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.
SilverMK2 wrote:Really? The whole catalyst triggering didn't give them a hint you might be alive?
The stuff that happened as the Normandy was already jumping to safety?
SilverMK2 wrote:I must have missed this the 3 times I played through the ending (and the 3 times I watched my wife play through the ending)...
It's the radio chatter you hear in the background as you stumble towards the beam. Officers reporting in how the entire division was wiped out, no one is left alive, then somebody orders a general retreat to regroup.
SilverMK2 wrote:At some point in the, what? 3-5 minutes it took for you to get shot by the Reaper and go on to choose your colour explosion the Normandy as picked up all your crewmates and buggered off to the other side of the galaxy?
Well, that's how it must have been.
Looks like they changed it, tho. The Normandy was partaking in orbital action, assisting the allied fleet in battling the Reapers. Whoever was on the ground was supposed to die, including your two companions:
It was eventually cut to allow the people you picked to escape. Makes a little less sense given the narrow timeframe you mentioned, but I for one still prefer the current version - my Shep can die (it's a fitting end), but I'm glad that Liara and Garrus made it.
I'm sure people would have raged even more if their LI would have died in front of the beam tho.
Lynata wrote:It's the radio chatter you hear in the background as you stumble towards the beam. Officers reporting in how the entire division was wiped out, no one is left alive, then somebody orders a general retreat to regroup.
See, I assumed that was the ground forces calling a general retreat, not the space forces.
It was eventually cut to allow the people you picked to escape. Makes a little less sense given the narrow timeframe you mentioned, but I for one still prefer the current version - my Shep can die (it's a fitting end), but I'm glad that Liara and Garrus made it.
I have no problem dying, or even the love interest/other crewmembers dying but the ending as is (ie without bits they "may have meant to put in but changed their minds" - I've not looked at the video as I am doing some work and just came on to check the forum for 5 minutes ) the ending just... well... doesn't make much sense
I'm sure people would have raged even more if their LI would have died in front of the beam tho.
I think that people would have been OK with people dying as long as it was done well. For example, many of the crewmember deaths in ME 2 were kind of like "we are fighting and have just won... oh, apparently a completely uninjured crewmate randomly dies underneath a girder for no real reason"
SilverMK2 wrote:See, I assumed that was the ground forces calling a general retreat, not the space forces.
Ah - admittedly, it leave some room for interpretation. My assumption is based on there being no safe zone on Earth to regroup at anymore, if there are actually ground forces left to regroup. I thought they sent pretty much everything to the beam; a big "all or nothing" move...
SilverMK2 wrote:I have no problem dying, or even the love interest/other crewmembers dying but the ending as is (ie without bits they "may have meant to put in but changed their minds" - I've not looked at the video as I am doing some work and just came on to check the forum for 5 minutes ) the ending just... well... doesn't make much sense
What exactly? Maybe I can put sense into it.
Unless you're referring solely to personal preferences now and just didn't like the style of it. There's no accounting for taste! But since I'm still convinced that in itself the ending is not "unlogical", perhaps we can exchange a few points on that subject.
SilverMK2 wrote:I think that people would have been OK with people dying as long as it was done well.
I dunno ... the majority of the folks at BSN vehemently campaign for a "Disney ending" where none of the important people should die. I thought that Shep's death was pretty awesome. A fitting end for a big damn hero.
At least in the Destroy ending. Not sure about the others, they strike me as somewhat "less badass".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/11 19:49:14
Lynata wrote:Ah - admittedly, it leave some room for interpretation.
I think that is the problem with a lot of the ending as-is. The interpretations that, from what I have seen, the "ending is ok/good" people seem to have are not ones that I would have leaped to.
What exactly? Maybe I can put sense into it.
I've read the various explanations and I am still not convinced by the majority of the explanations which are put about by those who thought the starchild/etc/etc were good
Unless you're referring solely to personal preferences now and just didn't like the style of it. There's no accounting for taste! But since I'm still convinced that in itself the ending is not "unlogical", perhaps we can exchange a few points on that subject.
Well, the style was a little poor - from so much action you go to a slower bit with the IM and Anderson... that is fine - the part with Anderson at the end was actually pretty moving (for me and the wife when we played it) and to be honest the game could pretty much have ended there, perhaps with a few extra little bits in when Shep goes for the console based on how well you had done and the choices you had made.
Then the whole thing shifts gear into some surreal dimension that doesn't really make a lot of sense and gives me some pretty limited choices that I personally didn't feel my Shep would have made (certainly not with the gak explanation you get ).
I dunno ... the majority of the folks at BSN vehemently campaign for a "Disney ending" where none of the important people should die.
Oh, I know and there is certainly room for a disney ending to some extent - maybe even as an "extra" unlocked through playing the game.
I thought that Shep's death was pretty awesome. A fitting end for a big damn hero.
At least in the Destroy ending. Not sure about the others, they strike me as somewhat "less badass".
As I say, I was quite happy (well, maybe not entirely happy as I would like to have seen Shep make it other than in the 100% readiness ending) for Shep to lay down his/her life to save the galaxy, as well as the other characters (so long as they were done well and didn't just die).
SilverMK2 wrote:I've read the various explanations and I am still not convinced by the majority of the explanations which are put about by those who thought the starchild/etc/etc were good
I didn't really like the Catalyst for reasons of style, but I would not say that it "didn't make any sense".
And people need to stop calling it "Starchild" - gawds, you know, there are actually gamers out there who were confused by the Catalyst's appearance and thought it'd be the ghost of the kid from Earth...
SilverMK2 wrote:some pretty limited choices that I personally didn't feel my Shep would have made (certainly not with the gak explanation you get )
Well, what would your Shep have done? What choice had he made? Try shooting at the Catalyst's holographic projection? Running to the nearest escape pod? Sitting down into a corner?
Like in any of the previous games, Shep was presented with a limited range of options and chose the best one. Shep is no omnipotent divine being that can just conjure solutions out of thin air; he/she can only work with whatever is available at the moment. And yeah, for the Crucible, this simply meant "red, green or blue". Alternatively, you can just wait and see what happens when the invisible timer runs out.
Lynata wrote:[
Didn't we debunk the majority of these plot holes as people simply not paying attention? Like all those people wondering how the Normandy is suddenly in the midst of a jump and calling that a plot hole, when you can hear the evacuation order being broadcasted as you approach the beam.
That is incorrect. Major Coats orders the GROUND forces to fall back and regroup in an attempt to launch a second strike. The Major has no authority over the navel forces and could not order the navy to do anything even if he wanted too.
You can see at the end when you choose that the fighting in space is still going on full swing.
Also the only for for Anderson to have made it was if the ground forces launched a second attack as is implied when he says he followed Shep. in.
There was no reason for the Normandy to have left especially sense it is made clear that it is do or die, you arnt going to have a second chance at this, no one is going to retreat into the mass relay. It makes even LESS sense for my companions to be on the Normandy, especially Ashley and James (for me) who were both right next to me at the end battle
Galdos wrote:That is incorrect. Major Coats orders the GROUND forces to fall back and regroup in an attempt to launch a second strike. The Major has no authority over the navel forces and could not order the navy to do anything even if he wanted too.
There's a female voice after the Major, who seems to have more authority (since she had him report in). Aside from that, sometimes you can have lower-ranking officers relay orders from elsewhere - either because they are empowered to make the call (unlikely in this case) or because someone else gave the order and they are simply passing it on to whatever is under their command.
Female: "Did we get anyone to the beam?"
Male (Coats?): "Negative. Our entire force was decimated."
Male (Coats?): "It's too much. We need to regroup. Fall back to the buildings..."
Female: "Hammer's wiped out. All forces, retreat."
Female: "Pull back! Pull back!"
Galdos wrote:You can see at the end when you choose that the fighting in space is still going on full swing.
Galdos wrote:Also the only for for Anderson to have made it was if the ground forces launched a second attack as is implied when he says he followed Shep. in.
Anderson seems to have tumbled in because he just happened to be at the scene anyways; I'm sure he would have brought other troops with him if there was someone else.
Galdos wrote:There was no reason for the Normandy to have left especially sense it is made clear that it is do or die, you arnt going to have a second chance at this, no one is going to retreat into the mass relay.
The Normandy isn't part of Hammer, therefore she cannot partake in the ground assault. And once Hammer was destroyed, Earth was lost. Staying behind and waiting to get shot down by the Reapers would have just been a waste of lives. They didn't know Shep was still there, after all.
As far as I'm interpreting it, the allied forces saw they had no chance and were trying to flee in the hopes of regrouping elsewhere - not that they'd have gotten another chance later on, unless they wanted to pull a "Battlestar Galactica". Still, I assume this order was largely influenced by people panicking and not knowing what else they could've done. There really were only two options: Stay, fight and die for nothing ... or retreat and delay any thoughts about a Plan B until such time when the remaining forces are out of danger.
Galdos wrote:It makes even LESS sense for my companions to be on the Normandy, especially Ashley and James (for me) who were both right next to me at the end battle
That one is (partially) true. The companions weren't exactly right next to you in the final leg, as they are - for whatever reason - missing as you run towards the beam. It's weird to have them remain behind, although it doesn't take much to come up with some BS excuse (being required to operate some console in the back, their APC breaking down, them being cut off and delayed by Reapers trying to flank you ...) to make it "okay". All that's needed then is that they get evacuated by the fleet, possibly together with Coats (though not necessarily on the same ship).
There, I made sense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/11 22:44:42
Thanks for the dialog quote, it helps. The first part of your response seems more focused on the ground fighting. Not navel retreat.
Second part was a good response. That is entirelly possible but the issue is only that now is when the Reapers are most vulnerable, their forces are divided between Earth and space, if the Allied Navy doesnt push they have just assured defeat, (especially sense they would loose the Cruicible)
Hammer was decimated yes but All of hammer wasnt at the battle, they mention before the battle they have a few units that are still enroute that wont make it in time for the battle. Actually it would make sense for them to hold reserves back. Its a common military tactic to not through everything in at the same exact time at the same exact space to prevent the very thing that happened to happen. The other reason is that a vulnerablity can show itself else where that if the reserves hit it they can turn the tide. However that is modern day real miltiary tactics, if the game didnt include that its not a big deal, the game wasnt written by military officers after all lol.
Retreat from the battle assures the war is lost. The allied armies committed everything, if they lose the Crucible the war is lost. Everyone knows this, that is why they make a big deal that everyone will fight to the death, that no one is going to retreat because retreat assures defeat and destruction. The only thing that matters is the Crucible, no matter what the casulties, everyone had to be willing to sacfice themselves.
Dont get me a wrong, a lot of the "plot holes" are very easy fixes like this one here. Your response would fix the issue just fine, the problem is that it doesnt make sense. However if the DLC comes out and says "ya that is what is going on" than problem is solved.
Another pic which I think sums up the ending pretty well:
Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:All I can say is... thank you vodo40k...
Zweischneid wrote:No way man. A Space Marine in itself is scary. But a Marine WITHOUT helmet wears at least 3-times as much plot-armour as a Marine with helmet. And heaven forbid if the Marine would also happen to have an intimidating looking, vertical scar. Then you're surly boned. Those guys are the worst. Not a chance I'd say.
You're exaggerating. It's not like Shepard met the Catalyst before. The Catalyst just took the form of a Human child because it was a form Shepard would be comfortable with. The image's connection with his/her dreams is just coincidence. As for the rest, I've already discussed the background of the endings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galdos wrote:
Hammer was decimated yes but All of hammer wasnt at the battle, they mention before the battle they have a few units that are still enroute that wont make it in time for the battle. Actually it would make sense for them to hold reserves back. Its a common military tactic to not through everything in at the same exact time at the same exact space to prevent the very thing that happened to happen. The other reason is that a vulnerablity can show itself else where that if the reserves hit it they can turn the tide. However that is modern day real miltiary tactics, if the game didnt include that its not a big deal, the game wasnt written by military officers after all lol.
Reserves are meaningless in this case though. If the Crucible didn't work, the current cycle would be like the last days of the Prothean Empire, a futile last stand against an unstoppable enemy.
Retreat from the battle assures the war is lost. The allied armies committed everything, if they lose the Crucible the war is lost. Everyone knows this, that is why they make a big deal that everyone will fight to the death, that no one is going to retreat because retreat assures defeat and destruction. The only thing that matters is the Crucible, no matter what the casulties, everyone had to be willing to sacfice themselves.
My take is that the Shield and the Sword stayed behind with whatever remaining battle-ready ships to hold the Crucible. Hackett probably knew better to assume Shepard had died in Harbinger's attack, and suspected/hoped he/she was still alive and on the Crucible. The Normandy and whatever ships incapable of fighting were ordered to retreat with any surviving ground troops. Which would explain why they were in the middle of a relay jump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/12 09:38:18
I should have left him there. He had served his purpose. He owed me nothing - yet he gave himself to me willingly. Why? I know not. He is nothing more than a pathetic human. An inferior race. A mon-keigh. But still I broke off my wings so that I might carry him easier. I took him from that place, into the snowstorm where our tracks will not be found. He is heavy. And he is dying. And he is slowing me down. But I will save him. Why? I know not. He is still warm. I can feel his blood ebbing across me. For every beat of his heart, another, slight spill of heat. The heat blows away on the winter wind. His blood is still warm. But fading. And I have spilled scarlet myself. The snow laps greedily at our footsteps and our lifeblood, covering them without a trace as we fade away.
'She sat on the corner, gulping the soup down, uncaring of the heat of it. They had grown more watery as of late she noted, but she wasn't about to beggar food from the Imperials or the "Bearers of the Word." Tau, despite their faults at least didn't have a kill policy for her race.'
I was going to reply and than I saw you said "My take" and deleted my entire reply. If thats how you want to see the ending thats fine. (im actually serious)
Personally I find it pretty awful but if it doesnt bother you I wish I was more like you lol
So, the question is begged - how/why did shep see the starchild right at the start? Or did the starchild take the form of the 'actual' child (that it seemed no one other than shep could see at the start of the game) who was killed in the flier? Did it somehow reading shep's mind?
Personally, as much as people want to argue that the ending as is made sense, to me it did not. While the company have said that the indoctrination theory is not correct, it certainly covers the story a hell of a lot better than many of the suggestions supporting the (to me) less sensible ending subscribed to by a couple of people in this thread (and they can certainly put over their points well and have caused me to think over the game/ending again, albeit coming to the same conclusion).
Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 13:25:44
I should have left him there. He had served his purpose. He owed me nothing - yet he gave himself to me willingly. Why? I know not. He is nothing more than a pathetic human. An inferior race. A mon-keigh. But still I broke off my wings so that I might carry him easier. I took him from that place, into the snowstorm where our tracks will not be found. He is heavy. And he is dying. And he is slowing me down. But I will save him. Why? I know not. He is still warm. I can feel his blood ebbing across me. For every beat of his heart, another, slight spill of heat. The heat blows away on the winter wind. His blood is still warm. But fading. And I have spilled scarlet myself. The snow laps greedily at our footsteps and our lifeblood, covering them without a trace as we fade away.
'She sat on the corner, gulping the soup down, uncaring of the heat of it. They had grown more watery as of late she noted, but she wasn't about to beggar food from the Imperials or the "Bearers of the Word." Tau, despite their faults at least didn't have a kill policy for her race.'
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
You have no idea if that is true.
On the contrary, since Indoctrination is out of the question, why can it not be true?
I should have left him there. He had served his purpose. He owed me nothing - yet he gave himself to me willingly. Why? I know not. He is nothing more than a pathetic human. An inferior race. A mon-keigh. But still I broke off my wings so that I might carry him easier. I took him from that place, into the snowstorm where our tracks will not be found. He is heavy. And he is dying. And he is slowing me down. But I will save him. Why? I know not. He is still warm. I can feel his blood ebbing across me. For every beat of his heart, another, slight spill of heat. The heat blows away on the winter wind. His blood is still warm. But fading. And I have spilled scarlet myself. The snow laps greedily at our footsteps and our lifeblood, covering them without a trace as we fade away.
'She sat on the corner, gulping the soup down, uncaring of the heat of it. They had grown more watery as of late she noted, but she wasn't about to beggar food from the Imperials or the "Bearers of the Word." Tau, despite their faults at least didn't have a kill policy for her race.'
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
You have no idea if that is true.
Yes, we actually do.
The Catalyst as much says it.
Unless you're suggesting that the Catalyst was present on Earth in a physical form before the Reapers attacked.
Tadashi wrote:Coincidence. The Catalyst was projecting an image Shepard would be comfortable with, predicted by analyzing the bio-electric thought patterns of Shepard's brain.
You have no idea if that is true.
On the contrary, since Indoctrination is out of the question, why can it not be true?
Awfully funny form to take.
You know, being that kid Shepard dreams about and focuses all her grief and insecurity around.
I'd be more inclined to, you know, freak out that his thing is accessing my subconscious mind rather than blindly go along with what it says, and this is ignoring the fact that it's the enemy and that it speaks a load of sh*t (synthetics wiping out all organics).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote:
iproxtaco wrote:The Catalyst's order is imposed due to an unproven hypothesis.
I wouldn't call it "unproven" given what is hinted at having led to the creation of the Cycles.
I would, you know, because it hasn't ever been proven.
And sure, one might challenge the Catalyst's conclusion, given that it's still just a "maybe" and no certainty.
Not according to the serpent. It's an inevitability.
But that doesn't change that it's a risk that can be avoided.
We should kill every human on the planet then.
To avoid a planet-destroying nuclear war.
Because that's the line of reasoning you're subscribing to, appealing to probability, which is a flawed line of reasoning. That is of course assuming that it is a risk, or a risk more important than any other potential risk. Not having any proof puts it pretty low on a list of concerns I might have.
The Cycles ensure the continued existence of life itself. Breaking the Cycles means that the current species will be allowed to flourish. On the other hand, if in a thousand or ten thousand years there's a synthetic race committing galactic genocide, it'll be on Shep's hands now.
Life still exists in 10,000 years as evidenced by the stargazer scene, even if you choose destroy. So it seems the odds are looking good.
iproxtaco wrote:Shepard, as in the Shepard I've been roleplaying for the past ninety hours, would not do that.
lol - as opposed to what, exactly? Sitting in a corner, sulking?
Shep was presented with a couple of options and picked the one he/she thought was best. Just as it happened throughout all three Mass Effect games. This ain't no sandbox universe; you are and have always been playing along a pre-defined arc. The options presented at the end of ME3 are actually a whole lot more freedom than you had in any of the other games before, keeping their repercussions in mind.
How about challenge the plot-breaking idiocy of it?
Like synthesis?
Or control?
Or the Catalyst's stupid problem?
Or the existence of the Catalyst itself?
Or why it should trust the Reapers?
Or just, I dunno, go down fighting? Or not go down fighting and beat the sh*t out of the Reapers with that massive fleet you gathered?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 16:00:44
iproxtaco wrote:Awfully funny form to take.
You know, being that kid Shepard dreams about and focuses all her grief and insecurity around.
Exactly, grief and insecurity. Shouldn't be hard to guess why the Catalyst did that.
I suppose it may well have showed up as Shep's mother. Or his/her LI. But that might only have made Shep angry rather than thoughtful.
iproxtaco wrote:I would, you know, because it hasn't ever been proven.
I'm argueing versus people citing their precious Geth-Quarian-Peace as "proof" that synthetics won't ever wipe out organics. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, though the following sentence should have made that obvious.
iproxtaco wrote:Not according to the serpent. It's an inevitability.
And that's why Shep argues with it.
I think that it is a rather important thing to keep in mind that the Catalyst's idea was indeed a lot safer for the basic principle of life than a "laissez-faire" approach. The game's ending is about taking the greater risk to harvest life's fruit instead of allowing life to be harvested. Rather philosophical, but that's part of why I like it.
iproxtaco wrote:We should kill every human on the planet then.
To avoid a planet-destroying nuclear war.
Because that's the line of reasoning you're subscribing to, appealing to probability, which is a flawed line of reasoning.
Where did I say I'm subscribing to this line of reasoning? I acknowledge that it would be a lot safer for the planet. Do you really doubt that? I'm not argueing it should be done. I picked the Destroy ending, remember?
Understanding =/= Agreeing
iproxtaco wrote:Life still exists in 10,000 years as evidenced by the stargazer scene, even if you choose destroy. So it seems the odds are looking good.
In this case, odds don't increase with time. All it takes is a combination of events: availability of technology, the resources to build it, and the willingness to use it.
iproxtaco wrote:How about challenge the plot-breaking idiocy of it?
Like synthesis?
Or control?
Or the Catalyst's stupid problem?
Or the existence of the Catalyst itself?
Or why it should trust the Reapers?
Or just, I dunno, go down fighting? Or not go down fighting and beat the sh*t out of the Reapers with that massive fleet you gathered?
It almost sounds as if you didn't play the ending at all. Shep did challenge the Catalyst - though it didn't take much, given that it was willing to look for "another solution" anyways now that Shep's presence on the Citadel has proven the fallibility of its calculations.
How did Synthesis or Control "break the plot"?
And, pray tell, what would you have fought? Would your Shep have tried shooting the Catalyst's hologram? Kick the walls? There was nothing to fight. Though I suppose one could make the argument that "Destroy" was an act of fighting.
Also, evidently the fleet wasn't able to do much against the Reapers. It's why everyone was banking on the Crucible, in case you missed this, too.
Again: You are quite free to complain about the style of the ending not suiting your tastes, but arguments like these in a vain attempt to ridicule the ending as "plot-breaking idiocy" just don't work, as they are easily deconstructed by simply paying attention to what actually happened.
iproxtaco wrote:Awfully funny form to take.
You know, being that kid Shepard dreams about and focuses all her grief and insecurity around.
Exactly, grief and insecurity. Shouldn't be hard to guess why the Catalyst did that.
I suppose it may well have showed up as Shep's mother. Or his/her LI. But that might only have made Shep angry rather than thoughtful.
It's not a good thing. It makes me even more dubious about the sincerity or truth of its words. No, I don't believe in the Indoctrination Theory, the number of straws being grasped there is phenomenal, nor do I believe that it's outright lying to me.
But I have enough justification not to blindly trust everything it says.
iproxtaco wrote:I would, you know, because it hasn't ever been proven.
I'm argueing versus people citing their precious Geth-Quarian-Peace as "proof" that synthetics won't ever wipe out organics. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, though the following sentence should have made that obvious.
It's not proof either way.
iproxtaco wrote:Not according to the serpent. It's an inevitability.
And that's why Shep argues with it.
By saying 'Maybe'.
Oh wow, I can tell Shepard was full of conviction and doubt there.
I think that it is a rather important thing to keep in mind that the Catalyst's idea was indeed a lot safer for the basic principle of life than a "laissez-faire" approach. The game's ending is about taking the greater risk to harvest life's fruit instead of allowing life to be harvested. Rather philosophical, but that's part of why I like it.
Interesting, but it still doesn't stop it from being contradictory and illogical bullsh*t that experienced writers like the BioWare team shouldn't have put in their work of fiction.
iproxtaco wrote:We should kill every human on the planet then.
To avoid a planet-destroying nuclear war.
Because that's the line of reasoning you're subscribing to, appealing to probability, which is a flawed line of reasoning.
Where did I say I'm subscribing to this line of reasoning? I acknowledge that it would be a lot safer for the planet. Do you really doubt that? I'm not argueing it should be done. I picked the Destroy ending, remember?
Understanding =/= Agreeing
You're still subscribing to it. You understand the Catalyst and somewhat agree from the looks of it, at least see it as a valid thing to add to the plot for whatever reason.
That's the line of reasoning being used. It's a possibility, therefore we should be preemptively stop it from ever happening. Hence the analogy.
All it takes is a combination of events: availability of technology, the resources to build it, and the willingness to use it.
That's virtually a non-point.
All it takes for me to be accepted to a five-year honors program to study Chemical Engineering is an 'A' at Higher Maths. There are so many other things to consider that it's not worth thinking about. Synthetic life, right now, does not have the technology, the resources, or the inclination. Why should I assume they ever will?
It almost sounds as if you didn't play the ending at all. Shep did challenge the Catalyst - though it didn't take much, given that it was willing to look for "another solution" anyways now that Shep's presence on the Citadel has proven the fallibility of its calculations.
If by challenge you mean "say a few irrelevant words now and again" then you'd be right.
But she certainly didn't actually challenge any of those points, as in, point out the stupidity of it all.
How did Synthesis or Control "break the plot"?
Synthesis, by being offered and being stupid. Diversity? Bah, you can't coexist with synthetic life, so let's make everyone the same despite having no thematic build-up to it ever being a part of the plot. Lets up-turn the foundations of life in its entirety on the words of the Reapers, and let them decide the specifics.
Control, by being offered and being stupid. There's a massive paragraph I could write about it being a massive contradiction to the purpose of the narrative, but I think how disconnected it all is can be encapsulated by Shepard's own words.
"So the Illusive Man was right all along." That's after having shot him for wanting to control the Reapers.
It's also you trusting the Reapers to let you control them..... by grabbing those rods no one told you to grab.
I hate destroy as much, don't get me wrong on that.
And, pray tell, what would you have fought? Would your Shep have tried shooting the Catalyst's hologram? Kick the walls? There was nothing to fight. Though I suppose one could make the argument that "Destroy" was an act of fighting.
I wouldn't have had to. Shepard herself can't do much but shuffle away after telling the fleet to turn to plan B.
Also, evidently the fleet wasn't able to do much against the Reapers.
Why use the word 'evidently' when you have no evidence? The fleet comes in, starts killing Reapers, then you never see it again.
It's why everyone was banking on the Crucible, in case you missed this, too.
Oh I certainly caught that, thank you Hackett.
Again: You are quite free to complain about the style of the ending not suiting your tastes, but arguments like these in a vain attempt to ridicule the ending as "plot-breaking idiocy" just don't work, as they are easily deconstructed by simply paying attention to what actually happened.
I do pay attention, I've spent the last three months working things out, talking about them on BioWare's own forums pretty much every day. I've considered every finicky detail, every theme, every potential plot hole, every scene and line of dialogue, and judged the entirety of Priority: Earth as stupid.
You're basically saying 'it's not the concept, it's the execution'.
But it's not just the execution. That's terrible, but the concept is just as stupid. The very existence of 'synthetics wiping out all organics' as the game's central conflict is utterly moronic. That alone embodies why the ending is just bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 16:54:40
iproxtaco wrote:By saying 'Maybe'.
Oh wow, I can tell Shepard was full of conviction and doubt there.
So what was Shep supposed to say, given that you even admit that there's no proof either way?
Both sides were making assumptions here, based on nothing else but their opinion. I'm kinda at a loss about how you would go about trying to craft a good debate outta that. All it would have done is disrupt the game's flow. And there was no point to it anyways other than seeing Shep gloat over the Catalyst caving in and seeing its supposed error and apologizing and other BS like that. Is this what you wanted?
iproxtaco wrote:Interesting, but it still doesn't stop it from being contradictory and illogical bullsh*t that experienced writers like the BioWare team shouldn't have put in their work of fiction.
Explain how it was contradictory and illogical, then.
iproxtaco wrote:That's the line of reasoning being used. It's a possibility, therefore we should be preemptively stop it from ever happening. Hence the analogy.
No, you're still misunderstanding. Acknowledging that it's a possibility does not automatically mean you should preemptively stop it when the price is that high.
You don't generally disagree with preemptive measures, do you? All it comes down to is balancing the risks with the price, and this always depends on one's own PoV.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthetic life, right now, does not have the technology, the resources, or the inclination. Why should I assume they ever will?
Why are you so sure it won't?
You're still trying to bend this into a "someone must be wrong" debate. This is not how it works. It's a matter of conflicting philosophies and both sides have a point. Agreeing with one over the other doesn't mean that, objectively, the opponent's logic is flawed when it is merely different.
iproxtaco wrote:But she certainly didn't actually challenge any of those points, as in, point out the stupidity of it all.
Maybe because Shep understood the aforementioned stuff.
Forcing the Catalyst to do anything was out of the question. And the idea of persuading a being that is so infinitely more old and wise into admitting that it's been wrong for the past couple million years ... eh, if you like it, fine, but to me it just doesn't feel realistic. It would've merely led to a boring argumentative cycle going back and forth between "I think you're wrong" and "Well, I think I'm right". Kind of like how this forum thread looks like.
iproxtaco wrote:Synthesis, by being offered and being stupid. Diversity? Bah, you can't coexist with synthetic life, so let's make everyone the same despite having no thematic build-up to it ever being a part of the plot. Lets up-turn the foundations of life in its entirety on the words of the Reapers, and let them decide the specifics.
That's not breaking the plot, and neither is it stupid. "The best of both worlds" is a valid path of increasing survivability, and given that organics vs synthetics has been a major theme throughout ME it did so have a thematic build-up, especially if you managed to have the Quarians and the Geth make peace again or had Joker date EDI.
iproxtaco wrote:Control, by being offered and being stupid. There's a massive paragraph I could write about it being a massive contradiction to the purpose of the narrative, but I think how disconnected it all is can be encapsulated by Shepard's own words.
"So the Illusive Man was right all along." That's after having shot him for wanting to control the Reapers.
I think you were kinda missing the point. The Illusive Man tried to find a way to force control of the Reapers. That's not how it works, and most importantly the Illusive Man would have been the wrong guy to lead them, for obvious reasons.
iproxtaco wrote:It's also you trusting the Reapers to let you control them..... by grabbing those rods no one told you to grab.
If you assume that the Catalyst is a Reaper instead of being their creator, sure. If you think so, just don't pick this option. That's why you were given a choice.
iproxtaco wrote:I wouldn't have had to. Shepard herself can't do much but shuffle away after telling the fleet to turn to plan B.
And your Plan B is "Fire at will until you're all dead"?
Brilliant.
iproxtaco wrote:Why use the word 'evidently' when you have no evidence? The fleet comes in, starts killing Reapers, then you never see it again.
We've seen multiple times how resilient Reapers are to entire fleets concentrating their fire on them.
Also, everybody dies when you're waiting too long - and the fleet already is there and is fighting anyways, so you won't have to give any orders anyways.
It's simple. If you don't select one of the options of the Crucible, the game ends with a critical failure because Reapers.
Hackett: "There's no way we can defeat them conventionally."
iproxtaco wrote:I do pay attention, I've spent the last three months working things out, talking about them on BioWare's own forums pretty much every day. I've considered every finicky detail, every theme, every potential plot hole, every scene and line of dialogue, and judged the entirety of Priority: Earth as stupid.
See, I did the same, only approaching it from a more positive angle - not trying to ridicule it just because I didn't like its style and because it's fashionable to rage about ME3 right now, but to actually look for explanations. And I think I found them. Wasn't so hard.
iproxtaco wrote:The very existence of 'synthetics wiping out all organics' as the game's central conflict is utterly moronic. That alone embodies why the ending is just bad.
Yeah, it's not like the Mass Effect setting has a history of AIs and synthetics going rogue and trying to kill people...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/13 18:11:52
I don't like how the relays were destroyed. I just saved everybody's homeworlds, I even even retured the quarian homeworld to the quarians and made peace with the geth. But this all counts for nothing because no one can go back home. What was the point?
Ask yourself: have you rated a gallery image today?
Mr Nobody wrote:I don't like how the relays were destroyed. I just saved everybody's homeworlds, I even even retured the quarian homeworld to the quarians and made peace with the geth. But this all counts for nothing because no one can go back home. What was the point?
Well, with the quarians it's somewhat tragic indeed, given that all their people were on the same flotilla that attacked the Reapers over Earth - unless they were evacuated to Rannoch before, which is possible - depending on whether the leadership thought it smarter to risk the civilians' lives in a big space battle or on the surface without their ships. If it's the latter, they might have a hard time adapting, but we know that in the case of a peace treaty the geth actually help them build houses and cultivate farmland.
Other than that - you did save an entire galaxy of advanced civilizations from extinction. That's the point. The survivors of Sword and Shield being stuck at Earth (or elsewhere, if they were already in transit like the Normandy) doesn't change this. In fact ... who knows, depending on how the war for Earth went in your game (Earth's fate is determined by your EMS, which in turn is a result of the choices you made throughout ME1-3 as well as any multiplayer matches you might have played) it can be rebuilt, and the survivors of the fleet can settle there. You may end up with a new Earth that isn't settled just by humans but by a dozen different species, all united in victory over the Reapers, and with the remains of the Citadel floating in orbit.
That thought actually has a lot of plot potential...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/13 21:24:30
Did anyone else hate the subplot with the kid? It seemed EXTREMELY out of left field and made no sense to me. (Especially if you are a Sole Survivor, or Ruthless, I was a War Hero)
Shephard has seen WAYYY worse and lost so much more to give the rats ass about a random kid who died from an evac shuttle getting blown up. Shephard has seen civlians massacred in front of his eyes (not the vehicle they were in, the actual human bodies) ordered countless men to their deaths, seconds slow from saving a person he phyically could but failed to save, and (for some people) left one of their best friends to die on Vermire knowing that the person was going to die and he called that he/she would be the unlucky person to die.
After all THAT, this random kids causes him to have bad sleep? They should have made the image the person you left on Vermire, that would have made a Hell of a lot more sense
There are numerous real life reports of veteran soldiers developing such kind of trauma late in their career - usually because a kill happened in very close vicinity rather than at range (making it "a very personal affair", to quote Sgt. Eugene Sledge of the 1st Marine Div.) or because the dead was very young, not more than a boy (which had "sorrow and regret" pursue one Lt. Ernst Jünger of the Imperial German Army "deep into [his] dreams"). Shep just isn't a sociopath but an actual living being with feelings, whose experience with war transcends the understanding of the average gamer and his/her perception that is largely based on action movies and video games.
That said, I kinda also like the idea of the Virmire sacrifice - but I guess that (1) Shep didn't knew him/her long enough yet and (2) Shep didn't actually see them die. Not to mention that players who were new to the franchise wouldn't be able to understand it, anyways. The devs probably wanted everyone to get the idea, and for "newbs" it wouldn't have been as dramatic had they not played ME1.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 21:49:10
Id personally like to know more about the "space magic" involved, especially in the synthesis ending. I dont care what the ending sequence with joker shows, are the geth meant to magically dissolve and then combine with the magically dissolved humans, forming neat human/geth lookalikes, the only difference being glowing green circuit lines? Whats to stop the new cyborgs creating purely synthetic life? The reapers seem to be already a combination of synthetic and organic life, being independent of the catalyst (who supposedly just watches their progress) wouldn't they just continue their harvesting like before hand? In the control ending its even less clear, Shepard dissolves, the reapers leave. Is the consciousness of Shepard meant to somehow be controlling the reapers or become the new catalyst? Perhaps I wasnt paying attention to what the catalyst was saying as I was wondering why Shepard wasnt shouting at it, pointing out all the flaws in its argument or calling the fleet (who magically know hees still alive on his radio which obviously still works) telling them of the development that the ghost of a boy haunting his dreams is giving him 3 "fix the galaxy" buttons which have somehow existed on the citadel all along but now require the space magic of the crucible to activate.
Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:All I can say is... thank you vodo40k...
Zweischneid wrote:No way man. A Space Marine in itself is scary. But a Marine WITHOUT helmet wears at least 3-times as much plot-armour as a Marine with helmet. And heaven forbid if the Marine would also happen to have an intimidating looking, vertical scar. Then you're surly boned. Those guys are the worst. Not a chance I'd say.
vodo40k wrote:Id personally like to know more about the "space magic" involved, especially in the synthesis ending. I dont care what the ending sequence with joker shows, are the geth meant to magically dissolve and then combine with the magically dissolved humans, forming neat human/geth lookalikes
Judging from the Normandy crash epilogie with the "mutated" Joker and EDI, it might more be a case of synthetics and organics being "infused" with a combination of Shep's DNA and ... uh, Reaper stuff? Somehow bringing both closer together, possibly even allowing some sort of direct interfacing like an asari mindmeld.
I think the Synthesis ending is really far out into the realm of the fantastic, so I'm not sure you can even find a good explanation that holds up to close scrutiny, unless you simply accept that it's "space magic". That said, biotics are, too.
vodo40k wrote:Whats to stop the new cyborgs creating purely synthetic life?
Nothing; I've been asking the same question. But I guess that organics "enhanced" by the Synthesis are ultimately superior to pure synthetics. Maybe they can even dominate them remotely. Think of the entire population of the galaxy suddenly being biotics, just that their powers affect electronics.
vodo40k wrote:Is the consciousness of Shepard meant to somehow be controlling the reapers or become the new catalyst?
That's how the Catalyst explained it, yeah. Kind of like the ending from FallOut 2 where the player character can become the new supercomputer by "donating" his/her brain.
Shep can then lead the Reapers back into Dark Space until that time at which he/she and the Reapers are needed again. Maybe Shep could even order the Reapers to build new Relays.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 22:21:33
I was fine with the ending. My Shepard accomplished what she set out to do.
The destroy option was the only one she could pick.
To let the Reapers leave, after all the suffering they had caused? Based on the words of a machine? That's not happening.
To alter the DNA of every species in the galaxy? She knows that she isn't God.
To destroy the Reapers once and for all, at the expense of the Geth? To spit in the face of an AI who had periodically exterminated advanced life by rejecting his theory and solutions? She felt that Legion would have expected her to do this, that the Geth would understand. They had flown to war to aid organics, knowing that every one of them might die. They were willing to sacrifice themselves to ensure that life could continue. Might synthetics rise again in the future? Maybe but a small chance of a future is better than no future at all.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Granted, she rejected Synthesis less out of "not being a god" but rather because she couldn't even imagine forcing something like this on her friends, let alone the rest of the galaxy. Though I suppose it's more or less the same than what you mentioned.
Coincidentally, "Destroy" was also the option closest to the original mission. And the last moments before that thing exploded were just amazing. The pictures, the music, ...
Lynata wrote:Well said. My Shep's reasoning, exactly.
Granted, she rejected Synthesis less out of "not being a god" but rather because she couldn't even imagine forcing something like this on her friends, let alone the rest of the galaxy. Though I suppose it's more or less the same than what you mentioned.
Coincidentally, "Destroy" was also the option closest to the original mission. And the last moments before that thing exploded were just amazing. The pictures, the music, ...
Just out of curiosity but what choice did you make when Liara came to you about your entry in her data capsule thing?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Just out of curiosity but what choice did you make when Liara came to you about your entry in her data capsule thing?
Uhh, I think I told her to write what she thinks - then Liara half-jokingly went on about how she'd exaggerate the story. I thought it was pretty cute. My reason for this option was that I (as a Shep in romance with her) trusted Liara implicitly, and allowing her to speak her mind was just one of the many signs or proof of this.
I think if someone else had asked, my Femshep would've given a different response. Well, unless it's Garrus. We're best buddies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 23:37:28
) the ending just... well... doesn't make much sense 
I thought that Shep's death was pretty awesome. A fitting end for a big damn hero.
