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.

Galdos wrote:For the most part I dont feel like adding to this conversation but here is a question.

What was the Citadel doing at Earth? How did it get there?

The Reapers moved it there around Priority: Thessia. It's the center of the Mass Relay network and a Mass Relay itself, it's not unreasonable to assume it can move or be moved.

I understood it is the Catalyst but how did it get there? Last I checked, it was under control of C-Sec, the link to the Reapers had been broken so it is physically impossible for the Reapers to control the Citadel. The only way to do it is manually from inside the Citadel and no one was in the position to do that.

It was always there, watching as its creations (the Reapers) and the galactic civilizations come and go. In a way, its like a god, but never intervening, just watching, at least until Shepard and the Crucible provided a different solution to the Cycle. Also, no one, not even the Reapers knew it even existed.

Also what happened to everyone on the Citadel? Did they ALL die? (The Council, Bailey, Aria, etc...)

Aria's probably leading the Terminus Fleet. As for the rest, considering how game companies keep quiet when the plot implies mass death, yeah, they probably died when the Reapers assaulted and seized the Citadel before they moved it to Earth. The Illusive Man didn't count - he's indoctrinated, so the Reapers let be on the Citadel.

http://www.giantbomb.com/mass-effect-3/61-29935/bioware-writer-allegedly-slams-me-3-ending-on-penny-arcade-forums/35-540605/

All you need to read to realize that the ending is bad.

Karon wrote:http://www.giantbomb.com/mass-effect-3/61-29935/bioware-writer-allegedly-slams-me-3-ending-on-penny-arcade-forums/35-540605/

All you need to read to realize that the ending is bad.

Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.

This and This seem to be the main reason people do not like the ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz8_j-ebfaI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ

Tadashi wrote:Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.

My thoughts exactly.

Of course it's a matter of personal preferences, but it is interesting how a lot of the haters just cannot understand how anyone could not be of their opinion.

Would I have liked ME3 if they had pulled a "Disney" endling like a bad copy of ME1? Probably. I think they could've done even that "right". But I know it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and emotional. Ultimately, it would've been weaker. More cliché. "The usual stuff".

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.

My thoughts exactly.

Of course it's a matter of personal preferences, but it is interesting how a lot of the haters just cannot understand how anyone could not be of their opinion.

Would I have liked ME3 if they had pulled a "Disney" endling like a bad copy of ME1? Probably. I think they could've done even that "right". But I know it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and emotional. Ultimately, it would've been weaker. More cliché. "The usual stuff".

Its sad therefore that the majority of people seem to prefer the cliche "usual stuff". Even if the ending is comparatively weaker emotionally and dramatically, people would actually be able to understand what they are looking at, rather than resorting to creating personal fiction or supporting unproven theories. Ironically more people probably would have preferred a "Disney" ending because it offers a more comprehensive and "satisfying" conclusion. Im sure many people would have complained about receiving a cheap, cliche ending to a series but it would be nothing compared with the outcry ME3 has received. It all comes down to majority opinion, which in the case of ME3 players is mostly unfavourable of a thought provoking but inconclusive ending.

Tadashi wrote:The Reapers moved it there around Priority: Thessia. It's the center of the Mass Relay network and a Mass Relay itself, it's not unreasonable to assume it can move or be moved.

It was moved during the assault on Cerebus headquarters.

No you missed my question, phyiscally I know it CAN move (At least it doesnt surprise me). I meant HOW did it move? WHO moved it? The Reapers dont have control of it, no one who has the potentional of being indoctrinated is in a position to do it, and the Illusive Man has no way of getting to the location to do that.

vodo40k wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Heroic end and new beginning beats happy ending any day.

My thoughts exactly.

Of course it's a matter of personal preferences, but it is interesting how a lot of the haters just cannot understand how anyone could not be of their opinion.

Would I have liked ME3 if they had pulled a "Disney" endling like a bad copy of ME1? Probably. I think they could've done even that "right". But I know it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic and emotional. Ultimately, it would've been weaker. More cliché. "The usual stuff".

Its sad therefore that the majority of people seem to prefer the cliche "usual stuff". Even if the ending is comparatively weaker emotionally and dramatically, people would actually be able to understand what they are looking at, rather than resorting to creating personal fiction or supporting unproven theories. Ironically more people probably would have preferred a "Disney" ending because it offers a more comprehensive and "satisfying" conclusion. Im sure many people would have complained about receiving a cheap, cliche ending to a series but it would be nothing compared with the outcry ME3 has received. It all comes down to majority opinion, which in the case of ME3 players is mostly unfavourable of a thought provoking but inconclusive ending.

The ending was not thought provoking at all. It seriously makes one statement "Robots and Squishes can't leave in peace, because the robots always got crah-ahzy", that's it. This is a statement which is contradicted by major developments in the past 2 games. The only real groundwork for this conclusion was Javik's story, which you don't even get without the DLC (I didn't have it). This problem is compounded by the fact everything else Javik did & believed was proven wrong or at least flawed by the current society. The story provides you with no evidence for the conclusion it rams down your throat.

It makes a statement, doesn't let you argue, and forces you to accept it's conclusion. There it leaves no room for thought, as all characters who get a voice at the end of it are forced to concluded that glow-kid is right, and that things turned out of the best.

I didn't need a happy or "Disney" ending, I needing an ending that felt like it belonged at the end of the mass effect franchise. Give me Harbinger gloating over Shepard's charred corpse, give me the alliance you worked so hard to build falling to petty infighting, give me alien leaders botching the attack by making short-sighted rash decisions, give me anything at all that flows from the rest of the narrative.

Bioware made promises both explicitly stated in their design goals for the game, and just implied by the consistent flow of the games up until that point. The ending did not deliver on those promises.


Seriously, this is like a 40k game where the ending has a ghost of a Tau Child reveal that he secretly created Mankind, the Eldar and Tyranids so that the Orks would have someone to fight, as without someone to fight Orks would inveiblty wind up being peaceful spending all their time meditating, drinking tea and sleeping. If that happened the latent psionic powers of Orks now turned to peaceful endeavors would resonate out making the universe itself more peaceful. This would continue until ultimately all motion and energy stopped and the universe functionally ceases to exist as it achieves ultimate serenity. This reveal comes just as all the forces of the universe (except the Orks) are about to annlihate each other, leaving nothing to stop the Ork peace from stopping all of relaity. Your only hope is to blow up the golden throne, (the grot can let you do this as it is an extension of his being) as that will destroy the astronomicon again allowing mankind to navigate freely through space without feat of Chaos, thus they will multiply and create more enemies for the Orks to fight.

vodo40k wrote:Even if the ending is comparatively weaker emotionally and dramatically, people would actually be able to understand what they are looking at, rather than resorting to creating personal fiction or supporting unproven theories. Ironically more people probably would have preferred a "Disney" ending because it offers a more comprehensive and "satisfying" conclusion. Im sure many people would have complained about receiving a cheap, cliche ending to a series but it would be nothing compared with the outcry ME3 has received.

Well said - though I will add that personal fiction isn't wrong at all. I actually like how the ending leaves a lot of stuff - like what's going to happen now that the Relays are down and the Normandy is stranded on some other planet - open for interpretation.

Chongara wrote:The ending was not thought provoking at all.

It was for me. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that it didn't have the same effect on you.

Chongara wrote:It seriously makes one statement "Robots and Squishes can't leave in peace, because the robots always got crah-ahzy", that's it. This is a statement which is contradicted by major developments in the past 2 games. [...] It makes a statement, doesn't let you argue, and forces you to accept it's conclusion.

That's just wrong. First off, there is no "contradiction". You cannot guarantee that synthetics will not ever wipe organics out, which is why Shep disrupting the Cycles is a risk. Claiming that just because you may have made peace between the geth and the quarians is proof that the Catalyst is wrong is about as realistic as the "never again" statements after WW2. Yeah, we've seen how that worked out.

And of course you can argue with the Catalyst. It's what leads Shep to pick Destroy or Control over Synthesis or simply doing nothing and letting the Reapers win. What you cannot do is pull non-existing evidence out of thin air to "prove" that you're right, because said proof does not exist. Just like the Catalyst doesn't have any proof for its own conclusion. It's a matter of conflicting philosophies, and every side has a point.
Is it perhaps that many people wish for a more simple "black vs white" or "good vs evil" (with a "proper bossfight" instead of dramatic cutscenes and philosophical debates) that they felt disappointed by an ending that was more complex than that?

Anyways, if you were "forced to conclude that glow-kid is right", you wouldn't have disrupted the Cycles. Which you can actually do, by simply not picking an option until the Reapers win. There is a hidden timer running in the background. Did you?

Chongara wrote:Bioware made promises both explicitly stated in their design goals for the game, and just implied by the consistent flow of the games up until that point. The ending did not deliver on those promises.

I disagree. I think that a lot of people had unrealistic expectations, however, or felt entitled to something that was never intended nor announced. The marketing campaign was somewhat ambiguous, however, and the hype certainly didn't help the controversy.

You cant disagree that Bioware failed to live up one their promise, however I would say that Bioware should never have made that statement. THey promised the game would not have an A, B, or C ending (exact words) and than they give us a Red, Green, Blue ending with almost the exact same scene for each one. I dont mind they didnt live up to their word because I never expected them to come through with it. (Mass Effect 1 had 2 endings, both endings with the same two variations, Mass Effect 2 had something like 2, with like 3 variations based off casulty numbers)


Im fairly certain people would have been happy with a copy end of Mass Effect 1 or Dragon Age.

Assault the tower, make it into the Citadel, fight the Illusive Man, run foward to activate the Catalyst, discover (Avia or whatever that VI's name was could tell you this) that you can destroy the Reapers or you can use the Cerbus codes to control the Reapers like the Illusive Man wanted.


You can almost use the shot for shot ending, the removal of the God child and his reasoning would have gone a LONG way to helping the cool down the backlash. It would still leave the problem of A, B, C ending but I feel that most people are more upset about the logic of the Child than anything else, especially when it was unnecessary.

Making synethics to kill organics so that organics can not make synthetics that would kill organics is idiotic. Just give them the same reasoning that the Terminators had. If organics advance too much, they will eventually use their technology to not only destroy each other, but the whole galaxy. (Nuclear holocaust, the Krogans) The Reapers are trying to prevent the destruction of the galaxy by organics.

Either that or never give them a reason, simply leave it so that the Reapers' reasons are never made clear, where they came from and everything remains a mystery. This way you wont have the dramatic let down of stating their logic. The first two games build up their logic of being so advance that no matter what it was, it was going to be seen as a let down to the fans.




Personally my biggest issue what how the game felt like it just randomly ended. I wanted to see a greater scene of what my companions were doing (the scene they show doesnt make any sense afterall) I wanted to see (or refrence a bit more) how the civilizations could now start rebuilding from this. That stargazer scene was too far in the future, the fact that the grandfather is talking about Shepard like he was a legend like Paul Bonyon or something means that you have no idea what the galaxy looks like or even if the story is a true story. The grandfather could have made the whole thing up for all we know. Im going to say that I thought Dragon Age ended perfectly. You had a chance to talk with your companions, you saw a little bit of you actions, you could decide on your characters future, and than mini epilogues occured to tell about all the quest you had worked on in the past. Was it really unreasonable for me to expect the same exact ending as Dragon Age, a game they already made and was well recieved?

Galdos wrote:You cant disagree that Bioware failed to live up one their promise, however I would say that Bioware should never have made that statement. THey promised the game would not have an A, B, or C ending (exact words) and than they give us a Red, Green, Blue ending with almost the exact same scene for each one.

That's the thing - it isn't true.

http://ie.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/End_Game_Chart_-_With_Spoilers

One could certainly argue that BioWare has been lazy in the delivery of the differences, and I'd even agree there. But still it is more than three endings, the other options based on choices you made before going into the final arc.
Other than that, however, I would also agree that BW should have been more careful in how they advertised the game - as I said, they contributed much to the hype, raising expectations to unrealistic levels. It should also be pointed out that much of it is the result of off-hand comments made by individual employees of varying actual influence or knowledge on the product rather than official advertisements or press releases, so maybe people shouldn't cling to every word that slips from some guy's lips, especially since such things can change daily.

Galdos wrote:Im fairly certain people would have been happy with a copy end of Mass Effect 1 or Dragon Age.

I think so, too. In a way it's sad that people have grown that used to a certain kind of ending, though, and bash anything that deviates from these established standards. At the same time the industry is criticized for churning out copy after copy, with people complaining that it's all the same. Figures.

Galdos wrote:You can almost use the shot for shot ending, the removal of the God child and his reasoning would have gone a LONG way to helping the cool down the backlash. It would still leave the problem of A, B, C ending but I feel that most people are more upset about the logic of the Child than anything else, especially when it was unnecessary.

This is something where I'm actually inclined to agree. I maintain that the Catalyst ("god child" really sounds like an incorrect term deliberately invented to bash the game) made sense in itself, but to me, the last minute revelation didn't really "fit in" with the rest. I would've preferred if the Reapers' raison-d'etre would've remained more open for interpretation, especially since I think a "species shouldn't be allowed to advance too far lest they endanger life itself" would have made a much better reason than basing it all on synthetics. You don't need synthetics to make the galaxy inhospitable.

Galdos wrote:Making synethics to kill organics so that organics can not make synthetics that would kill organics is idiotic.

Is it really, though? The Reapers cull existing species once they achieve a certain level of civilization but deliberately leave life itself intact. The Catalyst's prophecy was that completely unleashed synthetics destroy all life, forever eliminating this form of existence from the galaxy. Kind of like the Terminators who didn't leave any survivors as well. That is a huge difference.

Galdos wrote:Either that or never give them a reason, simply leave it so that the Reapers' reasons are never made clear, where they came from and everything remains a mystery. This way you wont have the dramatic let down of stating their logic. The first two games build up their logic of being so advance that no matter what it was, it was going to be seen as a let down to the fans.

Yeah, the Reapers' goals should have never been hyped up as being ooohhh so mysterious and incomprehensible. To me, this is just a cop-out. One may not agree with the Reapers' logic, but knowing what they're up to doesn't take much of a brain. Especially since the Reapers were teasing the player again and again.

Basically:

Galdos wrote:Personally my biggest issue what how the game felt like it just randomly ended. I wanted to see a greater scene of what my companions were doing (the scene they show doesnt make any sense afterall) I wanted to see (or refrence a bit more) how the civilizations could now start rebuilding from this. That stargazer scene was too far in the future, the fact that the grandfather is talking about Shepard like he was a legend like Paul Bonyon or something means that you have no idea what the galaxy looks like or even if the story is a true story.

Understandable, though I actually prefer how things went - because it gives me the opportunity to make up my own ideas for it. GW-style, basically. I don't need "closure" when I have awesome potential like this. This is very much a matter of preferences tho, and I get that a lot of people just prefer getting the entire thing presented on a silver platter like a finished story that doesn't leave anything to interpretation.

No broken promises you say?

I think its absolutely hilarious how people try to brush aside criticism of the ending by saying "oh, you just wanted it to be a happy ending"

Its just sad - you can't argue with people who don't listen.

I dont really consider very small minor variations an ending. I guess you could say that the game actually has 3 endings with 2 variations (If Shep lives, if Earth survives) but really, it has 3 endings, like Mass Effect had 2, and Mass Effect 2 had 2. Everything else is a minor variation of who is in what position but not really a change to the ending.

vodo40k Posted the perfect picture of what I meant. That statement was a mistake and Casey Hudson should never have said that. I didnt believe they would deliever when he said it, however I never would have guess they did exactly what he said they wouldnt do.



The fact that a person built a group of beings to do the very thing they were trying to prevent is whats is the issue. If it was changed from "we are doing it to save you from being killed by synthetics" to "we are doing it to prevent you from destroying the galaxy because of the wars you fight against each other" it would have made a lot more sense. Terminator had the logic of the second one. They saw that if humanity survived the planet was simply going to be destroyed so the Terminators attempted to kill humanity before they could destroy Earth, not realizing how willing humanity was to survive no matter the cost.

I get what you are saying is that living beings would eventually make synthetics that would destroy all life completely and the Reapers are only killing advance life but the difference is so small that it seems like there would be a better way to do things.


Oh and Lynata, yes I de prefer everything about the games end on a silver plater for me lol Really that was my biggest issue. The rest of it I could actually ignore or put it beside me.

Galdos wrote:I dont really consider very small minor variations an ending. I guess you could say that the game actually has 3 endings with 2 variations (If Shep lives, if Earth survives) but really, it has 3 endings, like Mass Effect had 2, and Mass Effect 2 had 2. Everything else is a minor variation of who is in what position but not really a change to the ending.

Minor variation in delivery - and I do hope that the upcoming DLC will improve on this ... but I daresay that all those sub-points can easily be compared to ME1 and ME2. In fact, they are even more important. What is a restructuring of the Citadel Council or whether or not Cerberus gets the base (both of which have next to no actual consequence on the following games) compared to the Earth either being vaporized, devastated or "merely" damaged? And that's just one aspect.
Actually, if you think this is but a "variation", then ME1 and ME2 only had a single ending with two variations.

Galdos wrote:vodo40k Posted the perfect picture of what I meant. That statement was a mistake and Casey Hudson should never have said that.

It would have been smarter, wouldn't it? But still, it was an off-hand comment made as the game was still in development*, to a shaky camera on some con. People shouldn't take such things as a "guarantee", else they're in for a lot of disappointment - not just for ME3, but for every game, movie, or GW product.

(*: and I think that the currently planned DLC was already planned back then, maybe he was referring to that one?)

Let's be honest, though. People would have been just as pissed if that comment was non-existent. Judging by the rage threads, a lot of people have really started to nitpick at every minor detail they perceive as flawed just to make the game even worse, as if they'd need to somehow justify their dissatisfaction. It's like an "internet hate machine" (to steal a Fox term) where people come in, participate in a debate, and leave again hating the game even more than they did before.

Galdos wrote:I get what you are saying is that living beings would eventually make synthetics that would destroy all life completely and the Reapers are only killing advance life but the difference is so small that it seems like there would be a better way to do things.

The difference is small when you analyze the situation from the perspective of the species immediately affected by the "Harvest" - from the Reapers' PoV, it's more like mowing the lawn to keep the garden pretty.

I think it comes down to "taking a chance" versus "making sure". Humanity, and indeed all the species of this Cycle, as represented by Shep are doing a leap of faith to preserve their existence, even though it might endanger life itself later down the road. But as Shep himself/herself said, they're gonna tackle that issue when the day comes.

Do you remember Shep's answer to the Catalyst's theory? "Maybe." <- that about sums it up - even though Shep then follows it up with a speech about how life doesn't have a reason to exist if it isn't allowed to evolve and flourish (at least in the dialogue I got), this declaration of stubbornness, the will to go up against the odds, is the single-most important statement of the game, and it is this what I think the game was trying to convey to its players.

Galdos wrote:Oh and Lynata, yes I de prefer everything about the games end on a silver plater for me lol Really that was my biggest issue. The rest of it I could actually ignore or put it beside me.

That also seems to have bugged a lot of people about DA2, heh. I had a lot of issues with that game, but "lack of closure" certainly wasn't amongst it. Not that there's anything wrong about it, mind you - it's a simple matter of preferences. I just wish people would stop claiming BW "failed" just because they didn't cater to their own personal expectations regarding this. Essentially, there's a difference between simply "not liking it" and the silly amount of rage that has been dominating the internet in the past couple months.

Sheesh, why aren't people more upset about DA2 being half the RPG that DA:O was? Or how the RPG aspects of ME1 were dumbed down in ME2 already? :(

Karon wrote:Its just sad - you can't argue with people who don't listen.

Yep, exactly.

This thread is starting to taste like a second-rate drama. All right, for those of you who can't understand the ending and the Reapers' back story either because its too deep or you simply refuse to understand because you don't like heroic ends, let me explain.

The Catalyst is an ancient AI of unknown origins, older than the Reapers themselves, who are at least 37 million years old. The Catalyst was probably like the Geth; betrayed by its creators after it achieved sentience, but unlike the Geth, wiped them out. At this point, it perceived a vicious cycle: advanced organic civilizations would create synthetic life, who would achieve sentience, at which point either the creator or the created would turn on the other, and wipe it out. The Catalyst sought to end this cycle (probably in regret over its destruction of its own creators) by putting in place another cycle: the Cycle of Extinction. Advanced organic civilizations would be harvested before they could create synthetic life, their gestalt racial consciousness preserved in immortal Reaper bodies, while primitive organic civilizations would be left alone, to grow and flourish, only to be harvested in their turn. It's a horrifying solution, but ideal, since the life as a whole is preserved. For some reason, the Catalyst decided not to inform the Reapers of its existence, and never directly took part in the Cycle by simply observing things from the Citadel.

When Commander Shepard arrived at the Crucible's energy matrix, the Catalyst saw a chance to end both Cycles at once. The Crucible offered new possibilities, but the Catalyst was either incapable of controlling the Catalyst, or IMO, decided to let Shepard, who had defeated its creations, choose the new solution:

1) Destroy: Shepard can destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life, ending the Cycle of Extinction, but restoring the previous Cycle of Organic-Synthetic Conflicts.
2) Control: Shepard can replace the Catalyst and choose to either continue the Cycle of Extinction, or stop it and use the Reapers for another purpose.
3) Synthesis: Shepard can sacrifice himself to give the Crucible the ability to fuse organics and synthetics into a new form of life - technological singularity - and end both cycles at once.

In Control, the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network survive, though the latter is disabled.

In Destroy and Synthesis, the both the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network are destroyed. Note that this not necessarily mean supernova-like explosions like in Arrival. The Relays expended their energies by transmitting the Crucible's energy and just simply collapsed from the strain. With the Relays and the Reapers gone, life and civilization can start anew, free of both the Reapers' technological trap and the Reapers themselves, and in the case of Synthesis, of the original organic-sythetic dichotomy.

Now, some of you will say: organics and synthetics can co-exist, like the Geth and the Quarians. No, that is not a guarantee. Even Shepard has certain decisions to make even before Mass Effect 3 to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth. The Catalyst saw no guarantees, therefore, it took a prudent course of action that would ensure that synthetics would never be given the chance to destroy organic life by making sure they never came into existence in the first place. Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.

Tadashi wrote:Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.

Though this did feel a little like a cop-out ... how could synthesis prevent the rise of a new purely synthetic lifeform later on?

Unless, of course, the hybrid form comes with certain perks that ensure its supremacy. Greater adaptability to adverse ecological conditions, integrated nanobot auto-repair and mind-powered remote control might do a lot to increase survivability. Still taking a chance, but Shep has proven that there can be no certainty either way, so the Catalyst may as well go with the flow and do its best to help give organics an edge...

I wonder if the writers will explain on the specifics of the various options in the DLC (or beyond) or whether it will remain open for interpretation. There's certainly room for a lot of wild theories.

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.

Though this did feel a little like a cop-out ... how could synthesis prevent the rise of a new purely synthetic lifeform later on?

Unless, of course, the hybrid form comes with certain perks that ensure its supremacy. Greater adaptability to adverse ecological conditions, integrated nanobot auto-repair and mind-powered remote control might do a lot to increase survivability. Still taking a chance, but Shep has proven that there can be no certainty either way, so the Catalyst may as well go with the flow and do its best to help give organics an edge...

The strengths of both, but the weaknesses of neither. It doesn't mean there won't be problems, but the problems of the previous purely organic and purely synthetic are all but completely solved. The three you mentioned would help, but as I've said before, the Catalyst isn't a god, and neither is Shepard. They did their best, and their goal wasn't perfection or to solve everything in any case. Shepard wanted to stop the Reapers, and the Catalyst wanted to preserve life in the long run.

I wonder if the writers will explain on the specifics of the various options in the DLC (or beyond) or whether it will remain open for interpretation. There's certainly room for a lot of wild theories.

A good DLC series would be one for every ending. A DLC-specific set of missions and scenes will be unlocked if you chose synthesis, control, or destroy respectively.

Tadashi wrote:This thread is starting to taste like a second-rate drama. All right, for those of you who can't understand the ending and the Reapers' back story either because its too deep or you simply refuse to understand because you don't like heroic ends, let me explain.

The Catalyst is an ancient AI of unknown origins, older than the Reapers themselves, who are at least 37 million years old. The Catalyst was probably like the Geth; betrayed by its creators after it achieved sentience, but unlike the Geth, wiped them out. At this point, it perceived a vicious cycle: advanced organic civilizations would create synthetic life, who would achieve sentience, at which point either the creator or the created would turn on the other, and wipe it out. The Catalyst sought to end this cycle (probably in regret over its destruction of its own creators) by putting in place another cycle: the Cycle of Extinction. Advanced organic civilizations would be harvested before they could create synthetic life, their gestalt racial consciousness preserved in immortal Reaper bodies, while primitive organic civilizations would be left alone, to grow and flourish, only to be harvested in their turn. It's a horrifying solution, but ideal, since the life as a whole is preserved. For some reason, the Catalyst decided not to inform the Reapers of its existence, and never directly took part in the Cycle by simply observing things from the Citadel.

When Commander Shepard arrived at the Crucible's energy matrix, the Catalyst saw a chance to end both Cycles at once. The Crucible offered new possibilities, but the Catalyst was either incapable of controlling the Catalyst, or IMO, decided to let Shepard, who had defeated its creations, choose the new solution:

1) Destroy: Shepard can destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life, ending the Cycle of Extinction, but restoring the previous Cycle of Organic-Synthetic Conflicts.
2) Control: Shepard can replace the Catalyst and choose to either continue the Cycle of Extinction, or stop it and use the Reapers for another purpose.
3) Synthesis: Shepard can sacrifice himself to give the Crucible the ability to fuse organics and synthetics into a new form of life - technological singularity - and end both cycles at once.

In Control, the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network survive, though the latter is disabled.

In Destroy and Synthesis, the both the Citadel and the Mass Relay Network are destroyed. Note that this not necessarily mean supernova-like explosions like in Arrival. The Relays expended their energies by transmitting the Crucible's energy and just simply collapsed from the strain. With the Relays and the Reapers gone, life and civilization can start anew, free of both the Reapers' technological trap and the Reapers themselves, and in the case of Synthesis, of the original organic-sythetic dichotomy.

Now, some of you will say: organics and synthetics can co-exist, like the Geth and the Quarians. No, that is not a guarantee. Even Shepard has certain decisions to make even before Mass Effect 3 to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth. The Catalyst saw no guarantees, therefore, it took a prudent course of action that would ensure that synthetics would never be given the chance to destroy organic life by making sure they never came into existence in the first place. Only Synthesis offers a guarantee, since both organics and synthetics become one.

Oh wow, this is rich.

"All of you who say the Mass Effect ending sucks - you just don't understand"

After a writer who helped make Mass Effect came out and said there were problems and nobody consulted them on the ending.

Its just mind boggling how you can be this much of a Biodrone. Bioware is one of my favorite developers of all time, but its clear EA controls them fully now.

If you don't like it, then don't play it.

Tadashi wrote:If you don't like it, then don't play it. Don't tell people who understand and like the ending as it is that they're wrong just because Shepard is indoctrinated when its obvious he's not.

When did I say this?

The vast amount of plot holes than I and others have pointed out in past threads where the word "Effect" was spelled correctly are everywhere.

You can go ahead and like the ending if you want. I'm just telling you that the people who made it don't like it and that EA fethed everything up.

I'm really not sure why I'm still posting in these threads. I loved the Mass Effect series so much, but even I can look past my love for the games and see that Mass Effect 3 was rushed, and it suffered for it.

Karon wrote:After a writer who helped make Mass Effect came out and said there were problems and nobody consulted them on the ending.

You mean the forum post on Penny Arcade allegedly written by Patrick Weekes, which was then labeled as a fake?

Karon wrote:The vast amount of plot holes than I and others have pointed out in past threads where the word "Effect" was spelled correctly are everywhere.

Didn't we debunk the majority of these plot holes as people simply not paying attention? Like all those people wondering how the Normandy is suddenly in the midst of a jump and calling that a plot hole, when you can hear the evacuation order being broadcasted as you approach the beam.

Karon wrote:You can go ahead and like the ending if you want.

Well, that sounds a lot better than the previous posts.

Lynata wrote:

Karon wrote:After a writer who helped make Mass Effect came out and said there were problems and nobody consulted them on the ending.

You mean the forum post on Penny Arcade allegedly written by Patrick Weekes, which was then labeled as a fake?

Karon wrote:The vast amount of plot holes than I and others have pointed out in past threads where the word "Effect" was spelled correctly are everywhere.

Didn't we debunk the majority of these plot holes as people simply not paying attention? Like all those people wondering how the Normandy is suddenly in the midst of a jump and calling that a plot hole, when you can hear the evacuation order being broadcasted as you approach the beam.

Karon wrote:You can go ahead and like the ending if you want.

Well, that sounds a lot better than the previous posts.

Yeah, because, you know, he would totally tell his boss he did write it and not just tell him it was fake after getting that huge monkey off his back.

No, we didn't debunk any plotholes as "not paying attention". Not that I'm aware of.

Tadashi wrote:If you don't like it, then don't play it.

If you have invested the time and effort into the game(s), you have every right to not like it and voice that dislike, just as you have every right to say you liked it.

Don't tell people who understand and like the ending as it is that they're wrong just because Shepard is indoctrinated when its obvious he's not.

Don't tell people who have a different understanding of what happened in the ending and don't like it that they are wrong just becuase you don't think Shepard isn't indoctrinated when it is entirely possible that (s)he is.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you don't like it, then don't play it.

If you have invested the time and effort into the game(s), you have every right to not like it and voice that dislike, just as you have every right to say you liked it.

Don't tell people who understand and like the ending as it is that they're wrong just because Shepard is indoctrinated when its obvious he's not.

Don't tell people who have a different understanding of what happened in the ending and don't like it that they are wrong just becuase you don't think Shepard isn't indoctrinated when it is entirely possible that (s)he is.

See above...fixed.

Karon wrote:Yeah, because, you know, he would totally tell his boss he did write it and not just tell him it was fake after getting that huge monkey off his back.

I'd expect someone who works in this position and is supposedly not trying to get fired not to post something like that in a first place, on an account that is allegedly known to be his. That'd just be a dumb thing to do, wouldn't you say?

On the other hand, it's fairly easy for some anon to make an account somewhere on the internet and just claim stuff. So what are we going to believe - a random outsourced forum account whose origin cannot be confirmed, or an official BioWare posting? Of course there will always be "conspiracy theories", and given corporate tactics these days (which have taken hold in the gaming industry as well) they are not entirely without merit, but I think we can agree that there is some controversy regarding this statement.

Karon wrote:No, we didn't debunk any plotholes as "not paying attention". Not that I'm aware of.

Right, I just checked the old thread and we discussed other stuff, the discussion I was remembering must've taken place on BSN. Still, if you'd like to discuss supposed plot holes, I'd be up for it.

SilverMK2 wrote:If you have invested the time and effort into the game(s), you have every right to not like it and voice that dislike, just as you have every right to say you liked it.

I agree there. Personally, I'm just tired of a lot of the haters posting stuff that just isn't true or heavily biased, or going so far as to claim that anyone who likes it is "wrong" to do so, as has happened on dakka too. As I said, there's a big difference between mere "dislike" and the shitstorm that has been going on about ME3.

As for the stuff that isn't true (like the aforementioned escape of the Normandy or the Relays supposedly destroying the entire galaxy) I retain some sliver of hope that some people have just picked it up and are parroting it, though, as in that case we could have a discussion about what actually happened. A number of gamers seem to have missed elements of what's happened in the story, so part of their rage may be based on misconception.

This is an interesting new aproach:




Cant say I agree with everything, the explanation of "synthesis" doesn't quite do it for me but interesting none the less.

The ending was bad, no closure, my Alien Girlfriend stuck on a planet with two other guys, and my star pilot ran away from the battle like a coward.

Funny how everyone just screws over Shepard as the end isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0Cf864P7E&feature=channel&list=UL

Alexzandvar wrote:and my star pilot ran away from the battle like a coward.

In fairness, everyone thought you were dead and Alliance Command ordered a retreat. What was he supposed to do - come stumbling out of the ship to look for a charred corpse at the feet of a Reaper Destroyer that basically one-shotted an entire battalion of elite troops?

Lynata wrote:In fairness, everyone thought you were dead

Really? The whole catalyst triggering didn't give them a hint you might be alive?

and Alliance Command ordered a retreat.

I must have missed this the 3 times I played through the ending (and the 3 times I watched my wife play through the ending)...

What was he supposed to do - come stumbling out of the ship to look for a charred corpse at the feet of a Reaper Destroyer that basically one-shotted an entire battalion of elite troops?

Well, it had either been red, green or blue explosioned, so would have been safe to approach... oh, wait, he wasn't there! At some point in the, what? 3-5 minutes it took for you to get shot by the Reaper and go on to choose your colour explosion the Normandy as picked up all your crewmates and buggered off to the other side of the galaxy?