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.

We are just talking in circles here. I've explained my position enough and if you don't understand it by now then nothing I say will make you understand it. I didn't want a cookie cutter "Disney" ending. Total victory would have seemed cheap to me. In fact, tragedy and sacrifice would have been necessary for me to buy the ending at all. What I DON'T want is an ending that introduces a new character last minute who rounds up everything I have done up to that point and throws it out the window, then force feeds me three options that don't make any sense. I feel like that is what I got, and for that reason I dislike the ending.

For the record, I thought the rest of the game was excellent.

Kanluwen wrote:I think it's safe to say you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

I agree with everything Amaya said. I think we've been pretty much the same on the subject of the whole trilogy since a couple days after ME3 came out.

I do consider ME2 to be the best overall game, and I do like 95% of ME3 with a few nitpicks here and there.

I think the endings were made that way so that ME3 could be a stand alone game which made sense on its own. Imagine if you had played only ME3, then the endings kind of make sense.

It's true that no matter what you do, the endings will be same to a few details close. All the missions leading up the final assault are just to get effective military strength past certain levels which affect details of the games ending, such as shepard's survival or not. It is disappointing that the choice of allies didn't have a direct effect, that's true.

However, you can look at your choices as stories in themselves. You end the Quarian-Geth war, seal the fate of the Krogan and Salarians etc. So that does kind of give a sense of closure. However, the fact remains that it would have been more satsifying to have vastly different endings based on your allies and their numbers.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:I think the endings were made that way so that ME3 could be a stand alone game which made sense on its own. Imagine if you had played only ME3, then the endings kind of make sense.

It's true that no matter what you do, the endings will be same to a few details close. All the missions leading up the final assault are just to get effective military strength past certain levels which affect details of the games ending, such as shepard's survival or not. It is disappointing that the choice of allies didn't have a direct effect, that's true.

However, you can look at your choices as stories in themselves. You end the Quarian-Geth war, seal the fate of the Krogan and Salarians etc. So that does kind of give a sense of closure. However, the fact remains that it would have been more satsifying to have vastly different endings based on your allies and their numbers.

Spoiler:

Also, how is the franchise still alive if the mass relays get destroyed? How can the universe still be used unless prequels are put in place?

Aldarionn wrote:-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.

Just because whoever created the reapers made a mistake doesn't mean that its bad writing.

Picture the scene:
You've been attacked by synthetic life forms in the past, but have presumably survived.
You create an AI to provide a solution to the problem of other synthetics killing organics.
Would you honestly expect the solution the AI provides to be "harvest all organic life and convert them into giant semi-organic sentient ships which will pop into the galaxy to kill everything every 50,00 years"?
Nothing says that the AI was switched on and they just said "oh yeah, just do whatever you want, we won't mind" They've just spent however many years dealing with other synthetics, the Starchild wouldn't have been unshackled when first created, but presumably got slowly out of control.

Whatever happened though, just because whatever race evolved and created the reapers made a catastrophic mistake doesn't indicate bad writing on Bioware's part.

Goliath wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.

Just because whoever created the reapers made a mistake doesn't mean that its bad writing.

Picture the scene:
You've been attacked by synthetic life forms in the past, but have presumably survived.
You create an AI to provide a solution to the problem of other synthetics killing organics.
Would you honestly expect the solution the AI provides to be "harvest all organic life and convert them into giant semi-organic sentient ships which will pop into the galaxy to kill everything every 50,00 years"?
Nothing says that the AI was switched on and they just said "oh yeah, just do whatever you want, we won't mind" They've just spent however many years dealing with other synthetics, the Starchild wouldn't have been unshackled when first created, but presumably got slowly out of control.

Whatever happened though, just because whatever race evolved and created the reapers made a catastrophic mistake doesn't indicate bad writing on Bioware's part.

My thoughts exactly. But give it up...most of the other people on this thread are set in stone that while the game itself is bad, the plot and ending are poor. There's no point in further debating about it.

vodo40k wrote:

Spoiler:

Its quite clear that in all the "new" endings in the EC, the relays can be repared-even in the destroy ending (although it would take markedly longer in this situation).

Thankyou vodo40k, that has made me very happy indeed.

The ending does make sense, but it somehow lacks satisfaction. Either way, I don't think its one of those endings which leaves you breathless.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

The ending does make sense, but it somehow lacks satisfaction. Either way, I don't think its one of those endings which leaves you breathless.

I don't know...I was quite happy with both the new and original Synthesis ending, and with the new Destroy.

Goliath wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:-The StarChild explained that the people who created him made an AI designed to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics. Isn't that like pouring gasoline on a fire that you intend to extinguish? Ultimately, the AI determined that the "solution" was to harvest organics (SURPRISE!), and started with its own creators (SURPRISE!) turning them into the first Reaper against their will. (SURPRISE!) This proves that the "solution" was not designed to solve the problem, only organize it into a well oiled killing machine capable of processing billions of organics into synthetic constructs that perpetuated the cycle. That's not just bad writing. It's stupid logic, and if that was the intent from the beginning then the entire writing staff needs to be slapped.

Just because whoever created the reapers made a mistake doesn't mean that its bad writing.

Picture the scene:
You've been attacked by synthetic life forms in the past, but have presumably survived.
You create an AI to provide a solution to the problem of other synthetics killing organics.
Would you honestly expect the solution the AI provides to be "harvest all organic life and convert them into giant semi-organic sentient ships which will pop into the galaxy to kill everything every 50,00 years"?
Nothing says that the AI was switched on and they just said "oh yeah, just do whatever you want, we won't mind" They've just spent however many years dealing with other synthetics, the Starchild wouldn't have been unshackled when first created, but presumably got slowly out of control.

Whatever happened though, just because whatever race evolved and created the reapers made a catastrophic mistake doesn't indicate bad writing on Bioware's part.

No, that's pretty bad writing. If a society is advanced enough to create an AI capable of developing tech that can liquify its creators and turn them into a life-harvesting death machine, you would think at least ONE guy at the design table would have said "You know, maybe it's a BAD idea to build a synthetic to solve THIS particular issue? You know? Synthetics rising up against their creators and destroying them? Seems like we might be opening a Pandora's Box of galactic suffering and pain here. Just sayin!"

There's really no comparison for a mistake of that magnitude, and no way to excuse the logic behind it. It's not just a mistake, it's a catastrophic error in judgement that nobody could possibly miss, and they wrote it as the central plot device. That is the definition of bad writing.

It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?

The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.

Kanluwen wrote:It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?

The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.

Not exactly. The Geth acted in self defense after the Quarians tried to eradicate them for achieving sentience. That's not the same as what the Catalyst did. The Catalyst was purpose built to "solve" the problem of the created destroying their creators, and it did so by destroying its creators against their will. They MADE him to find a solution, PROGRAMMED him to work on that particular issue, and gave him enough intelligence to implement his solution regardless of what it was. The fact that they didn't see this coming means they are either naive on an absolutely monolithic scale, or they are literally just THAT stupid, neither of which make sense for a society with such advanced technology and enough awareness of the problem to try and engineer a solution.

To me, that feels like bad writing.

Aldarionn wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?

The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.

Not exactly. The Geth acted in self defense after the Quarians tried to eradicate them for achieving sentience. That's not the same as what the Catalyst did. The Catalyst was purpose built to "solve" the problem of the created destroying their creators, and it did so by destroying its creators against their will. They MADE him to find a solution, PROGRAMMED him to work on that particular issue, and gave him enough intelligence to implement his solution regardless of what it was. The fact that they didn't see this coming means they are either naive on an absolutely monolithic scale, or they are literally just THAT stupid, neither of which make sense for a society with such advanced technology and enough awareness of the problem to try and engineer a solution.

Actually that's speculation.

We don't know what the Catalyst did. We don't even know that it was "purpose built to solve the problem".

We just know it's a created intelligence and its creators are dead.

Kanluwen wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It's not like the Quarians expected a Geth to rise up and fight when the rest were being mowed down, now did they?

The idea that the Catalyst wiped out its creators in self-defense (or perceived self-defense at least) is not that far fetched.

Not exactly. The Geth acted in self defense after the Quarians tried to eradicate them for achieving sentience. That's not the same as what the Catalyst did. The Catalyst was purpose built to "solve" the problem of the created destroying their creators, and it did so by destroying its creators against their will. They MADE him to find a solution, PROGRAMMED him to work on that particular issue, and gave him enough intelligence to implement his solution regardless of what it was. The fact that they didn't see this coming means they are either naive on an absolutely monolithic scale, or they are literally just THAT stupid, neither of which make sense for a society with such advanced technology and enough awareness of the problem to try and engineer a solution.

Actually that's speculation.

We don't know what the Catalyst did. We don't even know that it was "purpose built to solve the problem".

We just know it's a created intelligence and its creators are dead.

No, that's not speculation. It's in the extended cut dialogue. Here's a transcript:


Shepard: what are you?

Catalyst: A construct. An intelligence designed aeons ago to solve a problem. I was created to bring balance, to be the catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics.

Shepard: So you're just an AI?

Catalyst: In as much as you are just an animal. I embody the collective intelligence of all reapers.

Shepard: But you were created.

Catalyst: Correct.

Shepard: By who?

Catalyst: By ones who recognized that conflict would always arise between synthetics and organics. I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life. To establish a connection. But our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.

Shepard: The Reapers.

Catalyst: Precisely.

Shepard: Where did the Reapers come from? Did you create them?

Catalyst: My creators gave them form, I gave them function, and they in turn give me purpose. The Reapers are synthetic representation of my creators.

Shepard: And what happened to your creators?

Catalyst: They became the first true Reaper. They did not approve, but it was the only solution.

So the Catalyst was created to be a mediator between Synthetic and Organic life. To solve the problem of conflict between them, but it was itself a synthetic. It's "solution" to the problem was to create the Reapers, harvesting organics to create super-synthetics that perpetuate the cycle, starting with its unwilling creators.

That's not speculation, that's fact.

I'm not sure how you missed the point I was making by bringing the Geth into this and stating that it was speculation the the Catalyst was in fact purpose-built for the stuff it claims it was.

The Geth were created to serve as helpers, and it was not until the Quarians attacked them that they became violent.
It was not until the Quarians began killing Quarians sympathetic to the Geth that the Geth became violent.

Yet if you remember the Quarian tale--the Geth rebelled out of nowhere.

See what I'm saying here, Ald? There's two sides to a story. All we have is the Catalyst's recounting of it, and the Catalyst even as much says that it is closer to a living being than it is an artificial intelligence.

There are two sides to every story, except the Catalyst gives the more grimdark story than you would expect from the person telling their side. If he says he was created to solve the problem and act as a mediator, and instead turned his creators into Reapers against their will, then what kind of story do you think his creators would tell?

Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

Its just a stupid ending for a series that could have, honestly, been the greatest RPGs of all time.

Aldarionn wrote:Catalyst: By ones who recognized that conflict would always arise between synthetics and organics. I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life. To establish a connection. But our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.

Emphasis on "our".
The catalyst himself says that the reapers wasn't it's first solution, but that all attempts that it had previously made had failed, so it took the drastic measures of turning it's creators into the first reaper.
For all the information we have it could be the case that the Catalyst was just a thinking machine originally, and had no actual power, but who was given more powers or authority as the various plans failed.

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

As opposed too?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

As opposed too?

A unique ending they came up with themselves?

They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.

The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

As opposed too?

A unique ending they came up with themselves?

They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.

The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.

"The people who left" being Drew Kapyrshyn who wrote the Old Republic novel "Revan"...

Which boils down to "The Emperor did it".

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

As opposed too?

A unique ending they came up with themselves?

They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.

The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.

A dues ex machina ending would involve something unexpectedly saving Shepard. Obviously, the reapers are a powerful enemy and at the climax of the series something will bring the situation to a close It's easy to criticise, expcially when your criticism is: well they shoulda done something else.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

As opposed too?

A unique ending they came up with themselves?

They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.

The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.

A dues ex machina ending would involve something unexpectedly saving Shepard. Obviously, the reapers are a powerful enemy and at the climax of the series something will bring the situation to a close It's easy to criticise, expcially when your criticism is: well they shoulda done something else.

Its been explained in detail several times in this thread why the ending is poor writing - I'm not going to repeat it because you can't read.

Kanluwen, I don't care if the guys Star Wars novel was bad. That doesn't mean anything to me.

I can't think of any other reason why the ending is what it is. The people who wrote ME2 did an excellent story, with Lair of the Shadow Broker and everything.

There is a very noticeable disconnect from ME2 > ME3. Things like forgetting Thane was a romance option are just completely ridiculous.

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Seems to me the the reapers and Catalyst are your pretty standard issue Skynet-apocalypse scenario. The Reapers were terminators and the catalyst was Skynet.

Which, again, is lazy writing.

As opposed too?

A unique ending they came up with themselves?

They just used a cliche deus ex machina. It's not what you expected from the quality writing team at Bioware - at least not the team who wrote ME2.

The people who left were clearly very valuable to this series - they made it what it was.

A dues ex machina ending would involve something unexpectedly saving Shepard. Obviously, the reapers are a powerful enemy and at the climax of the series something will bring the situation to a close It's easy to criticise, expcially when your criticism is: well they shoulda done something else.

Its been explained in detail several times in this thread why the ending is poor writing - I'm not going to repeat it because you can't read.

Kanluwen, I don't care if the guys Star Wars novel was bad. That doesn't mean anything to me.

I can't think of any other reason why the ending is what it is. The people who wrote ME2 did an excellent story, with Lair of the Shadow Broker and everything.

There is a very noticeable disconnect from ME2 > ME3. Things like forgetting Thane was a romance option are just completely ridiculous.

Don't you have something better to do instead of irritating people who actually like the endings? Like, oh I don't know, sulking in the corner because you don't like Shepard's heroic sacrifice and the galaxy starting over?

Hey Tadashi, if you don't like Karon's post don't read them.


Haters gonna hate, whiners gonna whine.


c wut i did ther

1) Rule 1 guys - seriously!

2) Video games!

Play nice, please!

Amaya wrote:Hey Tadashi, if you don't like Karon's post don't read them.


Haters gonna hate, whiners gonna whine.


c wut i did ther

Hey Amaya, if you don't like my posts don't read them.

You're not the only one who can do that.

Tadashi wrote:

Amaya wrote:Hey Tadashi, if you don't like Karon's post don't read them.


Haters gonna hate, whiners gonna whine.


c wut i did ther

Hey Amaya, if you don't like my posts don't read them.

You're not the only one who can do that.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Tadashi wrote:Obvious troll is obvious.

Well, not really.

You basically told me to not post because I didn't agree with your opinion on the endings.