team.
5 - The Beam always follows you and must be dodged.
Having learned this, I've found that the best way to finish that part of the game is NOT to actually try and kill the Banshees. There is a spot in the middle of the map where the terrain forms a natural bottleneck about 50 feet long with an open end. The best option for finishing that part is to draw the Banshees into that bottleneck and have them follow you to the end, and the Reaper's beam will ALWAYS fire down that channel killing the Banshees. All you have to do is retreat to the opening and dodge left or right to avoid the beam, which kills the Reaper forces for you. At that point, the Marauders are the only issue, and they can be avoided easily enough. Do this repeatedly until the Missiles can be activated, then wait for the beam to pass and sprint to the control console to finish the section. It took me like two hours to figure that out, but once I did, I finished it on my next run, and have done it in 1-2 tries every time since then.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Well I finally finished with my main character, spent most of the day playing it through.
I was at the RGB decision point for a good few minutes weighing it up, how shes acted, who she has become close to etc.
Spoiler:
She went for Synthesis, she couldn't destroy EDI for her own survival, a bit of a Picard and Data situation. Not convinced by the glowly green eyes, tech stuff under the skin look, but I loved the fact EDI did the final commentary.
Think going on what I know my second character a maleshep will probably destroy them. Haven't created a character yet who is pro Illusive man enough to follow him into the control route.
Just hoping they will do something else in the Mass Effect universe, playing through this conclusion today reminds me how much I like it, its probably in my top three Sci-fi settings now.
on a side note, damn some of those fights where a pain near the end. The Missile defense bit caused me more trouble than anything else in the three games combined.
Regardless, going to take a few weeks off, other than the odd bit of multiplayer, and then look at my second character.
I'm pretty sure Bioware said before ME3 came out that although it would be the last game focusing on Shepard's story, it was definitely not going to be the last game in the Mass Effect universe. Which is one reason why I didn't understand all the "Oh no, the galaxy is totally destroyed and everyone is dead or going to die!" drama about the original endings.
Spoiler:
Also yeah, that bit with the Missiles is a nightmare. I mean really, how many Banshees and Brutes do I have to fight at the same time
Strangely I found it easier on my second play through when I was on a harder difficulty. Guess I just got better as a player and made better choices about what guns to use and was more efficient with my team mates powers.
I expect to see a game set in the period of time between ME2 and ME3, or possibly the first contact war. I seriously doubt they will do anything set AFTER the ending of ME3, because it would force them to choose a "cannon" ending. The endings are different enough after the extended cut that they would have to pick one of them and discard the others in order to maintain continuity.
Spoiler:
As for the missile part at the end of ME3. I completed it on Insanity, and doing it on that difficulty taught me something about how that part of the game is structured. There are a few things to note:
1 - There is a finite period of time between when the Destroyer starts moving toward the missiles, and when they can be activated. It has nothing to do with how many Banshees are killed.
2 - Banshees will spawn indefinitely in groups of two until the Missiles are activated.
3 - Marauders will spawn indefinitely in groups of about 4-6 at the far end of the map, closest to the Destroyer, until the Missiles are activated.
4 - The Reaper forces are susceptible to friendly fire from the Destroyer. The Beam kills ANYTHING in its path, not just Shepard and his team.
5 - The Beam always follows you and must be dodged.
Having learned this, I've found that the best way to finish that part of the game is NOT to actually try and kill the Banshees. There is a spot in the middle of the map where the terrain forms a natural bottleneck about 50 feet long with an open end. The best option for finishing that part is to draw the Banshees into that bottleneck and have them follow you to the end, and the Reaper's beam will ALWAYS fire down that channel killing the Banshees. All you have to do is retreat to the opening and dodge left or right to avoid the beam, which kills the Reaper forces for you. At that point, the Marauders are the only issue, and they can be avoided easily enough. Do this repeatedly until the Missiles can be activated, then wait for the beam to pass and sprint to the control console to finish the section. It took me like two hours to figure that out, but once I did, I finished it on my next run, and have done it in 1-2 tries every time since then.
As MDS said, it could be that they set the game a long enough time after ME3 that all the endings could be viable (Synthesis no longer visible, technology repaired, Reapers gone back to dark space etc.), kind of like how Deus Ex: Invisible War (flawed though that game might be) had all the endings of Deus Ex as canon.
Then you just import your ME3 save and that alters some of the codex entries and conversations about the past without having to have the game completely different for each possible ending. It's not perfect but it would still be pretty cool, in my opinion. The tricky part would be the smaller decisions such as curing the Genophage. If you did cure it then would the Krogan have joined the council or would they have slipped back into war? If you didn't then are they all extinct or just extremely depleted?
Yeah the decisions like that are the ones I think will have the most impact. It's possible that the Geth don't exist any more, or the Quarians, or neither, which could have a large impact on future events. The Krogan could be flourishing and contributing to the galaxy if Bakara and Wrex are left in command, but if Wreave is their leader with no Bakara, they could be a galaxy-wide threat. The Rachni could be a council race once everything settles out, or completely non-existent depending on your choices.
I think the challenge in building a sequel game is less "will the galaxy be there?" and more "who will be populating the galaxy and what technology will they have?" Allowing players to import their save files would mean the writers have to account for all of the races that can exist, and what their possible impact on the galaxy might be, which is no small task.
Aldarionn wrote:Yeah the decisions like that are the ones I think will have the most impact. It's possible that the Geth don't exist any more, or the Quarians, or neither, which could have a large impact on future events. The Krogan could be flourishing and contributing to the galaxy if Bakara and Wrex are left in command, but if Wreave is their leader with no Bakara, they could be a galaxy-wide threat. The Rachni could be a council race once everything settles out, or completely non-existent depending on your choices.
I think the challenge in building a sequel game is less "will the galaxy be there?" and more "who will be populating the galaxy and what technology will they have?" Allowing players to import their save files would mean the writers have to account for all of the races that can exist, and what their possible impact on the galaxy might be, which is no small task.
*The New ThreaT*
IOM I would laugh so hard.
But anyway. Who would kill Wrex? Your a jerk if you don't save the krogan or the rachni.
If you where not maxing out on Paragon or Renegade, I'm pretty sure it was impossible to save him.
Anyone just dancing through the game with little regard for the roleplay aspects for example would have probably been boned.
The Rachni queen was a different matter of course, but so far all my characters have kept her alive.
edit - oh and of course if you started ME2 without the comic add on, Wrex and the Queen are dead, bloody odd calls by Bioware on both the ME2 and ME3 standard starts without an import.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:If you where not maxing out on Paragon or Renegade, I'm pretty sure it was impossible to save him.
Anyone just dancing through the game with little regard for the roleplay aspects for example would have probably been boned.
Not true. As long as you did the Family Armor quest before you went to Noveria you could keep him alive without having maxed paragon/renegade.
Spoiler:
Strictly speaking, if Wrex is dead and you destroyed Maelon's data, it's actually possible to save Mordin, which gives you the highest possible war asset gain from the Tuchanka mission. If you go that route, and you don't tell Mordin about the sabotage, then he figures it out as usual, but instead of shooting him or letting him cure the Genophage, you can talk him down, because he agrees that without Wrex and Bakara alive, Wreave is too unstable to lead the Krogan. If you do this, you get all of the resources for Mordin, Clan Urdnot, Wreave, and the Salarians.
If instead you choose to keep Wrex alive, but still shoot Mordin, Wrex finds out about it later and tries to kill you on the Citadel, and you have to kill him. You lose Wrex and all of Clan Urdnot, you don't get Mordin, and instead you get the Salarians, which makes up for it. The other option gets you everything except Wrex.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The Rachni queen was a different matter of course, but so far all my characters have kept her alive.
I've seen no reason to kill the Racni Queen in any game. If you keep her alive you get nothing but good assets, and you don't feel like an ass.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:edit - oh and of course if you started ME2 without the comic add on, Wrex and the Queen are dead, bloody odd calls by Bioware on both the ME2 and ME3 standard starts without an import.
In every game, starting cold gives you the worst possible outcome on most decisions from the previous games. It's basically punishment for not playing the other games. Not sure if I agree with it, but it's a nice bonus if you actually spent the time playing the series.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The Rachni queen was a different matter of course, but so far all my characters have kept her alive.
I've seen no reason to kill the Racni Queen in any game. If you keep her alive you get nothing but good assets, and you don't feel like an ass.
I let her fry with my main save
She was too much of an unknown and too big a risk, based on the information at hand at the time
Spoiler:
1. The Rachni almost wiped out everything else and only the Krogan could stop them. 2. We don't have enough Krogan to stop them a second time. 3. This giant bug might be lying to me about Reaper influence to save itself. 4. If it isn't lying then how do I know it won't fall under Reaper influence again?
Admittedly my Shepard from the very end of ME2 and throughout ME3 might have given the Rachni a chance if she were to be able to go back in time, as she'd progressed on from being the ruthless Butcher of Torfan after being shown real butchery in the Collector base. Character progression for the win
Strictly speaking, if Wrex is dead and you destroyed Maelon's data, it's actually possible to save Mordin, which gives you the highest possible war asset gain from the Tuchanka mission. If you go that route, and you don't tell Mordin about the sabotage, then he figures it out as usual, but instead of shooting him or letting him cure the Genophage, you can talk him down, because he agrees that without Wrex and Bakara alive, Wreave is too unstable to lead the Krogan. If you do this, you get all of the resources for Mordin, Clan Urdnot, Wreave, and the Salarians.
If instead you choose to keep Wrex alive, but still shoot Mordin, Wrex finds out about it later and tries to kill you on the Citadel, and you have to kill him. You lose Wrex and all of Clan Urdnot, you don't get Mordin, and instead you get the Salarians, which makes up for it. The other option gets you everything except Wrex.
Ah nice, was under the strong impression from reading stuff elsewhere that it was high Paragon/Renegade only that could save him. Will have to remember that if I ever try a middle of the road character.
@Malus - best way to play Imo, I didn't think my main would go to Synthesis till the cards where on the table.
Ive killed the Rachini Queen every time ive played. I dont trust her, she knows I got a gun to her head and that means she would say anything to survive, I fully expect her to turn once free, or at least my character thinks that.
Ive also saved Wrex because of his family armor but I dont trust the Krogan because, lets face it, they are fething monsters that will declare war on the galaxy in a few decades. Because of that I side with the Salaraians.
However in my next play through Im probably going to let Ashley kill Wrex. I only let him on my current character because I really enjoyed the reunion in ME2. However if I can save Moridin, Ill just kill Wrex off. Ill see which I prefer because I know there is a lot of great moments in 3 if you side against the Krogans with Wrex in charge.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Is it possible to save Mordin if you haven't played ME1 or ME2? Because if you just start at ME3, you don't see Wrex at all.
Yes. The default is Wrex dead and Maelon's data destroyed, which are the prerequisites for saving Mordin. But you MUST do all of the side quests to get your reputation high enough or you won't be able to select the option to talk him down.
You can do it on first playthrough. You just have to do EVERY side quest possible and talk to every person on the Citadel and the Normandy between every mission, and you have to complete all of the Tuchanka side missions before completing Priority Tuchanka.
Playing the From Ashes DLC before that mission also helps, as you get a decent amount of reputation from it.
I saved the Rachni Queen. I figured it was a big risk but I trusted her for some reason. More so than the Krogan actually. Didn't like the way Wrex was talking there near the end of ME3. Still cured the genophage though. Anyone not cure the genophage?
My main did on her play through, the following two characters would probably do so as well. Either for the friendship with Wrex, or Paragon nature.
Haven't really started a full on Renegade yet, find it hard in places, as renegade Shepard is difficult to like, thus enjoying playing him/her is tough as well.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I saved the Rachni Queen. I figured it was a big risk but I trusted her for some reason. More so than the Krogan actually. Didn't like the way Wrex was talking there near the end of ME3. Still cured the genophage though. Anyone not cure the genophage?
Only during the playthrough where I didn't save the genophage cure data from ME2 and Wreav is clan leader. In that situation, I don't trust the Krogan.
One of the main reason I did cure it was Eve. She seemed to have a good head on her shoulders and Wrex listens to her so I figured she'd keep him in line.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:One of the main reason I did cure it was Eve. She seemed to have a good head on her shoulders and Wrex listens to her so I figured she'd keep him in line.
Even without Eve, I knew I could trust Wrex. Just by talking to him in ME1 its clear he's a forward-looking and open-minded Krogan. Regardless of whether or not Eve lives (as happened when I accidentally forgot to do Tuchanka: Bomb), I cured the genophage so long as Wrex is leader.
Galdos wrote:As i said, I refused to cure the Geno.
Even with Wrex, he isnt immortal after all
Krogan do live for around a thousand years (possibly more, it's similar to an Asari lifespan). Unless he's beaten in a challenge (which I think is doubtful, I don't think even Grunt could beat him) Wrex is going to be in charge for a long time.
Galdos wrote:As i said, I refused to cure the Geno.
Even with Wrex, he isnt immortal after all
Considering he rebuilt Tuchanka and initiated a cultural renaissance as shown in the ending cut scenes, I'm pretty sure my character's faith in Wrex' leadership has been justified.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Is it possible to save Mordin if you haven't played ME1 or ME2? Because if you just start at ME3, you don't see Wrex at all.
Yes. The default is Wrex dead and Maelon's data destroyed, which are the prerequisites for saving Mordin. But you MUST do all of the side quests to get your reputation high enough or you won't be able to select the option to talk him down.
Ah, is there only the renegade option to save him? If so, then I can't save him, main character being a paragon and all
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:My main did on her play through, the following two characters would probably do so as well. Either for the friendship with Wrex, or Paragon nature.
Haven't really started a full on Renegade yet, find it hard in places, as renegade Shepard is difficult to like, thus enjoying playing him/her is tough as well.
Yeah, I couldn't play full Renegade on my first playthrough. You just feth over EVERYONE. I had to save the Krogan and the Geth because the alternative just seemed incredibly douchey.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Is it possible to save Mordin if you haven't played ME1 or ME2? Because if you just start at ME3, you don't see Wrex at all.
Yes. The default is Wrex dead and Maelon's data destroyed, which are the prerequisites for saving Mordin. But you MUST do all of the side quests to get your reputation high enough or you won't be able to select the option to talk him down.
Ah, is there only the renegade option to save him? If so, then I can't save him, main character being a paragon and all
I'm not 100% positive as I have only seen it on Youtube. None of my games had the right combination of choices and I haven't played a non-import yet.
If you want to play 100% Paragon though, you wouldn't talk Mordin down anyway, because not saying anything about the sabotage is a renegade choice and you ultimately get renegade points if you let it continue until Mordin figures it out himself. The Paragon option is to tell them about the sabotage right away.
To save Moridin, you have to support the Genophage (thats a no brainer for me and I play Paragon lol)
Wrex must have died on Virmire.
Eve must have died because Mallen's data was destroyed.
Moridin is convinced that without Eve to keep Wreav in check, the Krogan, will continue on their blood thirsty campaign and have another round of Krogan Rebellions.
I fething hate the Krogans. Rachini too. Every other decision is pretty much Paragon for me. Oh I supported the Quarians against the Geth up until Legion convinced me they deserve a right to life of their own
Galdos wrote:Eve must have died because Mallen's data was destroyed.
Is that ME2?
During Moridin's loyalty mission in ME2 at the end of it [the mission], you are given the option to destroy all the research or save it. If you decide to destroy it, it bites you in the ass later because Eve dies from incomplete data. (I did not expect that, I laughed when i realized what had happened. Oh well, I still say I made the right call lol)
's with me.
I thought that Shep's death was pretty awesome. A fitting end for a big damn hero.
