Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Whether or not the on disk ending is in fact the true end, I set out to destroy the Reapers and that exactly what I done. Even if it made me sacrifice the geth.

I do hope that this ending is not the end.

LordofHats wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:You can't judge something without having seen or experienced the whole thing!

How many historians have actually experienced the events they are describing? I doubt most sociologists have ever actually experienced true poverty. I've always laughed at the idea "You haven't played it so you can't comment on it." I doubt you know anything about the plot that I don't at this point.

I've also made no comment on the ME3 game as a whole. Just ending, which I played through to see the full thing (EDIT: If anything it would ideally leave me less biased as to its nature cause I'm not emotionally invested in the rest of the game, but I'm a biased douche so that doesn't really mean much ). Most youtube videos are just the ending cinematic and decision and I wanted to investigate the evidence for the indoctrination theory. But that's moot cause its become obvious Bioware didn't plan it now (I'm sure many people are sad).

On the happy side co-op gets the Triple Hat Rating of Approval for Awesomeness.

If you are considering the experience of an actual game then yes. We're not discussing facts but how we felt. If I watched the ending to Star Wars Return of the Jedi without having seen any of the films then it wouldn't mean anything to me and would actually be pretty rubbish.

Another example would be when Fox did a show on Mass Effect one with a panel of experts in sociology refering to what it represented about society (screwing blue aliens in a video game) without having even watched the actual scene being discussed; let alone understanding the context. ie claiming it represented male objectification of women without even realising you could play femshep.

BTW Historians have to study primary sources to gain an insight into the time. Which is the equivalent to knowing what they are saying. If you state something without evidence then you would just be laughed at. You can only form an opinion through a reading of the evidence. Are you saying you would write an essay without any background reading or primary sources? So they still count under the 'you haven't read it so you can't comment on it'.

I think that main reasons why people dislike ending are:

-There are many unexplained things and many plot holes in the last 10 minutes of the game.
-Instead of some super powerful anti-Reaper weapon we get 3 choices, all of witch have bad result - the destruction of Mass Relays.
-Shepard dies. (this is probably the main reason giving the emotional attachment to the love interests liek liara, Tali or Garus)

johnscott10 wrote:Whether or not the on disk ending is in fact the true end, I set out to destroy the Reapers and that exactly what I done. Even if it made me sacrifice the geth.

I do hope that this ending is not the end.

Don't know if already been said but Bioware have stated that they are doing ending DLC

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/mass-effect-3-ending-dlc-confirmed-by-dr-ray-muzyka-co-founder-and-ceo-of-bioware.250104293/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPro-9wvskg

(smug statement) There, clear as day.

Totalwar1402 wrote:If you are considering the experience of an actual game then yes. We're not discussing facts but how we felt. If I watched the ending to Star Wars Return of the Jedi without having seen any of the films then it wouldn't mean anything to me and would actually be pretty rubbish.

Honestly, I think emotionally I don't need to play the whole game to find the ending emotionally underwhelming. That's just the nature of the ending.

Another example would be when Fox did a show on Mass Effect one with a panel of experts in sociology refering to what it represented about society (screwing blue aliens in a video game) without having even watched the actual scene being discussed; let alone understanding the context. ie claiming it represented male objectification of women without even realising you could play femshep.

I'd actually say the biggest problem for that fox report is that the 'expert' cited eight sources and only 3 of them actually related to video games at all. Of those 3, none had anything to do with what was being discussed. A wonderful example of what it looks like when someone talks out their ass as opposed to at least reading up on it. Besides I fail to see the comparison. I've no only seen the ending I've already played through it and I know the rest of the games plot cause the internet roles that way (and its not like I'm a moron). THis is the biggest gaming backlash I've seen in years. Even MW2 on PC wasn't this epic (MW3 on PC was way more underhanded and a lot of people don't even seem to know what happened with that one!). I'm following it because as someone interested in games and the industry I want to know what is going on.

BTW Historians have to study primary sources to gain an insight into the time.

So they read something written by someone who experienced the event. You realize that's what I've been doing right? This is the modern age. I don't need to read a book, watch a movie, or play a game to know what happens in it. Further seeing as I've probably spent as much time catching up on what happens in the game as it would take to actual play through it, I'm feeling pretty safe and confident (and I didn't have to pay EA which is the only real reason I'm waiting).

BTW

If you state something without evidence then you would just be laughed at.

Evidence? What's that? The internet disagrees

LordofHats wrote:[

BTW Historians have to study primary sources to gain an insight into the time.

So they read something written by someone who experienced the event. You realize that's what I've been doing right? This is the modern age. I don't need to read a book, watch a movie, or play a game to know what happens in it. Further seeing as I've probably spent as much time catching up on what happens in the game as it would take to actual play through it, I'm feeling pretty safe and confident (and I didn't have to pay EA which is the only real reason I'm waiting).

To gain an insight into their opinions and an inkling about what THEY experienced. For example, I can only vaguely comprehened the effect living in Georgian London might have had on Hogarths artistic works. I might study evidence as well as his works to gain insight onto his views. But, if I had an animus and could go there and experience living in Georgian London then I would have an immensely greater understanding and on a more relatable level about this. First hand experience does trump second hand.

Its not about knowing what happens in it. Its about making a qualative judgement about a game without having experienced it. For that you do need to have played the game. You can consider elements like structure or even segments like the ending but you can't seriously evaluate the entire game without having played it. I mean you could narrate to me what happens in Alien and I wouldn't be impressed at all. Or Lord of the Rings for example. But you would never convey the experience of a film like that and would need to experience it for yourself in order to value it.

Totalwar1402 wrote:You can consider elements like structure or even segments like the ending but you can't seriously evaluate the entire game without having played it.

And as I already pointed out I've made no comments about the game as a whole. Just the ending because that's the part people complain about. If I can find it bad with little emotional investment past the events of ME2, I can imagine pretty well the impact on people who actually played through the whole of ME3. Besides, most of this thread hasn't been about emotion its been about logical consistency.

I mean you could narrate to me what happens in Alien and I wouldn't be impressed at all.

That's because I'd suck as a narrator. We'd need to bring in the guy who does those monologues for movie trailers

And besides, a story is (ideally) engaging regardless because story is independent of format once you've moved beyond language. If you aren't impressed, that just means Alien's story isn't that good removed from its medium (possible) or the narrator wasn't very engaging.

I typically agree with Totalwar about keeping out of discussion when you haven't taken part. But LordofHats has been fairly constructive and more insightful than trolling. I think we can get back to the game at hand and our wild speculation, rather than arguing over the right to have an opinion.

Unless we've talked all our angles out of course, then go ahead and slug away.

I just beat the game and everyone had me worried about the ending with all these threads I managed to avoid. I think it's fine. I'm actually impressed they don't give you a choice in the end but your Shepard does based on this life you've lived for him. All in all: great game.

Don't worry people, there will be DLC with alternate ending in April or May.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I just beat the game and everyone had me worried about the ending with all these threads I managed to avoid. I think it's fine. I'm actually impressed they don't give you a choice in the end but your Shepard does based on this life you've lived for him. All in all: great game.

My first impression was simply the lack of an actual epilogue explaining what happened. That was my overwhelmingly main criticism of the ending that it just petered out and left you to guess what happened. Since we know that they'll be using a canon ending to continue the franchise; not addressing your Shephards choices like that wasn't on.

The ending also contradicted several established points about the Reapers and why they were doing what they were doing.

For example

*They claim to preserve organic life, but do so by gooping everyone and putting them in jars...

*They then claim this is the right thing to do and in some way different from killing organics. Remember Reapers are still machines and described as such by Jarik and the Geth. They are thus not a real solution at all to organics destroy synthetics they simply intervene when its likely that other machines might do so (Metacrom and Geth) then kill everything. Nothing really solved.It had been pretty hinted at that the Reapers only motivation was either complete machine insanity or a simple process of reproduction. In fact you have a conversation with EDI on the subject of the purpose of synthetic life. EDI suggests that if synthetics are like organic life then there only purpose is to pass on their genes through reproduction; at which Shephard points out that empathy, altruism etc also defines people. Given that the very process the reapers use involves mass genocide its hard to believe that their motives could ever have been as benign as the kid makes out. In fact the Reapers consitently talk like maniacal chaos gods means it doesn't fit. Nothing with a shred of empathy or emotion would suggest that doing what the reapers do could ever be construed as good. Indeed EDI implies that she has observed this trait in the Reapers as being only motivated by reproduction. An altruistic motive for the reapers makes no sense.

*If saving organics were their goal then why did Soveriegn offer the geth a body and Harbinger claim that he was investigating if the geth could be uploaded. If the aim was to save organic life then why were they looking at incorporating a synthetic race?

etc etc.

I could ignore that as simply bad writing/re-writing if they had just made an epilogue and not cut it short with the crew being stranded on a planet to make an Eden reference.



Also, a little tidbit on the reaper indoctrination thing (probably already mentioned), the codex entry actually says that indoctrination involves the person being manipulated by 'dream-like visions' and vivid hallucinations; which can even manifest as the victim hearing voices inside their head. Not sure if this entry was created for the third game but there was never any mention of dreams for, say Saren, it seems odd to bring it up when Shephard is also having quite demoralising dreams.

I actually find the dreams fairly straight forward. The kid who says Shepard can't help him, Kaiden/Ashley whoever died having a voice over in the second dream repeating their last words from Viremire, and I'm not entire sure but I think the third one has every party member/Character who has died calling out Shepard's name. I know I heard Mordin, Thane, and Legion in the video I watched, and there were others (Samara I thought but I couldn't tell). Legion's is the easiest to spot cause he adds commander to it, the others I had to listen for several times to guess at it.

The child (I think) is a representation of everyone Shepard couldn't save, which makes the Catalyst appearing as the child rather... what's the word I'm looking for... I don't know. Symbolic I guess but there's something more specific and I can't seem to remember the word now.

EDIT: One of my friends who is working on this ending issue with me has proposed that Shepard is starting to crack under the strain of the war with the Reapers. He cited the scene at the end of Thessia but I haven't gone and looked at that one yet.

LordofHats wrote:I actually find the dreams fairly straight forward. The kid who says Shepard can't help him, Kaiden/Ashley whoever died having a voice over in the second dream repeating their last words from Viremire, and I'm not entire sure but I think the third one has every party member/Character who has died calling out Shepard's name. I know I heard Mordin, Thane, and Legion in the video I watched, and there were others (Samara I thought but I couldn't tell). Legion's is the easiest to spot cause he adds commander to it, the others I had to listen for several times to guess at it.

The child (I think) is a representation of everyone Shepard couldn't save, which makes the Catalyst appearing as the child rather... what's the word I'm looking for... I don't know. Symbolic I guess but there's something more specific and I can't seem to remember the word now.

The thing thats going to save everyone appears as the thing which has been a symbol of Shephards melancholy and sense of impending failure? Thats not really very symbolic unless you suggest the kid was his hope 'going up in flames' and now its there bright as day.

Also, on what you said earlier about the ending DLC just clarifying what the edning already is. I'am sure Bioware said that they wanted to wait for everyone to have finished the game before they released DLC. If all they wanted was to add an epilogue and a few extra paragraphs of dialogue to the catalyst then why would they even need to wait since nothing would have changed with regards to the ending. Also, they could have simply written a memo from the writers explaining why the reapers did what they did and what there artistic reasons were for ending the game the way they did. Most writers do stuff like this deliberately to get a point across. If there worry was that we 'didn't get it' then they could have simply said 'you just didn't get the ending' and then provided an explanation.

Totalwar1402 wrote:The thing thats going to save everyone appears as the thing which has been a symbol of Shephards melancholy and sense of impending failure?

Yeah but I find the whole ending weird like that. Whenever I try to explain one part one way it turns around and doesn't work cause of something else. I wouldn't suggest the Catalyst saves everyone though XD. Mass Relay's going up and all that. The Catalyst could have just taken that form cause it would be familiar to Shepard (Contact reference ) or maybe its some symbolic statement of Shepard trying to make the right decision for everyone whose been lost? I don't know. The ending is just too damn ambiguous which I think is what Bioware wanted, an open ended ending. I think some people just find it too open ended for their liking (setting the issue of logical inconsistencies aside for the moment).

EDIT: Its a fun puzzle in a way, but also headache inducing

If there worry was that we 'didn't get it' then they could have simply said 'you just didn't get the ending' and then provided an explanation.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking. But this is a PR issue. Telling your audience "you just didn't get it" means your audience will hear "you're all idiots" and Bioware doesn't want to do that. Its not good business to insult your consumers. EDIT: Quick someone send a memo to Ubisoft and Activision! Oh wait, too late XD

Totalwar1402 wrote:*Snip*

To be fair, if it were commiting genecide of another species multiple times or saving the human race, I would make that decision thinking I was doing the right thing. Would I enjoy it? No. But I would do it.

Kill or be killed, ya know.

I liked the ending. I mean I am actually doing my second playthrough on hardcore mode. Its is really fun combat. Especially with weapon customization.

Plus all the bonuses that you unlocked after beating the game. Like this time I saved the Hanar and the Spectre agent. I still lack Kasumi and Zaeed though. (Apparently I missed some stuff too.)

I also looked at the Control (Blue) ending.



But me being the Paragon i was I went with the destruction ending. Yes I know the geth and EDI were killed but it ain't that bad. Just means the Quarains will rebuild a few of them again and the geth are restarted especially in the home systems. Colonies of the Citadel Races will be fine as they can support themselves. In my opinion I liked the endings to the point of not wanting to return the game. The only 10 games I have ever returned are...

Slarg232 wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:*Snip*

To be fair, if it were commiting genecide of another species multiple times or saving the human race, I would make that decision thinking I was doing the right thing. Would I enjoy it? No. But I would do it.

Kill or be killed, ya know.

But, thats the point. We all assumed the reapers had an evil Darwinian survival of the fittest ethos where they simply turn the galaxy into a giant reaper incubator. Instead, they turned the reapers into the benign protectors of organic life from the evil synthetic menace. That is a massive leap from how they are portrayed in the games. If it had been survival of the fittest then I wouldn't have had a problem. To my mind that is what the reapers think. But its what makes them evil. Its not like Shephard choosing save my people or kill the council. its more like the Illusive man having his way and slaughtering every other alien race so that humans can dominate the galaxy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:I liked the ending.

.....

Why? Everything past Andersons death (a good death ) is throw away IMO.

As I pointed out earlier Asherian, the Asari actually were on the verge of being able to build functioning Mass Relays (revealed in ME2) independent of the current network. So the network could just be rebuilt. It would take a long time, and galactic trade would pretty much drop to a 0 until it happened but it would supposedly happen (and given the Asari life span the original discovers of the technology, assuming they aren't dead, could potentially rebuild the network before passing).

LordofHats wrote:[

If there worry was that we 'didn't get it' then they could have simply said 'you just didn't get the ending' and then provided an explanation.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that's what they're thinking. But this is a PR issue. Telling your audience "you just didn't get it" means your audience will hear "you're all idiots" and Bioware doesn't want to do that. Its not good business to insult your consumers. EDIT: Quick someone send a memo to Ubisoft and Activision! Oh wait, too late XD

So, speaking hypothetically. What exactly was Bioware trying to 'get at' during that ending?

For me it seemed pretty straight-forward. The only solution to the irreconcialable differences of machines rising is to find symbiosis in which we can all understand one another. Shephard also has the option of sticking with what he promised to do stubbornly. Or he can control the reapers and avoid making a difficult choice. Beyond that, I don't see what else there is. Its quite simply embrace trans-humanism and solve all our problems in the ME universe in an instant: lack of trust, lack of understanding, fear of being surpassed, simple difference of phusical form. These all cease the second we think like and have the same bodies as synthetics and vice versa. Then we can live and act together without any violent struggle being neccesary. Beyond that, I really don't see what they were explaining that hadn't already been looked at. The geth/Quarians as well as EDI prooved that synthetics and AI could co-exist with organics even without the synthesis. That theme was already resolved by Rannoch.

The trouble is, I always thought the reapers were the ANTI-THESIS of this solution. Not its proponents since what they do to organics is so monstrous. They don't build bridges like EDI or the Geth. I assumed that Bioware would push that what they did was the way forward in terms of resolving that thematic conflict. They all had to then join forces to defeat 'the old machines' who represent the real obstacle to lasting peace between organic and synthetic. Thats how I had it down. To argue that the reapers actually wanted to stop organics and synthetics killing eachother, is; odd.

Totalwar1402 wrote:So, speaking hypothetically. What exactly was Bioware trying to 'get at' during that ending?

No idea. That's why I find the indoctrination theory so tempting but at the same time I just have a hard time buying into it. The ending is confusing as

The trouble is, I always thought the reapers were the ANTI-THESIS of this solution.

They are. While contradiction is common in the real world, in fiction I find this form of contradiction to be story breaking. Its horribly oxymoronic for an armada of synthetics to go around committing genocide to prevent genocide. I'd guess Bioware just wanted to avoid the "we're gonna destroy everything cause we roll that way" villain cliche but they're alternative is imo bad writing.

To argue that the reapers actually wanted to stop organics and synthetics killing eachother, is; odd.

Dogma's explanation makes more sense (that this is all part of Reaper self-preservation), but accepting it requires reading into the ending a lot and I'm not a huge fan over overly reading into things that aren't clear in fiction.

Well, I think I mentioned it before. I never thought the reapers had any higher motivation beyond breeding like locusts. I thought that was simply a collossal form of ego and an arrogant justifcation for their 'ascension'. They see organics as weeds. Also, they do give off the classic demonic adversery vibe. I mean they could almsot compare notes with 40k daemons in terms of dialogue.

The possibllity that these awe-inspringly powerful, repeatedly described as god-like entities might actually be psychologically flawed if not outright insane is one I found particularly appealing and kind of made sense. A machine virus gone out of control like a grey plague. Only rather than nanites they are giant tentacle machines that have had to accomodate their hunger with available food supply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:[quote=
Dogma's explanation makes more sense (that this is all part of Reaper self-preservation), but accepting it requires reading into the ending a lot and I'm not a huge fan over overly reading into things that aren't clear in fiction.

I assume your friend means that the repaers know that if synthetics wipe out all organic life in the bioshperes then the reapers can't reproduce. I agree that would be a very clear motivation and explain their callous attitude. It has two clear problems story-wise.

1-The catalyst basically allows you to break this process of reproduction. The reapers are guardians of organics according to the current ending; which would end the purpose of the reapers. Really, the catalyst would have tried to stop you if that were the case since you arguably place the reapers in danger by allowing the races to survive and advance in terms of technology. Never mind that he lets you blow every reaper up with alarming casualness. .

2-As i said above. It was stated in ME2 by Legion and on the collector ship that the Geth could have been uploaded to a reaper body. Thus the struggle wouldn't have mattered and the reapers could just keep to the harvesting schedule.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I just beat the game and everyone had me worried about the ending with all these threads I managed to avoid. I think it's fine. I'm actually impressed they don't give you a choice in the end but your Shepard does based on this life you've lived for him. All in all: great game.

My first impression was simply the lack of an actual epilogue explaining what happened. That was my overwhelmingly main criticism of the ending that it just petered out and left you to guess what happened. Since we know that they'll be using a canon ending to continue the franchise; not addressing your Shephards choices like that wasn't on.

The ending also contradicted several established points about the Reapers and why they were doing what they were doing.

For example

*They claim to preserve organic life, but do so by gooping everyone and putting them in jars...

*They then claim this is the right thing to do and in some way different from killing organics. Remember Reapers are still machines and described as such by Jarik and the Geth. They are thus not a real solution at all to organics destroy synthetics they simply intervene when its likely that other machines might do so (Metacrom and Geth) then kill everything. Nothing really solved.It had been pretty hinted at that the Reapers only motivation was either complete machine insanity or a simple process of reproduction. In fact you have a conversation with EDI on the subject of the purpose of synthetic life. EDI suggests that if synthetics are like organic life then there only purpose is to pass on their genes through reproduction; at which Shephard points out that empathy, altruism etc also defines people. Given that the very process the reapers use involves mass genocide its hard to believe that their motives could ever have been as benign as the kid makes out. In fact the Reapers consitently talk like maniacal chaos gods means it doesn't fit. Nothing with a shred of empathy or emotion would suggest that doing what the reapers do could ever be construed as good. Indeed EDI implies that she has observed this trait in the Reapers as being only motivated by reproduction. An altruistic motive for the reapers makes no sense.

*If saving organics were their goal then why did Soveriegn offer the geth a body and Harbinger claim that he was investigating if the geth could be uploaded. If the aim was to save organic life then why were they looking at incorporating a synthetic race?

etc etc.

I could ignore that as simply bad writing/re-writing if they had just made an epilogue and not cut it short with the crew being stranded on a planet to make an Eden reference.



Also, a little tidbit on the reaper indoctrination thing (probably already mentioned), the codex entry actually says that indoctrination involves the person being manipulated by 'dream-like visions' and vivid hallucinations; which can even manifest as the victim hearing voices inside their head. Not sure if this entry was created for the third game but there was never any mention of dreams for, say Saren, it seems odd to bring it up when Shephard is also having quite demoralising dreams.

I feel like i do know what happened. The Mass Effect universe as we know it is over.

The reapers preseve organic life by "pruning" it. Making sure it doesn't get out of control and destroy itself with it's own creations. You may not agree with this but that's ok you don't need too. They are the villians and they're trying to kill you. You're pretty much supposed to be offended by their reasoning.

As far as indoctrination theory. I don't really buy it but I think Bioware will adopt it because the fans demanded it and actually my main criticism of Bioware is that they actually listen to their fans too much. As far as I know Indoctrination involves a lot more subtle manipulation. If it were a dream then this version of indoctrination is like full blown Matrix style alternate reality that can be acheived in 1 minute flat. I haven't seen anything in the series like that before.

My only question is I seem to recall the last time a Mass relay exploded it destroyed an entire star system. So are all the systems with Mass relays destroyed? Like Earth and Thessia and pretty much all the galactic capitols? Obviously, that's a big deal if they are.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I feel like i do know what happened. The Mass Effect universe as we know it is over.

That doesn't make sense from a purely financial standpoint. BioWare stated they wanted to release DLC for the game. If they end the universe no matter what happens in the game, why would people pay for DLC for that universe? Hell, as the game stands right now, unless they either confirm Indoctrination is correct or plan to change the ending, I won't buy any DLC for the single player campaign because none of it will make any difference at all.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The reapers preseve organic life by "pruning" it. Making sure it doesn't get out of control and destroy itself with it's own creations. You may not agree with this but that's ok you don't need too. They are the villians and they're trying to kill you. You're pretty much supposed to be offended by their reasoning.

I can understand why people buy this theory on the surface, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a purely logical standpoint. Logically, why would the solution to advanced civilizations destroying themselves via synthetic development be for another race of synthetics to destroy said advanced civilizations? It's like preventing a kid from burning his hand on the stove by killing the kid as soon as he's tall enough to reach it. There has to be some alterior motive behind the Reaper Cycles, and reproduction/self preservation makes the most logical sense. If their goal was preserving organic life, you would think they would only destroy species that became destructive. More likely they are killing off advanced species that could possibly challenge them and using the harvested material to replenish their numbers in the process.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:As far as indoctrination theory. I don't really buy it but I think Bioware will adopt it because the fans demanded it and actually my main criticism of Bioware is that they actually listen to their fans too much. As far as I know Indoctrination involves a lot more subtle manipulation. If it were a dream then this version of indoctrination is like full blown Matrix style alternate reality that can be acheived in 1 minute flat. I haven't seen anything in the series like that before.

Indoctrination can take two forms. Per the Codex entry, it can be slow, subtle manipulation that preserves the subject until his goals are complete (The Illusive Man, Saren), or fast domination that leaves the body nothing more than a mindless husk doing the bidding of the Reapers (Husks, Marauders, Etc...). The dreams experienced by Shepard, and the humming noises James speaks about are clear indicators of slow Indoctrination attempts in order to make Shepard useful over a long period of time. The hallucination at the end is a swift means of Indoctrination that was meant to prevent Shepard from achieving his goals. Either it works, and Shepard dies or is Husked, or it doesn't work and Shepard survives, hence the choices, and the fact that Shepard only survives if you choose the seemingly Renegade option that he has been trying to achieve all along.

Also, what's wrong with listening to your fans? Taking fan criticism into account in the right way can lead to better products.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:My only question is I seem to recall the last time a Mass relay exploded it destroyed an entire star system. So are all the systems with Mass relays destroyed? Like Earth and Thessia and pretty much all the galactic capitols? Obviously, that's a big deal if they are.

Another reason that the endings don't make much sense. The Relays are destroyed in all 3 options, which means a cataclysmic wave of energy akin to a supernova obliterates everything in every major system. Every major planet is wiped clean of life, and the massive fleet of ships you assembled at Earth is annihilated, reducing the military strength of anything surviving the event in shambles. Most races are wiped out completely and it might be even MORE destructive to the galaxy than having the Reapers achieve their goals. But, if the ending is a hallucination and that doesn't actually happen, then everything Shepard worked for can actually be achieved by fighting off the Reapers and breaking the cycle in a way that doesn't murder everything everywhere.

BioWare has a couple of options concerning this problem:

1-This was their plan all along and the endings are literal. The wave of energy destroyed everything advanced and the galaxy was rebooted. No Reapers, no advanced civilizations, nothing.
2-The Indoctrination Theory is correct so nothing needs to be done. There is no destruction of the relays so they don't need to explain it further.
3-They need to invent some reason why the Mass Relays DON'T wipe everything out if they intend for the current galactic races to re-build.

The first one seems odd because we clearly see that SOME people survived. Joker was in the middle of a Relay jump (which in and of itself was strange for many many reasons....why would a relay jump take any measurable amount of time? It's supposed to be near instantaneous) and so the Normandy crew was stranded on some backwater planet. Shepard survives if you do the ending right which makes no sense because Earth should be destroyed in that scenario, and the Stargazer at the end suggests Humanity at the very least survives past the endgame. The second and third options are most likely one way or the other. BioWare might have been well past the writing stage when they released Arrival and didn't realize the conflict until it was too late, then hoped noone would notice. In that case they can come up with some narrative BS to explain it away.......Either that or Indoctrination is correct and there's no problem.

Aldarionn wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I feel like i do know what happened. The Mass Effect universe as we know it is over.

That doesn't make sense from a purely financial standpoint. BioWare stated they wanted to release DLC for the game. If they end the universe no matter what happens in the game, why would people pay for DLC for that universe? Hell, as the game stands right now, unless they either confirm Indoctrination is correct or plan to change the ending, I won't buy any DLC for the single player campaign because none of it will make any difference at all.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The reapers preseve organic life by "pruning" it. Making sure it doesn't get out of control and destroy itself with it's own creations. You may not agree with this but that's ok you don't need too. They are the villians and they're trying to kill you. You're pretty much supposed to be offended by their reasoning.

I can understand why people buy this theory on the surface, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a purely logical standpoint. Logically, why would the solution to advanced civilizations destroying themselves via synthetic development be for another race of synthetics to destroy said advanced civilizations? It's like preventing a kid from burning his hand on the stove by killing the kid as soon as he's tall enough to reach it. There has to be some alterior motive behind the Reaper Cycles, and reproduction/self preservation makes the most logical sense. If their goal was preserving organic life, you would think they would only destroy species that became destructive. More likely they are killing off advanced species that could possibly challenge them and using the harvested material to replenish their numbers in the process.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:As far as indoctrination theory. I don't really buy it but I think Bioware will adopt it because the fans demanded it and actually my main criticism of Bioware is that they actually listen to their fans too much. As far as I know Indoctrination involves a lot more subtle manipulation. If it were a dream then this version of indoctrination is like full blown Matrix style alternate reality that can be acheived in 1 minute flat. I haven't seen anything in the series like that before.

Indoctrination can take two forms. Per the Codex entry, it can be slow, subtle manipulation that preserves the subject until his goals are complete (The Illusive Man, Saren), or fast domination that leaves the body nothing more than a mindless husk doing the bidding of the Reapers (Husks, Marauders, Etc...). The dreams experienced by Shepard, and the humming noises James speaks about are clear indicators of slow Indoctrination attempts in order to make Shepard useful over a long period of time. The hallucination at the end is a swift means of Indoctrination that was meant to prevent Shepard from achieving his goals. Either it works, and Shepard dies or is Husked, or it doesn't work and Shepard survives, hence the choices, and the fact that Shepard only survives if you choose the seemingly Renegade option that he has been trying to achieve all along.

Also, what's wrong with listening to your fans? Taking fan criticism into account in the right way can lead to better products.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:My only question is I seem to recall the last time a Mass relay exploded it destroyed an entire star system. So are all the systems with Mass relays destroyed? Like Earth and Thessia and pretty much all the galactic capitols? Obviously, that's a big deal if they are.

Another reason that the endings don't make much sense. The Relays are destroyed in all 3 options, which means a cataclysmic wave of energy akin to a supernova obliterates everything in every major system. Every major planet is wiped clean of life, and the massive fleet of ships you assembled at Earth is annihilated, reducing the military strength of anything surviving the event in shambles. Most races are wiped out completely and it might be even MORE destructive to the galaxy than having the Reapers achieve their goals. But, if the ending is a hallucination and that doesn't actually happen, then everything Shepard worked for can actually be achieved by fighting off the Reapers and breaking the cycle in a way that doesn't murder everything everywhere.

BioWare has a couple of options concerning this problem:

1-This was their plan all along and the endings are literal. The wave of energy destroyed everything advanced and the galaxy was rebooted. No Reapers, no advanced civilizations, nothing.
2-The Indoctrination Theory is correct so nothing needs to be done. There is no destruction of the relays so they don't need to explain it further.
3-They need to invent some reason why the Mass Relays DON'T wipe everything out if they intend for the current galactic races to re-build.

The first one seems odd because we clearly see that SOME people survived. Joker was in the middle of a Relay jump (which in and of itself was strange for many many reasons....why would a relay jump take any measurable amount of time? It's supposed to be near instantaneous) and so the Normandy crew was stranded on some backwater planet. Shepard survives if you do the ending right which makes no sense because Earth should be destroyed in that scenario, and the Stargazer at the end suggests Humanity at the very least survives past the endgame. The second and third options are most likely one way or the other. BioWare might have been well past the writing stage when they released Arrival and didn't realize the conflict until it was too late, then hoped noone would notice. In that case they can come up with some narrative BS to explain it away.......Either that or Indoctrination is correct and there's no problem.

When you beat it you come back out pre-final battle. All DLC will take place before the final battle. I'd bet the first significant DLC will be the battle of Omega. That is a major unresolved storyline.

Yes, I also think the Reapers are protecting themselves/reproducing too. It's all win-win as far as they're concerned.

Uh, there is a hum in the shuttle bay. Don't you hear it? It's really annoying.
In the turbo boosted indoctrination there's no need for trickery. You just have full control. Like TIM did in the final scene. Your almost husk like. You just control the person they are not in the matrix or anything like that.

Art isn't a democracy. You make your choices and then that's it. Otherwise I'd start a take back midle earth campaign and really rework the The Lord of The Rings. There's a lot I'd like to cut there.

Not every system has a relay as you can see by flying around in the Normandy. Just all the important ones.... As I said it's effectively the end of the ME universe, and I'm sad to see it go but I'm also ok with that. It's not a happy-hollwood ending it seems that everyone wants.
It certainly is a definative one though.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:[


The reapers preseve organic life by "pruning" it. Making sure it doesn't get out of control and destroy itself with it's own creations. You may not agree with this but that's ok you don't need too. They are the villians and they're trying to kill you. You're pretty much supposed to be offended by their reasoning.

And the Chaos gods are really just there to ensure that a single diety like the Emperor can never enslave all life and to protect mortal free will.

Yeah.

Right, thats what they're saying. That is a huge leap in theme from what they were driving with. They expect me to relate and forgive these things for what they did. The very concept of me reasoning with the reapers given their actions makes no sense. Something that is willing to do that to organic civilizations could NEVER, short of insanity, believe that it was doing the right thing by preventing a hypothetical robot apocalypse. There are a million other solutions that might have been concieved of, including syntheis given the technology in the reapers possesion. To go with the 'kill them past a certain height to stop them shooting themselves' isn't something a benovolent AI would think up of since it invalidates any human concern you might have for individual welfare and the like. The closest analogue would be the AI off I. ROBOT and that robot did so because it was shackled to cold unfeeling logic. Yet in the end the reaper kid is portrayed as offering 'salvation through destruction!'.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:[


The reapers preseve organic life by "pruning" it. Making sure it doesn't get out of control and destroy itself with it's own creations. You may not agree with this but that's ok you don't need too. They are the villians and they're trying to kill you. You're pretty much supposed to be offended by their reasoning.

And the Chaos gods are really just there to ensure that a single diety like the Emperor can never enslave all life and to protect mortal free will.

Yeah.

Right, thats what they're saying. That is a huge leap in theme from what they were driving with. They expect me to relate and forgive these things for what they did. The very concept of me reasoning with the reapers given their actions makes no sense. Something that is willing to do that to organic civilizations could NEVER, short of insanity, believe that it was doing the right thing by preventing a hypothetical robot apocalypse. There are a million other solutions that might have been concieved of, including syntheis given the technology in the reapers possesion. To go with the 'kill them past a certain height to stop them shooting themselves' isn't something a benovolent AI would think up of since it invalidates any human concern you might have for individual welfare and the like. The closest analogue would be the AI off I. ROBOT and that robot did so because it was shackled to cold unfeeling logic. Yet in the end the reaper kid is portrayed as offering 'salvation through destruction!'.

It would seem you don't care for the Reapers and their ways. I think that most people in the ME universe would agree with you.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:[ It's not a happy-hollwood ending it seems that everyone wants.

...

This isn't 40k. You don't make a massively depressing game where it emphasises 'you are doomed!' and then have it end with the main character dying completely alone and half the galaxy being killed by relay explosions. That is a terrible way to end a series. Also, Bioware has set the trilogy up as analogue to a space opera Hollywood blockbuster; how can you not expect the ending to be a happy one? Being bittersweet isn't endearing in this context. The series was never grimdark enough to warrent such a depressing ending. Really, I was expecting a Return of the Jedi ending before the game came out.

I actually think the structure of how endings are unlocked disproves the indoctrination theory (I actually did not know this information prior to an hour ago).

If your War Assests are below 1,750, you can't make a choice at the end of the game. The choice is made automatically by shepard (control or destroy) based on your decision at the end of ME2. That's actually kind of odd, cause the ME2 paragon choice results in the Renegade ending while the ME2 Renegade choice results in the Paragon ending? At the same time no Renegade or Paragon value is directly attributed to the ME3 endings, its just assumed by fans (unless I'm forgetting something).

The Synthesis choice is only available if your War Assets are at least 2,500.

I see no reason for Bioware to structure the ending this way if its all just a dream.

Yet in the end the reaper kid is portrayed as offering 'salvation through destruction!'.

Its not really an odd concept on its face. The Christian Apocalypse has some pretty rough gak in it. Pretty much everyone dies before JC comes back and makes it all okay with his savior-i-ness. The idea of change going hand in hand with the destruction of the old is an ancient cultural concept.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:[quote
It would seem you don't care for the Reapers and their ways. I think that most people in the ME universe would agree with you.

You don't actually think the cuttlefish were justified in what they were doing? What gave them the right to make these decisions? Why are they so certain organics can't get along with synthetics when both the geth and EDI can get along.

In fact, they actually could have simply uploaded the reaper code which turned legion from a consenus of AI's into a complete personality (which EDI states is what makes an AI able to prevent its own logic systems from 'devalueing the lives of those around them'). Why couldn't the reapers JUST. DO. THAT. TO. EVERY. SYNTHETIC. Its their own tech and it solves the issue instantly without resorting to super-genocide. All that god-like intelligence and they never considered telling the machines and humans to get along? That is too much of a leap for me to take. If the reapers really are having that motivation then they're just stupid. So no I don't care for the cuttlefishes opinion.

It's been a week now since I've beaten the game and I still can't wrap my head around how stupid the ending was. I don't want Bioware to be forced by their fans to change it, but I have trouble accepting that this is really the ending they had in mind from the start. I just wish we would get a definitv statement from the writers what exactly their intentions were with the current endings, but the way the industry works we'll never hear it.