Okay people its been two years since its release. I know its opening up an old wound but.
I have a question for you.
Would Mass Effect 3 technically be a Lovecraft Cthulhu inspired storyline?
I am just generally wondering.
Because in lovecraft one of the major things that happens is that lovecraft takes away that choice you have, all that idea that our decisions are meaningful and that we are Omnipotent. In the end of the game which is completely infamous for being disempowering. I decided to take another look at it, and now I rate it as one of my most favorite video game scenes because of one reason. It follows the Lovecraft ideas all the way through.
It shows you no matter what you do your fate is decided, that the catalyst is beyond human comprehension. It is above us.
I got this brain wave after watching this video.
Now I may be completely full of gak on this one. And I might be foolish for thinking like this.
I only bring this up because I am currently studying video game design.
Now before you answer. Think about it. If you are a lovecraft reader like I am, just think about. And compare.
It felt more inspired by older sci-fi than anything else-- space operas; sometimes revolving around the nature of artificial intelligence, sometimes simply the competing interests of sentieng beings, and so on.
The devs said they were going for something along the lines of 70s sci fi, just updated to fit in with modern conceptions of the genre. That said the Lovecraftian elements are there (fricken squid aliens sitting at the bottom of the ocean...). If its anything to do with that genre though its very light in it. The big bad Reapers despite being a massive threat, never actually feel like something quite as unnerving as the creatures from Lovecraft (which yes, given that the games were playing on tropes about the mighty space marine character it would've been a bit difficult to have them act like Lovecraft's monsters. That said I'm sure from the perspective of someone other than Shepard who doesn't happen to have a million Alliance ships behind them would be crapping their pants). Lovecraft Lite, though it would be easy to stick the series into full on cosmic horror without too much trouble, though the issue being that big old Commander Shepard's just too much of a hero to lose his mind to some Cthulhoid monster.
Isn't that completely contrary to the game? About 90% of the game was about how your choices mattered, and how small decision could have big effects (especially 3 played this up massively).
The very last event of the game is a choice.
On a broader scale: The reapers have some of the theme Lovecraft codified (cosmic horror, something beyond human comprehension, terror from the darkness beyond the stars), but saying that the evil space alien big bad was inspired by lovecraft, is like saying that your stories takes concepts from the works of shakespear; technically correct, but a bit redundant.
It's odd that he points that out when Cthulu gets knocked out by a boat, he even mentions it but it was mentioned it hurt it.
There was a mighty eddying and foaming in the noisome brine, and as the steam mounted higher and higher the brave Norwegian drove his vessel head on against the pursuing jelly which rose above the unclean froth like the stern of a daemon galleon. The awful squid-head with writhing feelers came nearly up to the bowsprit of the sturdy yacht, but Johansen drove on relentlessly. There was a bursting as of an exploding bladder, a slushy nastiness as of a cloven sunfish, a stench as of a thousand opened graves, and a sound that the chronicler could not put on paper. For an instant the ship was befouled by an acrid and blinding green cloud, and then there was only a venomous seething astern; where—God in heaven!—the scattered plasticity of that nameless sky-spawn was nebulously recombining in its hateful original form, whilst its distance widened every second as the Alert gained impetus from its mounting steam… Cthulhu still lives, too, I suppose, again in that chasm of stone which has shielded him since the sun was young. His accursed city is sunken once more, for the Vigilant sailed over the spot after the April storm; but his ministers on earth still bellow and prance and slay around idol-capped monoliths in lonely places.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's odd that he points that out when Cthulu gets knocked out by a boat, he even mentions it but it was mentioned it hurt it.
There was a mighty eddying and foaming in the noisome brine, and as the steam mounted higher and higher the brave Norwegian drove his vessel head on against the pursuing jelly which rose above the unclean froth like the stern of a daemon galleon. The awful squid-head with writhing feelers came nearly up to the bowsprit of the sturdy yacht, but Johansen drove on relentlessly. There was a bursting as of an exploding bladder, a slushy nastiness as of a cloven sunfish, a stench as of a thousand opened graves, and a sound that the chronicler could not put on paper. For an instant the ship was befouled by an acrid and blinding green cloud, and then there was only a venomous seething astern; where—God in heaven!—the scattered plasticity of that nameless sky-spawn was nebulously recombining in its hateful original form, whilst its distance widened every second as the Alert gained impetus from its mounting steam… Cthulhu still lives, too, I suppose, again in that chasm of stone which has shielded him since the sun was young. His accursed city is sunken once more, for the Vigilant sailed over the spot after the April storm; but his ministers on earth still bellow and prance and slay around idol-capped monoliths in lonely places.
That text means that even after hitting so hard. After so much they have done, Cthulhu still didn't care, that little amount of damage you did, was nothing to him but well ants to him. Cthulhu is an elder god.
I am mainly talking about the ending, in particular, I mean you are given three decisions, one destroy all mechanical thinking life in the universe, control, or biomechanical.
The one problem that I've seen is the catalyst the being on the vessel, when you shoot the catalyst you die. You can't do any harm to it. no matter what you do, that being will exist.
Isn't that completely contrary to the game? About 90% of the game was about how your choices mattered, and how small decision could have big effects (especially 3 played this up massively).
The very last event of the game is a choice.
On a broader scale: The reapers have some of the theme Lovecraft codified (cosmic horror, something beyond human comprehension, terror from the darkness beyond the stars), but saying that the evil space alien big bad was inspired by lovecraft, is like saying that your stories takes concepts from the works of shakespear; technically correct, but a bit redundant.
True, but by that time your decisions are cemented to only 3. Which may seem wierd because you're thinking wait there have always been three. But in this case, you were forced to pick three. All three options were a loss. The character has finally gotten to the last bit. And maybe his sanity is drifting on the edge.
I think it is borderline lovecraftian. But It could be considered one.
Holy gak I just noticed it goes for 90 bucks, and I've still got a copy in the attic!
Yeah it was totally brilliant, at one point some flies walked across the screen and for a moment I actually started forwards to brush them off!
I enjoyed many a dark night playing that on my own in my room and it genuinely did scare me a few times. I heartily recommend it if anyone hasn't played it, although feth knows how you would find a copy now.
The Reapers themselves were a fairly Lovecraftian idea.
How was it gak? Please enlighten me.
And Eternal Darkness Sanitys requiem (i might need to pick this up)
You wont be disapointed, its fething brilliant.
Regards ME3, i have to agree but only about the ending.
The game was fantastic, immersive, and much more fun FPS wise than ME2.
Not to sound cliched, but the ending really did sour it THAT much for me. As such, despite it being better for 99% of the journey, I would say ME2 edges it.
And that is a tragedy, but honestly I think that completing that game gave me the most palpable nerd fury I have ever had, because it made EVERY SINGLE DECISION I made pointless!
I was really into the whole thing, happily looking forward to retiring on Rannoch with Tali.. and all of a sudden, every single faction I ever chose over another, and every single little decision I made, was rendered moot because everyone died anyway!
There certainly are lovecraftian themes influencing the design of the Reapers, moreso ME1 than the sequels. Beings beyond our comprehension, their presence driving us insane, motives that we could never hope to understand, etc. All that though was thrown out at the end of ME1 when one was killed showing that even though they are powerful they can still be killed, very non-lovecraftian. ME2 also kept some of the themes particularly the derelict reaper, "even a dead god can dream" wasn't exactly subtle.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's odd that he points that out when Cthulu gets knocked out by a boat, he even mentions it but it was mentioned it hurt it.
There was a mighty eddying and foaming in the noisome brine, and as the steam mounted higher and higher the brave Norwegian drove his vessel head on against the pursuing jelly which rose above the unclean froth like the stern of a daemon galleon. The awful squid-head with writhing feelers came nearly up to the bowsprit of the sturdy yacht, but Johansen drove on relentlessly. There was a bursting as of an exploding bladder, a slushy nastiness as of a cloven sunfish, a stench as of a thousand opened graves, and a sound that the chronicler could not put on paper. For an instant the ship was befouled by an acrid and blinding green cloud, and then there was only a venomous seething astern; where—God in heaven!—the scattered plasticity of that nameless sky-spawn was nebulously recombining in its hateful original form, whilst its distance widened every second as the Alert gained impetus from its mounting steam… Cthulhu still lives, too, I suppose, again in that chasm of stone which has shielded him since the sun was young. His accursed city is sunken once more, for the Vigilant sailed over the spot after the April storm; but his ministers on earth still bellow and prance and slay around idol-capped monoliths in lonely places.
The best way I've had that scene described to me is something as follows:
Two bugs are walking along a bed being careful not to disturb the sleeping human. The human stirs and begins to wake, it crushes one of the bugs and goes back to sleep. The surviving bug flees remembering the sacrifice its comrade made to defeat the monster. We may think our struggles have meaning and purpose but to a cosmic horror we go unnoticed. Which is pretty much exactly what Mass Effect, or really any game isn't.
Yup. All of the hints in the previous game about the Ghost Boy, etc...
Oh, wait...
ME3 was a full-on reverse course caused by the previous head writer leaving the series. And instead of picking up the existing plot threads (for instance, the dark matter problems that were repeatedly mentioned in ME2), we got something completely new that hadn't been at all considered when the previous games were created.
And you can tell from the ending.
The usage of Harbinger in ME3 was flat out insulting to the character after its role in ME2.
Madcat87 wrote: There certainly are lovecraftian themes influencing the design of the Reapers, moreso ME1 than the sequels. Beings beyond our comprehension, their presence driving us insane, motives that we could never hope to understand, etc. All that though was thrown out at the end of ME1 when one was killed showing that even though they are powerful they can still be killed, very non-lovecraftian. ME2 also kept some of the themes particularly the derelict reaper, "even a dead god can dream" wasn't exactly subtle.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's odd that he points that out when Cthulu gets knocked out by a boat, he even mentions it but it was mentioned it hurt it.
There was a mighty eddying and foaming in the noisome brine, and as the steam mounted higher and higher the brave Norwegian drove his vessel head on against the pursuing jelly which rose above the unclean froth like the stern of a daemon galleon. The awful squid-head with writhing feelers came nearly up to the bowsprit of the sturdy yacht, but Johansen drove on relentlessly. There was a bursting as of an exploding bladder, a slushy nastiness as of a cloven sunfish, a stench as of a thousand opened graves, and a sound that the chronicler could not put on paper. For an instant the ship was befouled by an acrid and blinding green cloud, and then there was only a venomous seething astern; where—God in heaven!—the scattered plasticity of that nameless sky-spawn was nebulously recombining in its hateful original form, whilst its distance widened every second as the Alert gained impetus from its mounting steam… Cthulhu still lives, too, I suppose, again in that chasm of stone which has shielded him since the sun was young. His accursed city is sunken once more, for the Vigilant sailed over the spot after the April storm; but his ministers on earth still bellow and prance and slay around idol-capped monoliths in lonely places.
The best way I've had that scene described to me is something as follows:
Two bugs are walking along a bed being careful not to disturb the sleeping human. The human stirs and begins to wake, it crushes one of the bugs and goes back to sleep. The surviving bug flees remembering the sacrifice its comrade made to defeat the monster. We may think our struggles have meaning and purpose but to a cosmic horror we go unnoticed. Which is pretty much exactly what Mass Effect, or really any game isn't.
*cough* spec ops the line *cough*
Think about it
There are a few games that are sort of like that.
Spec Ops The Line under that logic is a perfect example of execution.
Amensia the Dark Descent is until the end.
Amnesia machine for pigs is also one as well.
Silent hill 2 is another example. Because it is a man gone insane fighting nothing but his insanity as it slowly devours him.
Heavy Rain is also an example in a way.
Outlast could be considered one, but just barely. Actually the DLC definately not, but the main game. Yeah thats Lovecraft the whole way. (No matter what you do, Walrider will always get out)
The Walking Dead Series by Tall Tale games could be considered one.
Because you can't kill the beasts. And everything is out of your control. So they are considered to be lovecraftian horror games.
Fixed that for you. ME3's ending was epic, and they did a lot to tie it in to what you did in the previous games.
I am with Melissia on that. I loved the ending. I loved finally being told! HA Its a game. I love disempowering games. I love being an absolute jerk to the player.
Fixed that for you. ME3's ending was epic, and they did a lot to tie it in to what you did in the previous games.
Arg! No way!
I made so many decisions and they were all rendered moot! How is that epic?! I was fething gutted when it ended, honestly. Actually gutted.
Not like Legend of Zelda or something where I saw a nice short video that wrapped everything up nicely, I was greeted with death and destruction, it was fething depressing!
I remember reading loads of nerd rage about it and I agreed with almost all of it.
Think about it, cultivating the relationship between Edi and Joker? feth it shes dead. I cured the genophage, they were all fethed too. I dug out blind to help the Quarrians out, and then Rannoch was totally fethed. Earth was completely fethed, Shephard was either dead or a nazi, Jesus you have to be a masochist to enjoy that gak!
Call me a bluff old sci-fi traditionalist, but I liked Star Wars so much because the real world is miserable enough, I at least like my fiction to be happy!
Strange, I a;always argue with my missus about this.. she loves really fething depressing films as well, I watched some "award winning" film she recommended where everyone died and at the close I was sitting there going "I skipped Weekend At Bernies for this?!"
Fixed that for you. ME3's ending was epic, and they did a lot to tie it in to what you did in the previous games.
Arg! No way!
I made so many decisions and they were all rendered moot! How is that epic?! I was fething gutted when it ended, honestly. Actually gutted.
Not like Legend of Zelda or something where I saw a nice short video that wrapped everything up nicely, I was greeted with death and destruction, it was fething depressing!
I remember reading loads of nerd rage about it and I agreed with almost all of it.
Think about it, cultivating the relationship between Edi and Joker? feth it shes dead. I cured the genophage, they were all fethed too. I dug out blind to help the Quarrians out, and then Rannoch was totally fethed. Earth was completely fethed, Shephard was either dead or a nazi, Jesus you have to be a masochist to enjoy that gak!
Call me a bluff old sci-fi traditionalist, but I liked Star Wars so much because the real world is miserable enough, I at least like my fiction to be happy!
Strange, I a;always argue with my missus about this.. she loves really fething depressing films as well, I watched some "award winning" film she recommended where everyone died and at the close I was sitting there going "I skipped Weekend At Bernies for this?!"
I can tell you would probably hate the ending to a lot of horror games. Where everyone usually dies by the end.
Eumerin wrote:Yup. All of the hints in the previous game about the Ghost Boy, etc...
You mean the safeguard.
Names like "ghost boy" really make it sound as if someone either didn't pay attention, or just deliberately chooses a silly name because they were pissed that something represented by a holographic projection of a kid their character knew eventually forces them to make a tough decision.
Personally, my only problem with the Reapers' background as explained by the Catalyst was how it all evolved around artificial intelligences, which I think is BS. A better mission would have been to regularly purge the galaxy if any civilisation reaches a certain degree of technological advancement, because they'd eventually develop WMDs capable of messing up and depopulating the entire galaxy in a way that it ceases to be able to support any life.
Aside from that, the ending was awesome. In my opinion, its perception hinges a lot on whether the player was capable of accepting that they are not omnipotent, and that there are situations they cannot resolve 100% entirely to their liking - as is sadly the norm with the vast majority of videogames, much like with the story in novels and movies. See the public outrage at Ned Stark dying in A Song of Ice and Fire aka Game of Thrones. Perfect example of the very same reaction the internet had to the ending of ME3. Myself, I like both, because it felt more real, was more emotional, more special, and thus more memorable.
I kid ye not, but after finishing ME3, I've listened to nothing but piano music for about 3-4 days.
You can get anything from 'almost okay' to 'sorta bad' to 'very bad' as the final result, with 'super bad' as another option patched in, but there was no good ending no matter what you did.
If you could do everything right to get a properly good ending I am sure a lot of people would be happier.
Just out of interest are we talking about the original ending here or the amended one?
The original ending was naff, though the game itself was stunning. However having played through the game again with the new ending I found the overall experience to be much more satisfying, with a separate definitive outcome to depending on your choice.
LuciusAR wrote: Just out of interest are we talking about the original ending here or the amended one?
The original ending was naff, though the game itself was stunning. However having played through the game again with the new ending I found the overall experience to be much more satisfying, with a separate definitive outcome to depending on your choice.
I have only played the enhanced ending. It's fine, but 'fine' is not enough for Mass Effect.
The Geth don't have the hint of an over-arching AI. They build consensus from individual units and become more intelligent when more of them are gathered. The Reapers were never hinted as having an over-arching intelligence either. Listen to Sovereigns speech.
We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness
Fixed that for you. ME3's ending was epic, and they did a lot to tie it in to what you did in the previous games.
No.
The ending was a complete let down and I actually hoped that the indoctrination theory would turn out to be correct. Sadly it wasn't and we got a crap ending in three recoloured sequences.
ME3 was not a good third person shooter. It was an RPG with third person shooter elements. It felt incredibly dumbed down for ME3. It hit the correct balance for ME2, although I didn't really have a problem with ME1 controls.
Building up to the final fight just felt dull. I found myself skipping through a lot of conversations and not really paying attention compared to the previous two games where I would pour over every detail. ME3 felt cheap and all the subsequent DLC in the world can't fix that initial experience. Failed as an ending to the game.
You need to be careful when comparing ME 1 to 2 and 3. The main plot has been significantally changed and altered to be "easier"...hm...hard to describe it. It was changed to ressemble tradtional sci-fi stories instead of focusing more on the "dark matter" plot. Simplified? Can't find the correct word.
Quite a few story ties were cut or reattached to make the story cleaner and more streamlined. That's why some story snippets from ME 1 do not make a lot of sense when directly compared to ME 2 / 3.
Not at all, it was epic and pretty fulfilling. Sure I'd make changes like letting Shepard live as long as you have a high EMS regardless of what you choose, but overall I was pretty satisfied by it.
Medium of Death wrote: and I actually hoped that the indoctrination theory would turn out to be correct
feth that! Indoctrination theory is garbage pushed out by lazy hack writers, thers's nothing good about that crap. It's just another boring cliche lazy "it was all a dream" hackjob, and the world is better the less of THAT garbage there is.
Right. It was an excellent third person shooter, far better than most other games on the market.k
Medium of Death wrote: Building up to the final fight just felt dull. I found myself skipping through a lot of conversations and not really paying attention
Honestly? I think that's more your personal problems. I only started doing that after the second time I had finished the game, and that's mostly because I kept playing it for the gameplay after I had already experienced the story fully twice, including one run where I experienced all four endings through save scumming.
Actually, just include everyone's drunken moments, Garrus and Zaeed's boobytrapping the hot tub while drunk, Zaeed just sounds so disappointed when he realizes the clones will have the same DNA as Shepard.
Actually, just include everyone's drunken moments, Garrus and Zaeed's boobytrapping the hot tub while drunk, Zaeed just sounds so disappointed when he realizes the clones will have the same DNA as Shepard.
See I hated the ending but I wasn't that keen on Citadel.
It seemed so.. good humored all the way through, I thought it was in stark contrast to the rest of the game and basically felt a bit like fan fiction. It was silly to suggest they would just let the crew sit around doing feth all for a week as well what with everything that was going on.
I mean I played it obviously because the game was so good, but the ending soured me so much I didn't even want to get into it because I couldn't shake the notion "You guys are all fethed anyway"
mattyrm wrote: See I hated the ending but I wasn't that keen on Citadel.
It seemed so.. good humored all the way through, I thought it was in stark contrast to the rest of the game and basically felt a bit like fan fiction. It was silly to suggest they would just let the crew sit around doing feth all for a week as well what with everything that was going on.
I mean I played it obviously because the game was so good, but the ending soured me so much I didn't even want to get into it because I couldn't shake the notion "You guys are all fethed anyway"
The Citadel DLC lasted like, one day in lore-time. They only slept one night, remember?
Also, it is understandable that they relax and banter a bit before going into the jaws of the Reapers.
mattyrm wrote: See I hated the ending but I wasn't that keen on Citadel.
It seemed so.. good humored all the way through, I thought it was in stark contrast to the rest of the game and basically felt a bit like fan fiction. It was silly to suggest they would just let the crew sit around doing feth all for a week as well what with everything that was going on.
I mean I played it obviously because the game was so good, but the ending soured me so much I didn't even want to get into it because I couldn't shake the notion "You guys are all fethed anyway"
The Citadel DLC lasted like, one day in lore-time. They only slept one night, remember?
Also, it is understandable that they relax and banter a bit before going into the jaws of the Reapers.
Oh yeah! fething hell.. how did I forget waking up in bed with that drunk alien.
Its been a couple of years since I played it... anyway I suppose you are right with the camaraderie as well, it was certainly fun in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers do a lot of joking around but still.
I thought they were trying too hard you know what I mean? Like Joker is funny, but Zaeed and that miserable as feth (I forget his name) 4 eyed guy suddenly became zany pranksters, even Jack was all nice and dancing and gak. It felt at odds with the rest of the story to me.
Eumerin wrote: Yup. All of the hints in the previous game about the Ghost Boy
How the hell did an AI entity that leads the Reapers surprise you and lead you to think it just came out of nowhere?
It's been hinted at since the first freaking game!
Seriously, the conflict between organic and AI is pretty central to the plot.
At the end of a game series that emphasizes agency and change arising from the actions of your character, having a god you can't even argue forcing your hand is not appropriate.
At the end of a game series where you have conflict between organic and AI, but ultimately resolve most of the conflicts, rejoin the geth & quarians in mutual cooperation, discover the geth were never truly hostile in the first place, and have an (albeit stupid) romance between an AI and organic having "AIs wills kill organics, so we'll make AIs to kill organics before they make AIs" is jarring at best, asinine at worst.
At the end of a series where they're constantly pushing themes of success through cooperation, having everything done by a Deus Ex Machina is inappropriate and jarring. Contrast the final battle vs sovereign in ME1 and the "Suicide Mission" and escape in ME2.
You spend three games, fighting to convince the galaxy of the truth. You spend three games building relationships and gathering allies with different strengths. You spend the game leading up to the ending getting the galaxy to see past it's differences and working together. Then, at the end of all that. You flip flip a goddamn 3-position toggle switch and wave the problem away with what is basically space-magic. Handed to you, oh so generously by a character you've never met before after they've finished monologue on it's completely nonsensical beliefs, that you've already disproven.
Eumerin wrote: Yup. All of the hints in the previous game about the Ghost Boy
How the hell did an AI entity that leads the Reapers surprise you and lead you to think it just came out of nowhere?
It's been hinted at since the first freaking game!
Seriously, the conflict between organic and AI is pretty central to the plot.
At the end of a game series that empathizes agency and change arising from the actions of your character, having a god you can't even argue forcing your hand is not appropriate.
At the end of a game series where you have conflict between organic and AI, but ultimately resolve most of the conflicts, rejoin the geth & quarians in mutual cooperation, discover the geth were never truly hostile in the first place, and have an (albeit stupid) romance between an AI and organic having "AIs wills kill organics, so we'll make AIs to kill organics before they make AIs" is jarring at best, asinine at worst.
At the end of a series where they're constantly pushing themes of success through cooperation, having everything done by a Deus Ex Machina is inappropriate and jarring. Contrast the final battle vs sovereign in ME1 and the "Suicide Mission" and escape in ME2.
You spend three games, fighting to convince the galaxy of the truth. You spend three games building relationships and gathering allies with different strengths. You spend the game leading up, getting the galaxy to see past it's differences and work together. Then, at the end of all that. You flip flip a goddamn 3-position toggle switch and wave the problem away with what is basically space-magic. Handed to you, oh so generously after a character you've never met before gets done with monologue on it's completely nonsensical beliefs, that you've already disproved.
Yes, but this was a much bigger and worse threat than before. sometimes we are limited to what we can do. In this case, you did all you could do, and you couldn't save everyone. Its out of your control this time. That is as real as the mass effect series has ever gotten, and thats why I love the ending. IT felt real in the end. The game communicated to me that it wasn't going to be a happy ending. I had context clues all over the place. The child, the reapers. The last game is about death, and accepting it.
Yes, but this was a much bigger and worse threat than before. sometimes we are limited to what we can do. In this case, you did all you could do, and you couldn't save everyone. Its out of your control this time. That is as real as the mass effect series has ever gotten, and thats why I love the ending. IT felt real in the end. The game communicated to me that it wasn't going to be a happy ending. I had context clues all over the place. The child, the reapers. The last game is about death, and accepting it.
If this ending was going for that theme, it did it poorly. Having space magic wipe out the threat does nothing to support that theme. If ending was about accepting death, accepting the inevitable, the inevitable would have happened. The galaxy would have died. What we got was a lazy Deus Ex Machina, literally a god sprang forth from the machine and resolved the plot Casey Hudson and Mac Walters didn't have the guts to.
Now you take everything back they did. You make that ending shepard gets hit by the laser blast and immediately cut to Liara's message being played for the next cycle. That's an ending I would have liked. It would have been a downer, but it would have been a downer that was derived from elements and themes (though not tone), present in the rest of the series.
The fundemental nature of a Lovecraftian story is the unknown. And in Mass Effect we get to understand the threat and know their history and motivations. A Lovecraftian threat would be unknowable or if it was knowable, it would drive you mad.
A more more Lovecraftian story is that of Convergence of Cyriss in Warmachine. A new planet whispers into certain people's dreams and tells them to prepare the world for the arrival of an ancient god. Heck, even Ghost Busters is more a Lovecraftian story than Mass Effect. (Secret cult working to bring back an ancient god with a long and convoluted history, astronomy and end of the world.)
Yes, but this was a much bigger and worse threat than before. sometimes we are limited to what we can do. In this case, you did all you could do, and you couldn't save everyone. Its out of your control this time. That is as real as the mass effect series has ever gotten, and thats why I love the ending. IT felt real in the end. The game communicated to me that it wasn't going to be a happy ending. I had context clues all over the place. The child, the reapers. The last game is about death, and accepting it.
If this ending was going for that theme, it did it poorly. Having space magic wipe out the threat does nothing to support that theme. If ending was about accepting death, accepting the inevitable, the inevitable would have happened. The galaxy would have died. What we got was a lazy Deus Ex Machina, literally a god sprang forth from the machine and resolved the plot Casey Hudson and Mac Walters didn't have the guts to.
Now you take everything back they did. You make that ending shepard gets hit by the laser blast and immediately cut to Liara's message being played for the next cycle. That's an ending I would have liked. It would have been a downer, but it would have been a downer that was derived from elements and themes (though not tone), present in the rest of the series.
Everyone always calls it space magic.
Its an electro magnetic pulse. Its not that difficult to realize that.
There are four endings. The failure/refusal (shooting the machine god or walking away), the synergy ending, the desturction ending, and control ending. All which are considered to be good and bad.
These are all representations of death. Synegery (belief of something better), refusal/failure (refusing to work with death, and subsequently dying), Destruction ending (Acceptance of death), Control (True Sacrifice/Being a Hero), These are all different types of death.
The ending is quite brilliant in my opinion. Though I also liked Spec Ops: The Line. And everyone around here seems to think I am crazy for that.
But overall this game I would classify as a Lovecraftian horror story. Because in the end it is hopeless, the ending is out of our control, yes we do get to choose which our path is, but in reality is it really our choice? No it is not. In the end the god in the machine chooses for us, that last bits of humanity and sanity are finally gone. The universe is basically screwed.
I am one of the few who said this. "The extended edition was terrible." Because the original ending was very lovecraft, as everyone in the universe is doomed.
The fundemental nature of a Lovecraftian story is the unknown. And in Mass Effect we get to understand the threat and know their history and motivations. A Lovecraftian threat would be unknowable or if it was knowable, it would drive you mad. A more more Lovecraftian story is that of Convergence of Cyriss in Warmachine. A new planet whispers into certain people's dreams and tells them to prepare the world for the arrival of an ancient god. Heck, even Ghost Busters is more a Lovecraftian story than Mass Effect. (Secret cult working to bring back an ancient god with a long and convoluted history, astronomy and end of the world.)
True and not. But we still don't know everything about the reapers and their true god. (outside of the dLC that kind of ruined that)
We don't know everything about them. Do they truly die? Or do they merely continue to exist? The god will always exist. What we do to the reapers is nothing, one day they will comeback. We don't know anything about them really.
Its an electro magnetic pulse. Its not that difficult to realize that.
There are four endings. The failure/refusal (shooting the machine god or walking away), the synergy ending, the desturction ending, and control ending. All which are considered to be good and bad.
These are all representations of death. Synegery (belief of something better), refusal/failure (refusing to work with death, and subsequently dying), Destruction ending (Acceptance of death), Control (True Sacrifice/Being a Hero), These are all different types of death.
The ending is quite brilliant in my opinion. Though I also liked Spec Ops: The Line. And everyone around here seems to think I am crazy for that.
Within the context of just ME3, I don't think I'd disagree with you. But ME3 isn't a stand-alone game. It's the third and concluding chapter to a series, and the themes and major selling points of that series, through 98% of the entire thing, are that teamwork, choice, and self-determination are major aspects of the game. That you CAN save the universe from the all-encompassing threat of annihilation, that you CAN...through the fundamental concepts of teamwork, choice, and self-determination...survive the suicide mission. Maybe not without cost. Maybe not without loss. But on the whole, you come out ahead.
ME3 continues to embrace and sell these fundamental concepts, up until the end. Then, it dashes them out the window, and replaces them with a fatalistic, inevitable, unavoidable fate that, no matter how you look at it, leaves the world these characters inhabit worse off than when they started. On a basic, primal level, it rejects the reality that the series has spent hours and hours creating, and substitutes a new reality. From what I've read, those that embrace and enjoy the ending do so only after engaging in some mental leap (such as making the game about death, and how you can only fight it off for so long) to accept the new reality, while those that hate the ending recognize that a huge plot bait and switch has been perpetrated on them, and refuse to accept it with a smile.
And while the series does hint at a hidden, as of yet un-met power behind the Reapers, having it turn up in the final minutes of the series and decide the fate of everyone in the game is a truly spectacular fail in terms of storytelling. You don't set up your Biggest Bad Yet for 3 games, and then have it appear and talk the protagonist to death, then roll credits. Even people without any kind of experience with writing good stories will recognize a fundamentally bad story when they see it, and ME3 is a prime example of that.
Its an electro magnetic pulse. Its not that difficult to realize that.
There are four endings. The failure/refusal (shooting the machine god or walking away), the synergy ending, the desturction ending, and control ending. All which are considered to be good and bad.
These are all representations of death. Synegery (belief of something better), refusal/failure (refusing to work with death, and subsequently dying), Destruction ending (Acceptance of death), Control (True Sacrifice/Being a Hero), These are all different types of death.
The ending is quite brilliant in my opinion. Though I also liked Spec Ops: The Line. And everyone around here seems to think I am crazy for that.
Within the context of just ME3, I don't think I'd disagree with you. But ME3 isn't a stand-alone game. It's the third and concluding chapter to a series, and the themes and major selling points of that series, through 98% of the entire thing, are that teamwork, choice, and self-determination are major aspects of the game. That you CAN save the universe from the all-encompassing threat of annihilation, that you CAN...through the fundamental concepts of teamwork, choice, and self-determination...survive the suicide mission. Maybe not without cost. Maybe not without loss. But on the whole, you come out ahead.
ME3 continues to embrace and sell these fundamental concepts, up until the end. Then, it dashes them out the window, and replaces them with a fatalistic, inevitable, unavoidable fate that, no matter how you look at it, leaves the world these characters inhabit worse off than when they started. On a basic, primal level, it rejects the reality that the series has spent hours and hours creating, and substitutes a new reality. From what I've read, those that embrace and enjoy the ending do so only after engaging in some mental leap (such as making the game about death, and how you can only fight it off for so long) to accept the new reality, while those that hate the ending recognize that a huge plot bait and switch has been perpetrated on them, and refuse to accept it with a smile.
And while the series does hint at a hidden, as of yet un-met power behind the Reapers, having it turn up in the final minutes of the series and decide the fate of everyone in the game is a truly spectacular fail in terms of storytelling. You don't set up your Biggest Bad Yet for 3 games, and then have it appear and talk the protagonist to death, then roll credits. Even people without any kind of experience with writing good stories will recognize a fundamentally bad story when they see it, and ME3 is a prime example of that.
Oh don't get me wrong, I still think parts of it could be better. I am a critic first and gamer second.
I critic all games. Even the good ones.
No game is perfect. There are certain things I would do completely different, like make the player aware this might happen with foreshadowing.
Oh don't get me wrong, I still think parts of it could be better. I am a critic first and gamer second.
I critic all games. Even the good ones.
No game is perfect. There are certain things I would do completely different, like make the player aware this might happen with foreshadowing.
That's an important distinction that I agree with: As a game, ME3 plays fine. I played through a good portion of it, and while I didn't think it was as good as ME or ME2, overall, it's hard to say that the gameplay was any worse, and in many ways, it was better.
But the whole ME series has also been about story, and ME3 fails in that regard in a big way. Not only in the ways I mention above, but even within it's own story, the ending just comes out nearly from no-where. And I think for a lot of players, who wouldn't be making an effort to compartmentalize their enjoyment of the experience in game and story parts, having the story fall flat at the end runs a big chance of killing the overall experience.
Oh don't get me wrong, I still think parts of it could be better. I am a critic first and gamer second.
I critic all games. Even the good ones.
No game is perfect. There are certain things I would do completely different, like make the player aware this might happen with foreshadowing.
That's an important distinction that I agree with: As a game, ME3 plays fine. I played through a good portion of it, and while I didn't think it was as good as ME or ME2, overall, it's hard to say that the gameplay was any worse, and in many ways, it was better.
But the whole ME series has also been about story, and ME3 fails in that regard in a big way. Not only in the ways I mention above, but even within it's own story, the ending just comes out nearly from no-where. And I think for a lot of players, who wouldn't be making an effort to compartmentalize their enjoyment of the experience in game and story parts, having the story fall flat at the end runs a big chance of killing the overall experience.
Certainly knowing what I know now, I wouldn't play the ME series. I feel like taken as a whole the ending turned the series from an overall positive experience for me, to a negative one. It was that bad.
Certainly knowing what I know now, I wouldn't play the ME series. I feel like taken as a whole the ending turned the series from an overall positive experience for me, to a negative one. It was that bad.
This.
I loved ME1 & 2 but have absolutely no desire to play them again because of number 3.
The defence the game receives blows my mind. Cannot comprehend it.
Yeah. Loved ME1 despite the stupid Mako, liked ME2...until the very end. Awesome speech and then...a fething stupid giant robot from the 90s. Really. Gave ME3 a chance to recover and the game was good...but then...the ending. Dear lord. Horrendous. The worst thing wasn't really the lack of choice in the first ending and it basically being the same ending with a different color tone. It was trash, but what topped it off was the "kid from nowehere suddenly spills off exposition".
Any game, movie, book or ANYTHING that resorts to a character explaining the entire plot in detail means two things:
a) You think yourself that you sucked at telling a good story and need to educate the player on it.
b) You really sucks at story writing.
There admittably were quite a few loose ends after ME1 and a lot of retconning, but ME2 tried to pick those up and fix them. ME3...however...ugh.
Sigvatr wrote: Yeah. Loved ME1 despite the stupid Mako, liked ME2...until the very end. Awesome speech and then...a fething stupid giant robot from the 90s. Really. Gave ME3 a chance to recover and the game was good...but then...the ending. Dear lord. Horrendous. The worst thing wasn't really the lack of choice in the first ending and it basically being the same ending with a different color tone. It was trash, but what topped it off was the "kid from nowehere suddenly spills off exposition".
Any game, movie, book or ANYTHING that resorts to a character explaining the entire plot in detail means two things:
a) You think yourself that you sucked at telling a good story and need to educate the player on it.
b) You really sucks at story writing.
There admittably were quite a few loose ends after ME1 and a lot of retconning, but ME2 tried to pick those up and fix them. ME3...however...ugh.
Mass effect 1 is still my favorite of the series. And you don't really leave on a trumiphant note really. I mean the alliance fleet is in ruins and as is everything else.
I still love the ME series and list it in my top 3, but the ending was horrible. As a writer I would have hung up my lap top if I wrote an ending that stupid.
MWHistorian wrote: I still love the ME series and list it in my top 3, but the ending was horrible. As a writer I would have hung up my lap top if I wrote an ending that stupid.
Lets not forget some of our setbacks as writers as well. WE have all written an ending that our teachers have hated.
Chongara wrote: At the end of a game series that emphasizes agency and change arising from the actions of your character, having a god you can't even argue forcing your hand is not appropriate.
That isn't even what happened to begin with, so the rest of your rant is a bit incoherent to me.
I know. And the leader of the reapers was not a deus ex machina.
We llterally I would consider him one. A God of the Machines. But not a metaphorical device called a deus ex machina.
A god in the sense of "an unimaginably powerful being" given how superior its technology is to our own, but the same could be said about a veteran guardsman with a lasgun on a feral world.
I know. And the leader of the reapers was not a deus ex machina.
We llterally I would consider him one. A God of the Machines. But not a metaphorical device called a deus ex machina.
A god in the sense of "an unimaginably powerful being" given how superior its technology is to our own, but the same could be said about a veteran guardsman with a lasgun on a feral world.
Basically. I mean we had no understanding of what the hell it was really. Just the Conduit or a higher being. Thats about it really.
In summary, "catalyst" was a vastly intelligent AI with access to massive amounts of power and resources gathered over the course of millions of years, which was still running off of its programming from its extremely arrogant creators (whom still think of themselves as the alpha race and superior to everyone else, even though they're forced to do things like hide in caves in the deepest parts of ocean worlds).
It kept trying to kill Shepard and end humanity in order to harvest us, and everyone else, as it had always done. However, Shepard, a mixture of machine and human due to the efforts of Cerberus, refused to die. As such, it was confused. It had no idea what to do, and so it sought input, like many machines do when they are not sure what to do. Shepard, being the most exceptional being in the universe at the time, was given the ability to be the one to be that input.
In the end, it was simply a machine doing what it was programmed to do. It was actually quite easy to understand.
In summary, "catalyst" was a vastly intelligent AI with access to massive amounts of power and resources gathered over the course of millions of years, which was still running off of its programming from its extremely arrogant creators (whom still think of themselves as the alpha race and superior to everyone else, even though they're forced to do things like hide in caves in the deepest parts of ocean worlds).
It kept trying to kill Shepard and end humanity in order to harvest us, and everyone else, as it had always done. However, Shepard, a mixture of machine and human due to the efforts of Cerberus, refused to die. As such, it was confused. It had no idea what to do, and so it sought input, like many machines do when they are not sure what to do. Shepard, being the most exceptional being in the universe at the time, was given the ability to be the one to be that input.
In the end, it was simply a machine doing what it was programmed to do. It was actually quite easy to understand.
Yeah. And it took the visage of the childhood so Shepherd would feel comfortable.
I mean there were hints EVERYWHERE. I mean everywhere, that Shepherd had bits and pieces of reaper tech inside of him.
Melissia wrote: Eh, I don't know about that. I don't think she had any specifically reaper tech inside of her like that.
I remember it being hinted at throughout mass effect 2. They used some reaper tech during the project. And my one thing I wonder is how did they experiment on Shepherd?
Melissia wrote: Eh, I don't know about that. I don't think she had any specifically reaper tech inside of her like that.
I remember it being hinted at throughout mass effect 2. They used some reaper tech during the project. And my one thing I wonder is how did they experiment on Shepherd?
I don't remember that at all. And it wasn't hinted during
Spoiler:
the project logs you see during the end-game of 3.
You sound like you're leading up to the indoctrination theory, and I've already posted my opinions on that (I am one of its harshest critics)..
Melissia wrote: Eh, I don't know about that. I don't think she had any specifically reaper tech inside of her like that.
I remember it being hinted at throughout mass effect 2. They used some reaper tech during the project. And my one thing I wonder is how did they experiment on Shepherd?
I don't remember that at all. And it wasn't hinted during
Spoiler:
the project logs you see during the end-game of 3.
You sound like you're leading up to the indoctrination theory, and I've already posted my opinions on that (I am one of its harshest critics)..
Hmm. Then it must be from there. Hmm.
I might need to look it back up. Oh wait my bad. I forgot -.- Sovereign parts were used in Cerberus projects.
Melissia wrote: You may be remembering something from the end if ME2 (which was later rediscovered at the end of ME3), but that wasn't incorporated in to Shepard.
Chongara wrote: At the end of a game series that emphasizes agency and change arising from the actions of your character, having a god you can't even argue forcing your hand is not appropriate.
That isn't even what happened to begin with, so the rest of your rant is a bit incoherent to me.
Did we even play the same game? An all-powerful super being appears, monologues for a while. You're allowed to ask for a few clarifications, but not challenge or question any of its assertions. At no point in the conversation when he goes "Synthetics always kill organics" are allowed to go "Uh? Nuh-uh! I totally solved that Geth problem, which was mostly just a few organic bureaucrats being dicks anyway"
Then a barely explained energy blast just removes the problem.Like woosh. There goes the reapers, totally not going to give you any of the mechanics behind it like we do with everything else in this carefully crafted universe. The only ending that comes close to being in line with what was hinted at so far is the "Red" ending... and that involves genocide.
Deus ex machina (Latin: [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na]: /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/;[1] from Latin, meaning "god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object.
In the last 5 minutes of the game.They introduce several new elements: The Starchild, The Catalyst's link to the to the mass relays, the fact you can merge all AI and organics, the ability to destroy all synthetics in the galaxy (how does it differentiate between AIs and just like regular computers or logic circuits?).
Even the things you could argue for already... at stretch, like the reaper mind control are contrived and last minute. The illusive man talked about wanting to control the reapers but he was going to do it with his own reverse-engineered reaper tech, that hasn't been what the catalyst does.
At the last moment, this glowing kid pops out and goes "I can make this thing do all these things for you, press a button and get an ending because I say so."
Melissia wrote: You may be remembering something from the end if ME2 (which was later rediscovered at the end of ME3), but that wasn't incorporated in to Shepard.
Now its going to bother me what it was.
Weeellllll...
Spoiler:
If you "saved" the Collector Base thing, the "brain" of the reaper, IIRC, was saved and used to increase the processing power for Cerberus' home base / space station thing at the end of ME3. If you destroyed it, they managed to salvage the "heart" of it to power their base, instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Did we even play the same game? An all-powerful super being appears
Apparently, we didn't. Because this didn't happen in Mass Effect 3.
The hologram for an artificial intelligence appeared, having found a situation where it did not know what to do, and it asked Shepard for input on what to do.
Chongara wrote: Did we even play the same game? An all-powerful super being appears
Apparently, we didn't. Because this didn't happen in Mass Effect 3.
The hologram for an artificial intelligence appeared, having found a situation where it did not know what to do, and it asked Shepard for input on what to do.
Please, please, please lend me your copy of Mass Effect 3. Mine is broken.
Chongara wrote: Did we even play the same game? An all-powerful super being appears
Apparently, we didn't. Because this didn't happen in Mass Effect 3.
The hologram for an artificial intelligence appeared, having found a situation where it did not know what to do, and it asked Shepard for input on what to do.
Please, please, please lend me your copy of Mass Effect 3. Mine is broken.
Chongara wrote: Did we even play the same game? An all-powerful super being appears
Apparently, we didn't. Because this didn't happen in Mass Effect 3.
The hologram for an artificial intelligence appeared, having found a situation where it did not know what to do, and it asked Shepard for input on what to do.
Please, please, please lend me your copy of Mass Effect 3. Mine is broken.
I'm fairly certain that, if you own ME3 on the PC, we play the same game, because I doubt Origin gives us different versions.
Please, please, please lend me your copy of Mass Effect 3. Mine is broken.
I'm fairly certain that, if you own ME3 on the PC, we play the same game, because I doubt Origin gives us different versions.
Oh. *Phew*. I'm actually feeling pretty relieved. I thought two arrogant men had ruined one of the better sci-fi universes in years by locking the other writers out of the room and unilaterally creating their own jarring, unfitting ending. Now that I know it was a vivid hallucination on my part I can go enjoy it with a level head.
I think I'll go catch the end of a let's play on youtube.
EDIT: I should go check out the last half of Star Ocean III while I'm at it too. That was probably just kind teenage-hormone induced nightmare too.
Please, please, please lend me your copy of Mass Effect 3. Mine is broken.
I'm fairly certain that, if you own ME3 on the PC, we play the same game, because I doubt Origin gives us different versions.
Oh. *Phew*. I'm actually feeling pretty relieved. I thought two arrogant men had ruined one of the better sci-fi universes in years by locking the other writers out of the room and unilaterally creating their own jarring, unfitting ending. Now that I know it was a vivid hallucination on my part I can go enjoy it with a level head.
I think I'll go catch the end of a let's play on youtube.
EDIT: I should go check out the last half of Star Ocean III while I'm at it too. That was probably just kind teenage-hormone induced nightmare too.
Hmmm. Lets see what can happen.
Play I have no mouth and I must scream and you will stop playing and will not come out of your bedroom for a day.
*Sigh*. I'm still hallucinating. That's too bad. You know if I'm going to be that delusional about it I may as well be delusional about in a way I enjoy. Like, if my mind needs to have a nonsensical ending to that game that isn't there, I'm going to make it fun nonsense. I've now canonically replaced the last 30 minutes of Mass Effect 3 in my head with the last 30 minutes of Metal Gear Rising: Revengence . I'm still flying rodent gak crazy, but at least I'm laughing this time.
Lynata wrote: Personally, my only problem with the Reapers' background as explained by the Catalyst was how it all evolved around artificial intelligences, which I think is BS. A better mission would have been to regularly purge the galaxy if any civilisation reaches a certain degree of technological advancement, because they'd eventually develop WMDs capable of messing up and depopulating the entire galaxy in a way that it ceases to be able to support any life.
Going back a few pages I'm going to pull this out, you don't happen to watch a bit of anime do you? Because what you describe is the plot of TTGL, The Spiral Nemesis.
Spiral energy is the building block of all life in the universe, overuse of this power will eventually lead the end of all existence. When the first species discovered this potential catastrophe they took the name of Anti-Spirals and went on the mission of protecting the universe by opressing all lifeforms to a technological level that was safe. Even to the extent of oppressing their own species.
The existence of dark energy & the Mass Effect, the reapers harvesting all life of a certain technological level, I would not be surprised if this was an idea thrown around the story room.
*Sigh*. I'm still hallucinating. That's too bad. You know if I'm going to be that delusional about it I may as well be delusional about in a way I enjoy. Like, if my mind needs to have a nonsensical ending to that game that isn't there, I'm going to make it fun nonsense. I've now canonically replaced the last 30 minutes of Mass Effect 3 in my head with the last 30 minutes of Metal Gear Rising: Revengence . I'm still flying rodent gak crazy, but at least I'm laughing this time.
I think I would have enjoyed Shepard fighting the Illusive Man in the vein of that Revengeance ending a lot more than what we got.
At least Revengeance is an appropriate game for a completely ridiculous ending as the whole concept is mental. I like to think it's Otacon reading through "one of his Japanese animes" that's about Raiden for some reason. Fits with the universe. Although it's not as if the MGS universe is grounded in reality that makes what happens in that game entirely inconceivable. ME3 however just goes bat gak out there when it comes to the story. It might as well have been a different game.
I've always had a different hope / interpretation for Mass Effect than I think what, not only the designers thought, but probably a whole load of other players.
Sure, the Reapers and collectors were big ol' nasty, evil jerkfaces that were mean and possibly a little scary and nasty.
However, I never felt Mass Effect to be particularly dark or indeed, grimdark.
The universe just wasn't that to me. Or at least, it wasn't supposed to be that to me. Sure, the Dragon Age universe was, being heavily inspired by Game of Thrones as opposed to, say, Lord of The Rings.
Mass Effect? Nah.
Mass Effect, ultimately to me, had the same tone as Star Trek. The Reapers, were basically analogous to The Borg (pre-Voyager). - Big, scary, nasty, meaney meanness that were genuine threats, put danger in the things, could mess up the galaxy - Ala 'Star Trek: First Contact.'
Ultimately, however. You had good guys - and, they were awesome. - Sure, there could be some casualties along the way, tragic, sad casualties (I have been... and always will be... your friend). But, ultimately, you knew everything was going to be ok.
My fan-fiction ending for Mass Effect 3 would have been something like.
Sorrowful, sad scene with Anderson, as shown in the game.
Shepard stumbles up, limping and clutching their way to the 'Fire Button,' collapsing a few steps short of it.
A door opens offscreen. Shepard is lifted by unknown figures, dragged off.
Eyes open, the Crucibles panel is in front of them, a hand lifts Shepard's hand up. It's familiar... - It belongs to one of Shepard's squad on the run-up to the Crucible (they weren't evaced in my version, sticking with the original situation of them mysteriously being missing).
- Of course, it's the Love Interests hand, if they were in the final squad. Shepard falls unconscious once more. "We've got you."
Scene changes to the weapon activating, Extended edition cutscenes.
One final Addition. - "6 weeks later."
Refresh of the opening scene of Mass Effect 1, with a repaired Normandy SR-2 flying past Jupiter, Reaper / ship wreckage floating by.
Shepard nods / greets the surviving crew on board ship, giving a last personal moment with the crew. Shepard approaches Joker, "Alliance Command have given us permission to begin patrols. Where too, Commander?" "Second star on the right and straight on till morning."
Ok, perhaps not something quite so derivative... But with the same sentiment.
Precisely. The actual ME plot was quite deeper than what it was changed to in ME2 and ME3. Bioware, or rather their head writer, decided for it to be too complicated and turned almost 180° by making ME an extremely generic sci-fi story that "everyone could get into". The overall premise of the series was perfect - you start with a strong first part of the trilogy, introducing all parties and the main conflict. The second part then focused on the characters to further draw the players in and bond the crew together, with the suicide mission being the peak. The third part was then supposed to end it off by closing of all ties and revealing a last twist.
By dumbing the story down to such a large extent, however, Bioware lost most of its appeal. They focused on the "organics vs. synthethic" plot which is simple to understand but, ultimatively, extremely bland and shallow. It certainly appeals to more simple minds or people with a lower demand on stories, but it ruined the series for us. And that's even before the extremely poorly-made, exposition spewing ending of the series. Bioware just seems to lost their ability to write good endings. DA:O had good, diverse endings with a lot of story ties being tied up. ME 1 was great too, giving you a sense of accomplishment while still hinting at the conflict still being there and chances being very slim actually. ME2 was trash with the giant robot thing and a very poor ending scene. ME 3 was an utter mess of trash any half-way decent author would be ashamed of. DA2 ending was terribly bland as well, not to mention the poor "end fight".
Anything they do nowadays seems to be extremely rushed and poorly thought-out. And their next project is going to be a multiplayer hack and slash? Urgh.
Madcat87 wrote:Going back a few pages I'm going to pull this out, you don't happen to watch a bit of anime do you? Because what you describe is the plot of TTGL, The Spiral Nemesis.
Gurren Lagann?
I actually did watch that, though I didn't see any connection there, and your comparison still feels a bit forced - I was referring entirely to technological advances. You know, stuff like artificial black holes, supernova torpedoes, self-replicating extermination robots, or ... oh, the krogan flinging asteroids through space, for example.
I'm of the opinion that science will eventually allow virtually anything, but needless to say, with this godlike power comes great responsibility. Imagine the entire galaxy - or possibly even the space beyond - being potentially doomed by the push of a single button.
That is where I could see the Reapers come into the picture. Hitting the big reset button to make sure that life will forever continue. Because evolution cannot be stopped, but you sure can crush its results and thus allow other life-forms to flourish. Like cutting a big tree so that the shrubs on the ground get the sunlight.
Regarding the whole dark matter stuff, I think this has been blown greatly out of proportion, much like with the (easily debunked) "indoctrination theory" that has been propagated by a rather insistent segment of the fanbase.
As mentioned in your link, they just dropped a few mentions here and there but didn't even bother to flesh it out, which is probably why I didn't spent much time thinking on it. It's been some time, but I vaguely recall going "huh" and then just forgetting about it as it never came back up again.
I can see the resemblance between Karpyshyn's idea and Gurren Lagann's spiral energy, though. Maybe he was watching the anime, too?
Sigvatr wrote:ME 3 was an utter mess of trash any half-way decent author would be ashamed of.
Are you a half-way decent author that you can make that judgement?
Seriously, it's absolutely okay to dislike something, but you sound like a Sith-Lord on a crusade. Including Palpatine-levels of propaganda speeches.
Given how many people were confused by the ending (quite often ignoring obvious connections in their rage), I also wouldn't exactly call it "dumbed down", but rather perhaps it was too complicated and/or too "dark" for those fans who wanted a standard 0/8-15 ending like in 99% of all other video games (see Compel's suggestion). It is quite simply a matter of taste, and no amount of misrepresentation will change that.
Compel wrote:However, I never felt Mass Effect to be particularly dark or indeed, grimdark.
I'd say it depends on where you look. As per the authors, the main influences on Mass Effect were Aliens, Blade Runner, Star Wars, Star Trek II and Starship Troopers. Whether you had a lighthearted part or a dark one very much depended on which section of the game you were at - both in terms of missions/events as well as background from the game's codex. And I'd say that this "emotional rollercoaster" is an integral part of the games' success.
Lynata wrote: Are you a half-way decent author that you can make that judgement?
Does a movie critic have to be a professional actor? The "only experts can comment on expert's work" argument is a stillborn argument.
And in this every case: if any author ever resorts to shoving exposition down another person's throat, then it means that he sucks at his job.
It is quite simply a matter of taste, and no amount of misrepresentation will change that.
Did I mention taste? The ME story got dumbed down and reduced to a generic sci-fi plot. Period. You can't argue against that. You can, however, argue that one crowd prefers one version to another preferred by another crowd. That's personal taste.
I also argued against it previously in this thread, myself.
I didn't see any reason to hate the ending, myself. Again, the only change I'd probably make is letting the other endings have Shepard survive somehow (though that'd be difficult in the Control ending) if your EMS was high enough.
Given how many people were confused by the ending (quite often ignoring obvious connections in their rage), I also wouldn't exactly call it "dumbed down", but rather perhaps it was too complicated and/or too "dark" for those fans who wanted a standard 0/8-15 ending like in 99% of all other video games (see Compel's suggestion). It is quite simply a matter of taste, and no amount of misrepresentation will change that
There wasn't anything confusing or even terribly *dark* about the ending. In fact in my view, the ending wasn't dark at all. All 3 endings end the reaper threat and save future cycles. One ending even has the main character functionally ascend into godhood. The Red & Green endings both have ethical issues to be sure, red more so. However they leave the galaxy otherwise intact and even address the issue of being without the mass relays.
The plot points weren't terribly complex. Reapers controlled by insane AI built by some ancient force - that's about it on their end.
The issue was none of it feels terribly natural coming from the series or even the game. The execution is so botched the AI amounts to a god, seemingly waving it']s arms to grant Shepard realultimatepower. The powers that fuel the final energy burst are so vaguely defined and out of scope with the rest of the universe they feel feel like magic. None of it involves long running elements in the series, or a confrontation with anything that looks, sounds or acts like the reapers we've been dealing with for 3 games. Even the super weapon we've been kind-of-sort building in the game was background element only talked about, a barely there McGuffin to drive the plot forward.
I would have been happy with a dark ending. I would have been happy with a game where the reapers win. A massed battle where we see all the races finally fighting together, only to be easily crushed. The Repears have been telling us for 3 games they're unstoppable - let them be right. Let the galaxy burn. The issue is the ending chases up both ends of spectrum and awkwardly crashes on itself where they meet.
That's not even getting into the issues with the conversation within it's own context, where Shepard was acting totally out of character for almost any branch of play up until that point. The whole affair is just unsettling.
errr wait. I mean. It sure was wacky when Shepard ripped the arm off that repear and starting beating it to death with it. Also, where did Udina get those nanomachines and why'd they turn him into the hulk? It also seemed really weird timing for him to go randomly off on tanget about he played college football. Ha-ha sure was wacky though, good thing KEI-9 was there to throw shepard that Super-Gun that used to belong to Saren.
What I meant with "dark" was the protagonist's sacrifice to ensure the survival of the galaxy, as opposed to the "Disney ending" the vocal majority on the BSN had clamoured for, with "everyone living happy ever after". I much preferred Shepard to go out with a big bang as opposed to what people were suggesting there, if only because it felt so standard, as opposed to the almost GoT-style shock of Shep dying to accomplish the mission.
("unfortunately", my EMS was high enough to actually show me the so-called breather scene, but I'm ignoring that for my headcanon)
And with the confusion I'm referring to stuff like people complaining about how the Normandy could suddenly be in FTL when it was just shown having landed on Earth. Because apparently those people who have put so much rage into their complaints about the ending totally missed the general call for retreat that was issued by the admiral.
A whole lot of fans were missing details like these because apparently they weren't paying attention, and when this is presented as part of their criticism then it's quite simply their own fault. In the expanded ending, BioWare went through great lengths to clarify these things, such as for this example inserting a new scene showing the Normandy depart. It shouldn't have been necessary, but apparently a lot of people need this sort of Hollywood-style guidance.
The issue of being without mass relays was likewise only adressed in the expanded ending, because again a lot of people have complained about everything supposedly "having been for nothing" just because people can't quick-travel between the systems. I didn't need this, I've got a brain to come up with my own explanations rather than requiring to get everything served on a dish like some mindless consumerist zombie. BioWare leaving these blank spots for us to think about was something I thought was cool - and I am disheartened that so many people apparently weren't capable of employing their own fantasy to make use of this opportunity. :(
And the Humans-vs-AIs bit was very much a long running element in the series, ever since meeting the geth in ME1. As I said, I would've explained it differently, but to say that it was completely detached from previous stuff seems wrong to me.
Even the three primary choices are a reference to classic elements associated with the Reapers, with Destroy representing their scorched earth tactics, Synthesis a form of Saren-like conversion, and Control a reverse-indoctrination.
Chongara wrote:I would have been happy with a dark ending. I would have been happy with a game where the reapers win. A massed battle where we see all the races finally fighting together, only to be easily crushed. The Repears have been telling us for 3 games they're unstoppable - let them be right. Let the galaxy burn.
I guarantee you that this would've led to an even greater gakstorm than what happened already.
The cutscene for when you fail is goosebumps-epic though.
Chongara wrote:errr wait. I mean. It sure was wacky when Shepard ripped the arm off that repear and starting beating it to death with it. Also, where did Udina get those nanomachines and why'd they turn him into the hulk? It also seemed really weird timing for him to go randomly off on tanget about he played college football. Ha-ha sure was wacky though, good thing KEI-9 was there to throw shepard that Super-Gun that used to belong to Saren.
oO
If that was a reference to something that actually happened in the game, you've embellished it in such a heavy way that leaves me unable to make the connection.
What was this supposed "super being" that appeared at the end of ME3? I remember an ancient AI showing up and explaining everything (a little heavy handed, but whatever, I can run with it).
ME3's eventual revelation is that the Reapers are just Ultron from Marvel comics: Dedicated to creating peace, and finds the only logical way to ensure peace is to prune everything so that it can grow from there.
And with the confusion I'm referring to stuff like people complaining about how the Normandy could suddenly be in FTL when it was just shown having landed on Earth. Because apparently those people who have put so much rage into their complaints about the ending totally missed the general call for retreat that was issued by the admiral.
Actually you are miss remembering the scene. The Admiral gives NO such order.
The Commander of the GROUND FORCES calls for a retreat OF THE GROUND FORCES so they can regroup and try again.
The Navy continues to fight the entire time. \
Anyways i was just going to say, I overall enjoyed the game. I did not like the original endings but I actually really liked the altered endings and im thankful they were released.
I think the series would have improved a lot if the Reapers always remained mysterious. Leaving us to wonder what their goals. There was no way to live up to the ME 1 hype of them.
Lynata wrote: What I meant with "dark" was the protagonist's sacrifice to ensure the survival of the galaxy, as opposed to the "Disney ending" the vocal majority on the BSN had clamoured for, with "everyone living happy ever after". I much preferred Shepard to go out with a big bang as opposed to what people were suggesting there, if only because it felt so standard, as opposed to the almost GoT-style shock of Shep dying to accomplish the mission.
("unfortunately", my EMS was high enough to actually show me the so-called breather scene, but I'm ignoring that for my headcanon)
I don't think a Shepard death ending is all shocking really. I'll admit the hero living is standard path but it wouldn't have struck me as revolutionary or anything. Hell my favorite game as the kid left 2/4 party members dead and another crippled.
And the Humans-vs-AIs bit was very much a long running element in the series, ever since meeting the geth in ME1. As I said, I would've explained it differently, but to say that it was completely detached from previous stuff seems wrong to me.
Even the three primary choices are a reference to classic elements associated with the Reapers, with Destroy representing their scorched earth tactics, Synthesis a form of Saren-like conversion, and Control a reverse-indoctrination.
Certainly it's one of the side themes they explored in the series, most throughly in the Geth vs Quarian arc. The issue is with it is that at that point we've already resolved that particularly narrative element both from an in-universe perspective and from a storytelling perspective. Through the actions you take and the events that occur you've definitively answered the AI vs Organic conflict.
Then in the final sequence they have a brand new character dredges the resolved theme back up in a horribly awkward and hamfisted way.
Though that's not really what I meant when I said "Elements" of the previous games. What I mean is everything is resolved with Shepard alone with a new character, in a new location, using technology that's never explained and feels like magic. And ending would have had
Chongara wrote:I would have been happy with a dark ending. I would have been happy with a game where the reapers win. A massed battle where we see all the races finally fighting together, only to be easily crushed. The Repears have been telling us for 3 games they're unstoppable - let them be right. Let the galaxy burn.
I guarantee you that this would've led to an even greater gakstorm than what happened already.
The cutscene for when you fail is goosebumps-epic though.
,
Possibly. It would have been a different sort gak storm I think. I'll admit I like heroic sacrifice endings more than average person. I'll also say It certainly still has narrative issues, it's something of an emotional betrayal with all the build up they did. However, at least It'd flow naturally from previous events though which is really what I wanted.
Lynata wrote: If that was a reference to something that actually happened in the game, you've embellished it in such a heavy way that leaves me unable to make the connection.
It was a reference to the final sequence of Metal Gear Rising another game with a pants on head stupid final sequence but one which I enjoyed.
Chongara wrote: In fact in my view, the ending wasn't dark at all. All 3 endings end the reaper threat and save future cycles.
Four endings really. But I agree. The only "dark" ending, and even that one only temporarily, would be the one where you choose to do nothing and everyone dies (then the next cycle wins instead). Or the ones where your EMS are pathetically low, but meh.
I'm not complaining that it's not dark though, myself.
Chongara wrote: The issue was none of it feels terribly natural coming from the series or even the game.
I'm not really sure about this. It felt like it flowed naturally, for me. The cruel decision we had to make at the end of the game-- give up life to synthesize all life to stop wars between organic and synthetic, or give up your body to become a sort of physical god, or end up sacrificing the synthetic life in the galaxy in because you don't trust the Reapers with the other two options-- I was okay with that. The game made you make hard decisions throughout the entire series.
Chongara wrote: The execution is so botched the AI amounts to a god
I never got that impression. It sounded more like a confused AI trying to obey its programming, to me.
Chongara wrote: I would have been happy with a dark ending. I would have been happy with a game where the reapers win. A massed battle where we see all the races finally fighting together, only to be easily crushed.
That would have been pretty gakky, I'd have HATED that ending.
That is an ending I would have bitched about as much as other people did about the ending we got.
Chongara wrote: In fact in my view, the ending wasn't dark at all. All 3 endings end the reaper threat and save future cycles.
Four endings really. But I agree. The only "dark" ending, and even that one only temporarily, would be the one where you choose to do nothing and everyone dies (then the next cycle wins instead). Or the ones where your EMS are pathetically low, but meh.
I'm not complaining that it's not dark though, myself.
Chongara wrote: The issue was none of it feels terribly natural coming from the series or even the game.
I'm not really sure about this. It felt like it flowed naturally, for me. The cruel decision we had to make at the end of the game-- give up life to synthesize all life to stop wars between organic and synthetic, or give up your body to become a sort of physical god, or end up sacrificing the synthetic life in the galaxy in because you don't trust the Reapers with the other two options-- I was okay with that. The game made you make hard decisions throughout the entire series.
Chongara wrote: The execution is so botched the AI amounts to a god
I never got that impression. It sounded more like a confused AI trying to obey its programming, to me.
Chongara wrote: I would have been happy with a dark ending. I would have been happy with a game where the reapers win. A massed battle where we see all the races finally fighting together, only to be easily crushed.
That would have been pretty gakky, I'd have HATED that ending.
That is an ending I would have bitched about as much as other people did about the ending we got.
That was an actual possible ending if you shoot the AI you get that ending.
The only "dark" ending, and even that one only temporarily, would be the one where you choose to do nothing and everyone dies (then the next cycle wins instead).
Yes, I include "shoot the AI" as "choose to do nothing".
Melissia wrote: I never got that impression. It sounded more like a confused AI trying to obey its programming, to me.
Here's the rub. We're told the whole game the Catalyst is the missing part of the Crucible, the piece that bit that makes the whole thing tick. We know going in that without the catalyst the crucible is effectively useless, pointless. This means that whatever effects are derived from the use of the crucible can in effect, be attributed the catalyst. No matter if these are the facts in-universe or not (the whole thing is far too vaguely defined and unexplained to really say), that's narrative thrust of it. From a storytelling standpoint that's the load that's been put on the catalyst going in.
Enter the Starchild the catalyst. It is not a thing but a character. That's a big problem, a big, big, big problem. See players like me expected the catalyst to resolve things, but we expected it to be something Shepard used or set into motion to resolve things. By making the catalyst a character, they hand the all responsibility for the resolution to that character. Whatever events happen once the catalyst is revealed to be a thinking being now belong to that being, they do not belong to shepard, nor the crew of the normandy, nor the united races of the galaxy, they belong solely and wholly to the Starchild.
The, we have the three colored lights of the ending. These... whatever they were are so poorly defined they seem like magic, they operate outside the rules of the setting. They are so broadly reaching and powerful they're out of scope with anything in the setting. The net result is something so jarringly above and outside the realm of plausibility it may as well be an act of god and because it is the act of a character that character is a god. The Starchild, owning the ending by being the catalyst becomes a god through the scope of the powers it exhibits.
The production around it doesn't help the matter either. Shepard ascending to the stage in a pillar of light, the glowing of the Starchild, the ethereal voice it has with echoes of Shepard's own, the surroundings in the citadel evoking the appearance of a temple complete with altars for the sacrifice of Shepard. Everything about how it's put together has the feel and direction of a spiritual encounter, it had everything short of adding choir voices to the background music.
Everything in the encounter is just of a jarringly different tone and style than everything we've seen up until that point in mass effect.
Melissia wrote: I never got that impression. It sounded more like a confused AI trying to obey its programming, to me.
Here's the rub. We're told the whole game the Catalyst is the missing part of the Crucible, the piece that bit that makes the whole thing tick. We know going in that without the catalyst the crucible is effectively useless, pointless. This means that whatever effects are derived from the use of the crucible can in effect, be attributed the catalyst. No matter if these are the facts in-universe or not (the whole thing is far too vaguely defined and unexplained to really say), that's narrative thrust of it. From a storytelling standpoint that's the load that's been put on the catalyst going in.
Enter the Starchild the catalyst. It is not a thing but a character. That's a big problem, a big, big, big problem. See players like me expected the catalyst to resolve things, but we expected it to be something Shepard used or set into motion to resolve things. By making the catalyst a character, they hand the all responsibility for the resolution to that character. Whatever events happen once the catalyst is revealed to be a thinking being now belong to that being, they do not belong to shepard, nor the crew of the normandy, nor the united races of the galaxy, they belong solely and wholly to the Starchild.
The, we have the three colored lights of the ending. These... whatever they were are so poorly defined they seem like magic, they operate outside the rules of the setting. They are so broadly reaching and powerful they're out of scope with anything in the setting. The net result is something so jarringly above and outside the realm of plausibility it may as well be an act of god and because it is the act of a character that character is a god. The Starchild, owning the ending by being the catalyst becomes a god through the scope of the powers it exhibits.
The production around it doesn't help the matter either. The glowing, the ethereal voice with echoes of shepard's own, the surroundings in the citadel evoking the appearance of a temple complete with altars for the sacrifice of shepard.
Everything in the encounter is just of a jarringly different tone and style than everything we've seen up until that point in mass effect.
Ahem.
First of all, the character is a mechanic its an idea. It is a representation of the reapers. It is programmed to work for the reapers. And it was created with a lot of purpose.
If you have played the DLC, you are introduced to the idea, that there is something behind the reapers, controlling them, and part of the collective. There are very heavy implying that the geth and the reapers are very similar.
I've said this before. The reapers are not 1 intelligence, they are a combination of intelligences, the more intelligences inside them, the smarter they become, much like the Geth.
Its not a big problem its actually quite unique. How many games have you collect a sacred object that lets the player have the power to choose. This time for the first time in gaming, that power is taken away from the player.
That is incredible. The game is not suppose to invoke a good feeling upon the player. It was meant to. This game is about sacrifice, and the cost of that sacrifice.
But through that sacrifice . LIfe continues, Just not with that crew. That crew loses its leader. So what. You still have multitudes of other leaders left. The Citadel council is still alive, the entire gaxaly is safe. And your saying it was for all nothing?
You know space magic is just science that has not be explained. We can see it is basically mechanical in origin. So that shoots your idea of it being 'space magic'.
We have no idea how it works, but is it magic? No. Not really.
It just can't be explained. Its a device that has so much power that we have no understanding of it.
Melissia wrote: For that matter, the titular mass effect things itself is basically "space magic" from our perspective. I'm okay with that
They explain the Mass Effect enough to demystify it within the context of the universe. Sure it's not an explaination that would hold up to any real scrutiny but it works well enough to convince the audience the setting has rules and those rules are being followed.
The Starchild's magic is given no such explanation, it just happens. It's a mystical event not playing by any the rules established in the setting. It's miracle in a setting where miracles don't happen. I don't have any problem with miracles generally... I just didn't want one for the ending of mass effect.
Calling the Catalyst AI something different in order to insult it doesn't make for a convincing argument.
The only ending that could have your description applied to it (and yet I still don't necessarily agree) is the Synthesis ending . The Control and Destroy endings, as well as the "everyone dies" ending of course (since it involves no actions by said AI), both make sense within the context of the game, when you listen to / read about how the construct that the allied forces have been making actually works.
Spoiler:
Control is literally just copying Shepard's mind and sending it out as an overriding signal that puts the Reapers under the control of the person who activated it.
Something that you can easily imagine something of such high tech could do.
Destroy is similar; it makes use of the massive amounts of energies, as well as the Mass Relays, to literally zap concentrated synthetic life until it is destroyed, the Catalyst AI becoming the auto-targeting system.
Synthesis, meanwhile, is some kind of merger between synthetic and organic life. That... is the only ending I might agree could qualify as "science as magic".
Galdos wrote:Actually you are miss remembering the scene. The Admiral gives NO such order.
The Commander of the GROUND FORCES calls for a retreat OF THE GROUND FORCES so they can regroup and try again.
The Navy continues to fight the entire time.
Hah, you're right - though I not only misremembered that scene, I also misremembered the original argument as it was actually referring to the ground forces.
Having just watched the original ending on YT again, they do say that "the entire force is decimated", though, and with task force Hammer representing all the Alliance could throw at them, the mission was effectively considered a failure. A second attempt was not possible, so they'd pull out everyone - and I'd now assume that the Normandy is in FTL because she's part of the forces allowed to jump out whilst part of the fleet covers their retreat against the Reaper onslaught. There was no good reason for the Normandy to remain in combat and sacrifice herself, after all.
Asherian Command wrote:That was an actual possible ending if you shoot the AI you get that ending.
Ashiraya wrote:You can also get it by telling the catalyst you won't use the crucible.
Or by really just doing nothing and letting the hidden timer run out.
... I accidentally did that during my first game, trying too hard to decide.
Chongara wrote:Enter the Starchild the catalyst. It is not a thing but a character. That's a big problem, a big, big, big problem. See players like me expected the catalyst to resolve things, but we expected it to be something Shepard used or set into motion to resolve things. By making the catalyst a character, they hand the all responsibility for the resolution to that character.
I think a bigger problem for many players was the design of the Catalyst as a holographic kid. A whole lot of gamers didn't appreciate "their" Shep getting nightmares "just" for seeing some random kid die (I mean, it's not like real world PTSD soldiers don't go through the exact same experiences or anything), and seeing this kid pop up again fans the flames of an existing bias. The derogatory moniker "starchild" is a good hint here.
On a sidenote, I also don't think the Crucible was actually supposed to work, because it was a poorly-understood (<- they actually said that, too!) piece of tech cobbled together from puzzle pieces left behind by other civilisations who likewise struggled to understand the Reapers. The Crucible was, in the end, just an idea, but it failed to work.
This only makes the Crucible pointless from a narrative perspective if you consider the path to an objective pointless and just want to "get there", though. It's a bit like Han and Luke flying to Bespin just so that Vader can capture them. A plan goes awry, forcing the heroes to adapt and improvise.
Chongara wrote:The, we have the three colored lights of the ending. These... whatever they were are so poorly defined they seem like magic, they operate outside the rules of the setting. They are so broadly reaching and powerful they're out of scope with anything in the setting.
Not necessarily. It depends on your interpretation .. as mentioned previously, all three endings employ elements of the Reapers, and so it doesn't take much of a leap to assume that they'd make use of Reaper tech as well. If you can transform a human into a husk, why not Synthesis? And Control/Destroy really were just a galaxywide communication issueing override orders the Reapers (as a product of the same people who built the Catalyst) would have to follow, be it retreat or self-destruct.
After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.
I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.
ME3, like almost all Bioware games, told a bad story very well, and provided game play on a scale between "iffy" and "boring."
My problems with it, however, are far more rational than all this "the end is off" nonsense:
1) Is Shepard Alliance Navy or is he an Alliance Marine? If the former, what's he doing leading infantry squads? If the latter, what's he doing captaining ships?
2) Ashley gets promoted at least five grades, including obtaining an officer's commission, in the span of two years. WTF?
Seaward wrote: 1) Is Shepard Alliance Navy or is he an Alliance Marine? If the former, what's he doing leading infantry squads? If the latter, what's he doing captaining ships?
Yes, and yes. She is a Marine in the Alliance Navy. This is clearly a different power structure than the American Marines vs the American Navy.
Seaward wrote: 2) Ashley gets promoted at least five grades, including obtaining an officer's commission, in the span of two years. WTF?
That's it. That's really all that bothered me.
Those were extra-ordinary times and she was an extra-ordinary person.
creeping-deth87 wrote: After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.
I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.
You know. I read this and thought... Wow. Okay. I mean its not like you were going in with a bias already.
Mate I am sorry to say this, but there have been the few here who have liked the ending, we are a minority it seems. Because we see more than just a 'sour' ending. In fact I am one of the few that said. "That ending could of been better, if it was more cruel to the player."
I mean I am equating it to lovecraft, who is notorious for killing his main leads off at the end of the book.
Melissia wrote: Yes, and yes. She is a Marine in the Alliance Navy. This is clearly a different power structure than the American Marines vs the American Navy.
Oh, indeed. Certainly one in which officers are allowed to bang the bejesus out of enlisted sailors and marines, which is sketchball deluxe at best.
Those were extra-ordinary times and she was an extra-ordinary person.
So's Shep, and he got, at most, a bump of one whole grade.
Seaward wrote:Oh, indeed. Certainly one in which officers are allowed to bang the bejesus out of enlisted sailors and marines, which is sketchball deluxe at best.
Actually, Evil-Shep can fire Traynor for fraternization if she romanced her, so the Alliance does seem to have regulations for this.
But just like in the real world, that obviously doesn't magically remove people's ability to do it anyways.
As for Shep's rank and function, I vaguely recall it was an exception. The Normandy was supposed to be commanded by Anderson, but he gave the ship to Shep when the latter became a Spectre. So this has nothing to do with the Alliance, it's in recognition of his/her authority as a Citadel Operative.
Seaward wrote:So's Shep, and he got, at most, a bump of one whole grade.
To be fair, Shep already started fairly high in the chain of command, and didn't need a higher rank for the tasks s/he was assigned to.
Skipping ranks is not unknown in military history, and certainly not during or shortly after a crisis. Real-world Custer was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant (1861), then promoted to captain (1862), then brigadier general (1863). Three years to general!
If you have more troops than officers to lead them, promotions come quickly! Especially for someone whose name is affiliated with various heroics and whose career attracted the attention of influential superiors.
Seaward wrote: Oh, indeed. Certainly one in which officers are allowed to bang the bejesus out of enlisted sailors and marines, which is sketchball deluxe at best.
While I actually share your objections, I'd like to point out that, with the exception of Traynor and the Virimire Survivors, the people that Shepard can sleep with are not Alliance forces under her command.
Seaward wrote: So's Shep, and he got, at most, a bump of one whole grade.
Not really no. See, Shep became a Spectre. That's a political force well above just about anything the Alliance can promote her to. By game three, she was the unofficial leader of the galaxy.
creeping-deth87 wrote: After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.
I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.
You know. I read this and thought... Wow. Okay. I mean its not like you were going in with a bias already.
Mate I am sorry to say this, but there have been the few here who have liked the ending, we are a minority it seems. Because we see more than just a 'sour' ending. In fact I am one of the few that said. "That ending could of been better, if it was more cruel to the player."
I mean I am equating it to lovecraft, who is notorious for killing his main leads off at the end of the book.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me in this response. You don't have to apologize to me that you liked the ending, this stuff is incredibly subjective and I can certainly acknowledge that the reasons I hated it could easily be the reasons others loved it and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm also not sure where you were going with the bias comment, it's not like I didn't play the game and simply hopped onto the bandwagon. I was actually quite vigilant not to read anything about the ending on my first playthrough, so my disappointment was genuine.
creeping-deth87 wrote: After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.
I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.
You know. I read this and thought... Wow. Okay. I mean its not like you were going in with a bias already.
Mate I am sorry to say this, but there have been the few here who have liked the ending, we are a minority it seems. Because we see more than just a 'sour' ending. In fact I am one of the few that said. "That ending could of been better, if it was more cruel to the player."
I mean I am equating it to lovecraft, who is notorious for killing his main leads off at the end of the book.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me in this response. You don't have to apologize to me that you liked the ending, this stuff is incredibly subjective and I can certainly acknowledge that the reasons I hated it could easily be the reasons others loved it and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm also not sure where you were going with the bias comment, it's not like I didn't play the game and simply hopped onto the bandwagon. I was actually quite vigilant not to read anything about the ending on my first playthrough, so my disappointment was genuine.
WEll the major thing i think is people take it differently. I use to dispise. Till I stepped back and thought about it. Because at the time. I had also started playing Spec Ops: The Line. (Which is a true Lovecraftian story, IN THE GREATEST SENSE, play the game and tell me I am wrong here, I dare you, and then take the ideas of lovecraft and apply it to the game, it is kind of scary)
But anyway I became a little indifferent to the ending. Then I sat down and played it again after reading a few more books and after my whole spec ops dillema. I was quite changed by it and I regarded the ending as how it was suppose to end. I couldn't really see it ending differently. I mean the game had gotten darker and darker.
I mean earth is basically a dead world by the end. The population of the gaxaly has been decreased by at least 60%, the fleet is in ruins, and I didn't know how they would survive.
I pre-ordered ME3, and was amazingly hyped. I went into internet lockdown when I was playing it, to avoid even the faintest hint of a spoiler. And the ending took all that, and turned it into a giant, epic....."meh". Not hatred, that implies some sort of strong emotion. I just stopped caring about the series, or my character. Sold my copy on, never got the "fixed" ending or any DLC.
The reason the ending failed for me was....look, the ending to "2001: A Space Odyssey" is great, something really mindblowing and powerful. But let's say you've watched the original Star Wars movies as they first come out in cinema, you go into "Return of the Jedi" on tenterhooks for how this is going to end. And when Luke enters the throne room of the Emperor, then we get the ending from "2001". That doesn't work (any more than 2001 ending with a lightsaber fight between Hal and Dave would). Not because it's a bad ending, but because it clashes massively with what the films were about. And the Mass Effect games were about the characters, and individual stories. All of the big pivotal moments in the story are based around the choices and personalities of individual people.
Even the Big Significant Events of the games are seen through the lens of an individual, a flawed and believable person whose development serves as a smaller version of a grand impersonal conflict. We see how the Reapers work through Saren's collaboration, and his realisation that he's being transformed into a puppet and (possibly) taking his own life in horror at what he's become. We see the Krogan conflict through Wrex's desire to redeem his people, Eve's stoic faith in a better tomorrow, and Mordin's gnawing guilt and the wish to fix his mistake before he dies. We see how desperate the quarians are to regain their homeworld through the extremes Tali's father goes to, and we see the geth's search for purpose through Legion. And so on, and so on.
And the ending forgets that. When I played through it, after the blast I wasn't wondering about how to defeat Space Squid, I was worried about what had happened to Javik and Garrus, and the people on the Citadel*. The game just suddenly and jarringly forgot about them (we just assume Bailey, Kelly and everyone else we knew on there got melted, I guess?), and became about abstract cosmic stuff, from a character who appeared out of nowhere and whom I had no connection to. Indeed, I had no reason to believe a word the creator of the Reapers said to me. It's an an utter monster responsible for countless trillions of sadistic murders!
The ending discarded every character that the story had been built around up to that point, and dragged in a new one, saying "Now the game is about this creature, which is giving you three rather random choices, for vague reasons.". But I had no reason to care about or even trust this character, their thesis made no sense and violently clashed with my own achievements in the game**, but was right because the plot forbade you to argue. You simply cannot bait and switch what a story is about that late in the narrative and end up with something good.
* Remember how the point of the first games climax was that if the Reapers took the Citadel, they would switch off the mass effect relays and win? Bioware didn't.
** Just a second, Starkid, let me call up EDI, the quarians and the geth who are fighting together against your space squids, and see if they can think of a better solution to your "inevitable" organic / synthetic conflict than murdering everyone.
WEll the major thing i think is people take it differently. I use to dispise. Till I stepped back and thought about it. Because at the time. I had also started playing Spec Ops: The Line. (Which is a true Lovecraftian story, IN THE GREATEST SENSE, play the game and tell me I am wrong here, I dare you, and then take the ideas of lovecraft and apply it to the game, it is kind of scary)
But anyway I became a little indifferent to the ending. Then I sat down and played it again after reading a few more books and after my whole spec ops dillema. I was quite changed by it and I regarded the ending as how it was suppose to end. I couldn't really see it ending differently. I mean the game had gotten darker and darker.
I mean earth is basically a dead world by the end. The population of the gaxaly has been decreased by at least 60%, the fleet is in ruins, and I didn't know how they would survive.
I don't think there's really a comparison between the two. Spec Ops is a game where you know from a quite early point (if not by the phosphorous bombing, then certainly by the water tankers) that this is not a happy story, that your protagonist is slipping from hero to antihero to horrifying villain, and neither they nor the other characters are going to get a happy ending. It has a theme and steadily sticks to that theme up to the final revelation which, critically, makes perfect sense, and which the story so far has been preparing you for.
With ME3, yes, there was horrifying stuff going on (it had been built up from the first game what the Reapers were and what they did), but the other recurring theme through all three games was that yes, you could make a difference through being the biggest badass or the biggest hero in the galaxy. In every stage, and at every crisis point of all three games, personal heroism or sacrifice is what makes the difference--it's going back to this series being all about the characters rather than big abstract threats, and I'd say that's the antithesis of Lovecraftian horror where the universe is brutal and uncaring, and you are an insignificant flicker in the void which will end in the blink of a god's eye. Except suddenly, that stops mattering. For a comparison with Spec Ops, imagine that at the end, you'd found out that the 33rd and the citizens were actually building a secret doomsday weapon under Dubai with which to hold the world hostage, so everything you'd done had actually been justified. That's the sort of "take the themes of the game, crumple them up and throw them into a bin" that I'm talking about.
I don't think there's really a comparison between the two. Spec Ops is a game where you know from a quite early point (if not by the phosphorous bombing, then certainly by the water tankers) that this is not a happy story, that your protagonist is slipping from hero to antihero to horrifying villain, and neither they nor the other characters are going to get a happy ending. It has a theme and steadily sticks to that theme up to the final revelation which, critically, makes perfect sense, and which the story so far has been preparing you for.
With ME3, yes, there was horrifying stuff going on (it had been built up from the first game what the Reapers were and what they did), but the other recurring theme through all three games was that yes, you could make a difference through being the biggest badass or the biggest hero in the galaxy. In every stage, and at every crisis point of all three games, personal heroism or sacrifice is what makes the difference--it's going back to this series being all about the characters rather than big abstract threats, and I'd say that's the antithesis of Lovecraftian horror where the universe is brutal and uncaring, and you are an insignificant flicker in the void which will end in the blink of a god's eye. Except suddenly, that stops mattering. For a comparison with Spec Ops, imagine that at the end, you'd found out that the 33rd and the citizens were actually building a secret doomsday weapon under Dubai with which to hold the world hostage, so everything you'd done had actually been justified. That's the sort of "take the themes of the game, crumple them up and throw them into a bin" that I'm talking about.
Yeah. I feel like Spec Ops and games of its ilk need a separate thread because damn it I need an analysis of it. Its actually in the works, I have pages upon pages to work on though and I might work it as a thesis or something.
I agree. And great sub-analysis.
This thread is mere a supposing of certain threads and ideas. But I can see the mass opposition in the matter.
Elemental wrote:And the ending forgets that. When I played through it, after the blast I wasn't wondering about how to defeat Space Squid, I was worried about what had happened to Javik and Garrus, and the people on the Citadel*. The game just suddenly and jarringly forgot about them (we just assume Bailey, Kelly and everyone else we knew on there got melted, I guess?), and became about abstract cosmic stuff, from a character who appeared out of nowhere and whom I had no connection to.
I actually considered this "a feature, not a bug". The game's original ending set me into a mood where I wanted to imagine for myself what could have happened, rather than being fed by the game. The way I see it, the game just "zooms out" to show you a glimpse of the consequences of your actions throughout the galaxy, and then back in to tease and leave you with a spark of hope for a new beginning.
All the details? Headcanon. I actually think the "Extended Cut" destroyed this, but I guess I can see why other gamers just prefer this style of narration. It comes down to personal preference.
Elemental wrote:The ending discarded every character that the story had been built around up to that point, and dragged in a new one, saying "Now the game is about this creature, which is giving you three rather random choices, for vague reasons.". But I had no reason to care about or even trust this character, their thesis made no sense and violently clashed with my own achievements in the game**, but was right because the plot forbade you to argue.
The game never became "about" the Catalyst for me. The AI was just another trigger for me.
And are you sure that you wishing to argue with the Catalyst isn't just you trying to enforce your own "plot" for the game? The way I see it, sometimes, you simply can't convince your opponent. Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.
Or did you really expect to be able to walk up to the Catalyst and the AI being like: "huh, in all those millennia, I never actually thought about it that way. I've got more processing power than your entire fleet combined, but I guess what you say makes more sense than my calculations and program directives" ?
Really, it's the very same as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Curiously I've never seen people criticise that ending, even though it applies the very same concepts and supposed lack of "individual resolution".
Really, it's the very same as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Curiously I've never seen people criticise that ending, even though it applies the very same concepts and supposed lack of "individual resolution".
I've seen plenty of criticism of it. It's the whole final sequence is kind of a dull non-climax. The endings are profoundly lazy being narration over stock footage and the pick-an-ending buttons weren't terribly compelling there. However these are relatively minor problems in the context of human revolution. It's lazy and a bit dull but what happened fit with the themes and tone of the game, broadly speaking
If the ME ending had only been lazy and dull (which it was), it wouldn't have faced the kind of backlash it did. Folks would have still been angry but not nearly to the degree they were. The bigger is wasn't just lazy and dull, it was lazy dull and nearly the antithesis of everything Mass Effect had been up until that point.
Really, it's the very same as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Curiously I've never seen people criticise that ending, even though it applies the very same concepts and supposed lack of "individual resolution".
People did critise Deus Ex: Human Revolutions ending for the exact same thing. - Nowhere near as much, but it was a non-zero number.
If I remember right (which, admittedly, I'm probably not), it was actually Bioware taking the mick out DX:HR's ending that originally spurred lots of the anger for ME:3. - They actually talked about not going up to a machine and picking button A, B or C.
The other thing to remember, is that DX: HR was a prequel. - You knew how things were going to end for it all. What mattered was how the specific characters you interacted with were resolved, which is what the 3 endings provided. Heck, DX:HR could make the same claim with as much validity as Bioware for the number of endings. - The voice-over dialogue changed depending on how big a jerkface you were during the game.
If I remember right (which, admittedly, I'm probably not), it was actually Bioware taking the mick out DX:HR's ending that originally spurred lots of the anger for ME:3. - They actually talked about not going up to a machine and picking button A, B or C.
Yes. In fact it was of the two guys that locked the other writers out of the room and wrote the ME3 ending on their own that were the most vocal about it.
Lynata wrote: I actually considered this "a feature, not a bug". The game's original ending set me into a mood where I wanted to imagine for myself what could have happened, rather than being fed by the game. The way I see it, the game just "zooms out" to show you a glimpse of the consequences of your actions throughout the galaxy, and then back in to tease and leave you with a spark of hope for a new beginning.
All the details? Headcanon. I actually think the "Extended Cut" destroyed this, but I guess I can see why other gamers just prefer this style of narration. It comes down to personal preference.
Like I said, ME3 was all about the characters, and the grand story is told through their personal stories that had been built up. I can understand leaving everything that happens afterwards ambiguous, but I want to see more of my effects on the galaxy than the same cutscene with a palette swap. The Extended ending did patch that, thankfully.
And honestly, if you take the pre-Extended ending, the outlook is pretty inarguably bleak and horrific.
Lynata wrote: The game never became "about" the Catalyst for me. The AI was just another trigger for me.
And are you sure that you wishing to argue with the Catalyst isn't just you trying to enforce your own "plot" for the game? The way I see it, sometimes, you simply can't convince your opponent. Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.
Or did you really expect to be able to walk up to the Catalyst and the AI being like: "huh, in all those millennia, I never actually thought about it that way. I've got more processing power than your entire fleet combined, but I guess what you say makes more sense than my calculations and program directives" ?
I expect to be able to point of the yawning holes in its thesis. Remember the climax of Rannoch, if you get the "good ending"?
Reaper: Synthetics and organics are doomed to fight eternally.
Shepard: That's not true, we don't have to be enemies!
Reaper: The battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion.
And then you prove it wrong. Totally, unambiguously, wrong. You resolve a vendetta that has lasted for decades and looked at some points to be verging on genocidal war. Both species work together to make their world a better place, and to aid you in your war. On a more personal level, there's EDI and her quest to understand and relate to humanity, and her being a stalwart companion in the fight against the Reapers. So yes.....I do appear to know better than Starkid. The plot so far has shown me no reason to agree with it, and several reasons that it's just plain wrong. If the story wants to suddenly U-turn on that and make Starkid seem more than delusional with its thesis of "inevitable war, to which mega-genocide is somehow the best solution", it needs to show evidence.
Yes, you can fanwank a reason why that doesn't apply. It's still bad storytelling, but I can understand wanting to salvage the ending. But if Starkid has a crushing counterpoint, then we need to hear it. But not being able to ask and get an explanation for this incredible assertion does not say to me that it had godlike intelligence and comprehension, it says that the writers were being lazy and forgot their own plot holes.
(And incidentally, the idea of "AI is always right because it's smarter than you" doesn't fit in the setting. Mass Effect never did the SF trope of "When you put enough processors onto an AI, it becomes godlike and always right.". It doesn't happen with any AI we see in the game--even the geth collective, the biggest AI we see in the game, have understandable motivations and outlooks, and make mistakes and bad calls.)
Lynata wrote: Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.
As a great example of this, see: Thessia.
Well, that was more because of Kai Leng's ability to trigger cutscene invulnerability at will, after spending the actual boss fight stunlocked.
Though Thessia and other unavoidable setbacks still adhere to what makes the game work. You see the impact of the failure on other characters, and the game very quickly offers you a possible way to pull back that defeat. Thessia (and Virmire, Horizon, the first siege of the Citadel, and other dark moments) stick to the themes that drive 2.95 of the games--that big stories are told through relatable individuals, and that personal heroism and sacrifice can salvage even the grimmest of situations.
... actually, I wiped the Geth out. They had their chance, and the fact that they were not a unified codebase and could have a faction that would later populate into the trillions and go all Dalek was enough to have me End them.
Also, I had to have Tali's back... which immediately paid dividends when not-Legion (he died in my Suicide Mission in ME2... sniper round to the flashlight) tried to kill me.
So, screw the Geth.
Me? I pressed the button. The button that blew up the links and exterminated the Reapers. Yes, this does away with the galaxy's current form of FTL... but it doesn't destroy the knowledge of it. The galaxy will recover and rebuild. It always has, and in this case, I'm giving them a much better starting point than the Reapers ever did.
The Normandy apparently made it with my surviving crew to Planet Tahiti, so those guys and gals at least get to spend the rest of their lives on a Paradise World.
Me? I'm left broken and bleeding... but obviously alive... in the ruins of Earth. I'm fine with that. Let me find a copy of Covenant's "Final Man" and I will be fine just wandering the blasted ruins.
Compel wrote:People did critise Deus Ex: Human Revolutions ending for the exact same thing. - Nowhere near as much, but it was a non-zero number.
Hmmh, guess I must have missed all of that.
Only goes to show how it's a matter of taste, I guess. With me enjoying both endings, my preferences seem fairly consistent.
Compel wrote:You knew how things were going to end for it all. What mattered was how the specific characters you interacted with were resolved, which is what the 3 endings provided.
The characters? Now, it's been some time since I played it, but I am fairly sure that the ending was solely concerned about the path humanity would take when it comes to augmentation. Everything that concerns the characters is "resolved" before (insofar that they either die or survive, with you being left in the dark about their future).
Elemental wrote:And honestly, if you take the pre-Extended ending, the outlook is pretty inarguably bleak and horrific.
How so?
This is what I wrote up as one of the possible eras for a homebrewed Mass Effect P&P, before having seen the Extended Cut:
"In the chain reaction that followed Shepard's final sacrifice onboard the Citadel, the mass relays that served to connect the star clusters of the galaxy for millions of years discharged all their energy in one final pulse before breaking down for good. The many worlds colonized by the sentient species that had barely survived the Reaper onslaught suddenly found themselves cut off from their neighbors. Yet in spite of the ensuing chaos, the people prevailed, and scattered communities soon began to rebuild.
Depending on the exact time of your campaign, this epoch will feature a mix of peaceful exploration and hazardous adventuring either on a single planet, a star system, or beyond. The SSV Normandy, having managed to escape through the Sol Relay after general retreat was ordered, had stranded on an unknown world, an arc whose survivors would become the first settlers of a new colony built upon the interracial cooperation that had ensured victory in the recent war. Elsewhere, other planets, ranging from heavily urbanized city-worlds to small frontier colonies, found themselves similarly confronted by enforced independence. Everywhere the people reacted differently to this enormous change and to their isolation amidst the chaos left by the Reapers. Yet eventually, things would simmer down and some sort of stability would come to be. Most of the time.
If history has proven one thing, it is that, ultimately, the species of this galaxy would find a solution to any problem. With minds no longer shackled by complacency and reliance on Reaper-originating technology, it was only a matter of time until alternate forms of interstellar propulsion were discovered. Meanwhile, the legend of The Shepard would still be told centuries later, inspiring a new generation of heroes that would eventually grow up and seek out the stars, intent on reconnecting with their long-lost relatives. Of course, these brave adventurers would have their own problems to face, just like the people that came before them ..."
Less bleak and horrific, more of a "fresh start", imho.
Elemental wrote:And then you prove it wrong. Totally, unambiguously, wrong. You resolve a vendetta that has lasted for decades and looked at some points to be verging on genocidal war.
It's not exactly proof if it requires outside influence (you), as ultimately something like this will happen again, and what if no-one like Shep isn't around then? It may be "fanwank" for you, but at the same time I consider it "fanwank" to just disregard the entire ending because you believe the solution you concocted in your mind is so much better.
Though let me be clear, I actually agree that the whole "naturals vs synthetics" is BS. Imho they should've just changed that to a claim of "technology ultimately leads to destruction", based on the idea that at some level some civilisation, instead of only killing themselves and maybe one or two other species, is going to blow the entire galaxy up in a way that it won't be able to sustain life. Same plot device, much more waterproof.
Elemental wrote:And incidentally, the idea of "AI is always right because it's smarter than you" doesn't fit in the setting. Mass Effect never did the SF trope of "When you put enough processors onto an AI, it becomes godlike and always right.".
Of course not. But it ought to be able to understand things that are, quite simply, too obvious to miss.
I forged a peace between the Geth and the Quarians. I love Legion so much.
I chose control. My immortal conscience shall now be the guardian of this galaxy, protecting it against any unforeseen future threats and helping the other races achieve things we never could have without each other.
The Alliance fleet is trapped in a ravaged solar system, with a world that can no longer sustain them. Quarians and turians can't even eat human food, so unless they can sustain themselves from the surviving quarian fleet, they'll starve. The leader who was keeping the krogan from reverting back to war is trapped far from his people, and the quarians will never see their homeworld again. There are likely a lot of small colonies and stations out there which will die or revert to barbarism because they never expected to sustain themselves without mass relay resupply. Yay?
Of course, I don't believe those dark implications were intentional, just careless.
Lynata wrote: If history has proven one thing, it is that, ultimately, the species of this galaxy would find a solution to any problem. With minds no longer shackled by complacency and reliance on Reaper-originating technology, it was only a matter of time until alternate forms of interstellar propulsion were discovered. Meanwhile, the legend of The Shepard would still be told centuries later, inspiring a new generation of heroes that would eventually grow up and seek out the stars, intent on reconnecting with their long-lost relatives. Of course, these brave adventurers would have their own problems to face, just like the people that came before them ..."[/i]
Less bleak and horrific, more of a "fresh start", imho.
To me, that sounds like the same thing you're accusing me of, overwriting the ending with one that actually makes sense and thinks about the implications of the setting-changing things that are casually thrown out there with no real build-up.
And that's cool! I'm glad you were able to salvage it rather than being completely turned off the setting, as I was.
Lynata wrote: It's not exactly proof if it requires outside influence (you), as ultimately something like this will happen again, and what if no-one like Shep isn't around then? It may be "fanwank" for you, but at the same time I consider it "fanwank" to just disregard the entire ending because you believe the solution you concocted in your mind is so much better.
Though let me be clear, I actually agree that the whole "naturals vs synthetics" is BS. Imho they should've just changed that to a claim of "technology ultimately leads to destruction", based on the idea that at some level some civilisation, instead of only killing themselves and maybe one or two other species, is going to blow the entire galaxy up in a way that it won't be able to sustain life. Same plot device, much more waterproof.
There is no "solution I've concocted in my mind". I only have criticisms of what we got.
The "inevitable war" thing gets bought up once, by a character you can immediately prove wrong. And then at the end, it gets bought up as if it's a proven truth. Yes, we've seen a war between synthetic and organic species', but that was due to circumstances and misunderstandings that made perfect sense for the races concerned (and could have been avoided if things had panned out differently), rather than some inherent and inevitable race-hatred.
It's like saying that avian- and simian-descended races are eternal enemies who can never co-habit, based on the First Contact War between humans and turians. The geth and quarians seemed much more friendly at the end than other species who had patched up their differences to join the alliance. Based on what we see, I'd consider a new salarian-krogan war far more likely than those two. And even if there is a war, it will not be down to "You are made of meat / metal, MUST KILL."
And even if we make the tremendous leap to accept that synthetic and organic must inevitably war, the fact remains that the Reaper's solution is massive serial genocide, in a pointlessly cruel way. That was really the best solution? How about exterminating species (or threatening to do that) once they start actually mistreating synthetics? Nope, wipe out every species, even those that show no interest in creating artificial life. It's a solution that's worse than anything the problem could possibly lead to.
And again, the one telling you this is the creator of the Reapers and therefore someone with an unimaginable amount of blood on their hands. I wouldn't trust their sanity, never mind their accuracy on race relations. But considering each Reaper is created from millions of screaming, tormented sentient beings, gibbering insanity is quite plausible on their part.
Lynata wrote: Of course not. But it ought to be able to understand things that are, quite simply, too obvious to miss.
Then it would have taken a couple of lines to explain that to the player. Again, it's introducing a new concept to the series with maybe one fragment of foreshadowing, and saying "the setting is about this now". You can't throw something like that out there with yawning plot holes, and then say "You don't get to question this or have it explained. Take our word for it and forget what you thought you know, this character is right, and you must base your decision on the premise that they are right."
Elemental wrote:Of course, I don't believe those dark implications were intentional, just careless.
I think they were not unintentional, just ultimately unimportant. Even if the Alliance fleet is trapped (whether or not the Earth was ravaged actually depended on your EMS - it's one of the small, oft-forgotten details that greatly expand the number of possible endings), even if there are multiple colonies and stations who may or may not "revert to barbarism" ... in the big picture, none of this matters. The galaxy is saved. Life will continue. Civilisation will continue.
Did anyone weep for the many innocents who died when the first Death Star exploded?
Elemental wrote:To me, that sounds like the same thing you're accusing me of, overwriting the ending with one that actually makes sense and thinks about the implications of the setting-changing things that are casually thrown out there with no real build-up.
And that's cool! I'm glad you were able to salvage it rather than being completely turned off the setting, as I was.
What exactly am I rewriting or ignoring here?
I wanted to stick to the game as close as possibly, so if I missed something, please tell me so I can make the necessary changes.
Elemental wrote:The "inevitable war" thing gets bought up once, by a character you can immediately prove wrong.
But you can't prove it wrong. It's just as impossible as saying that Earth will never see a big war again just because we've got the UN now. Look at what good the League of Nations did. It's just a matter of time.
The only silliness I see is in the idea that a war with synthetics must be more devastating than a war between organic nations. Although one could make the claim that synthetics are just incredibly more efficient and resilient, and - in the rather understandable quest for raw resources - will ultimately expand into organic space, triggering further conflict which the organics have no chance at winning. It hasn't anything to do with hate, just expansionism and an unfair advantage. Although caution ("what is not us could destroy us") could easily factor into it. It's scary how cold logic can sometimes make genocide seem like the easiest solution to a problem. Eliminate chemically-induced morals and ethics from a decision, and you'll end up with something that is sinister without even wanting to be.
Still too thin for my taste, but I've seen waaay worse.
As for mass genocide - it is the safest solution, so it could indeed be seen as the best one. The Reapers are gardeners, and life in the galaxy is a patch of grass that occasionally needs to be trimmed in order to keep it neat and prevent it from destroying itself. Simple as that. Would you have any scruples for squashing a few bugs that are threatening your garden? Because that is what the Leviathans ultimately perceive your species as.
Elemental wrote:Then it would have taken a couple of lines to explain that to the player.
lol, the players would have never been satisfied unless there really was an option to let them win at everything, Disney-style, because that is what a whole lot of people expected from the ending. There was an option to debate to no avail. People had the option to ask questions and say "bs". It's just that none of this actually had an effect on the Catalyst, because it made up its mind, either according to itself or to the doctrines programmed into it by the Leviathans. So the players complained. Hell, there were even people who complained on BSN they weren't allowed to simply shoot the Catalyst. How could anyone believe this would solve anything?! Yet lo and behold, BioWare actually inserted an option to do so in the Extended Cut. Needless to say, people still weren't satisfied with the rather logical consequences of that. What else could you ask for?
Psienesis wrote: ... actually, I wiped the Geth out. They had their chance, and the fact that they were not a unified codebase and could have a faction that would later populate into the trillions and go all Dalek was enough to have me End them.
Also, I had to have Tali's back... which immediately paid dividends when not-Legion (he died in my Suicide Mission in ME2... sniper round to the flashlight) tried to kill me.
So, screw the Geth.
Me? I pressed the button. The button that blew up the links and exterminated the Reapers. Yes, this does away with the galaxy's current form of FTL... but it doesn't destroy the knowledge of it. The galaxy will recover and rebuild. It always has, and in this case, I'm giving them a much better starting point than the Reapers ever did.
The Normandy apparently made it with my surviving crew to Planet Tahiti, so those guys and gals at least get to spend the rest of their lives on a Paradise World.
Me? I'm left broken and bleeding... but obviously alive... in the ruins of Earth. I'm fine with that. Let me find a copy of Covenant's "Final Man" and I will be fine just wandering the blasted ruins.
That is quite interesting of an opinion and one that I agree with.
