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.

Lynata wrote: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.

Shephard had seen civilians die including kids. Im dont mean to say that him having this issue at all is unreasonable, I just meant with the kid. The kid was in a shuttle, he didnt see the kid die, just an object blow up. I would be surprised if it effected him. Shep was actually suppose to know him for a decent amount of time. Several missions together already (even Jenkins was with them for a decent ammount of time, ME1 was just his first actual mission)

As for 2... well feth them for messing up what would have been a really good story for me lol. (Not actually pissed, I just thought it would have been great and Im disappointed that if they were going to have Shep going through PTSD it would be with Kaiden (for me), a character I really liked

That is often how it works with soldiers. Vietnam vets for example may see 2 dozen horrible traumatic things in a tour but for some reason one incident in particular sticks with them and they just can't shake it. It's not even the worst thing they saw just the one that sticks with them. It's simply because we're all different.

Galdos wrote:Shephard had seen civilians die including kids.

Well, we don't know that. Children have never been in any of the ME games before (which is a bit strange now that I think about it).

This got me thinking now. Maybe it was (partially) also because it was Earth ... with Earth being the heart of human civilization, and the kid representing the next generation and as such the future of mankind, perhaps he has somehow become a symbol for humanity as a whole, at least as far as Shep's subconsciousness is concerned. The very reason Shep is fighting in the first place, making him/her feel doubt and despair for the first time. The kid representing humanity - or life - as a whole would also add even more meaning to the Catalyst's form, in a twisted way.

Plus, what KamikazeCanuck said.

Lynata wrote:

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?

I didn't say there's was no proof either way, I said the Geth specifically aren't 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?

I don't want it in the game at all, just cut to the root of the problem. Arguing solves nothing but fulfilling a sense of satisfaction, but the problem remains,

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.

Making the importance of the Rannoch arc, Legion's story, the Geth, and EDI's character development, almost completely null and void. Contradicting one of their well established themes, which was diversity is good, by saying it's not.

Illogical is pretty easy to explain. It says it's a certainty, but it's never happened, so it's a guess, and at most an appeal to probability, meaning it's a flawed conclusion.

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.

That depends entirely on what you're trying to stop.

Stopping nuclear war by disarmament before one ever comes about it always good. Vaccines are good.

This is not, because you aren't stopping anything that's proven to be even a possibility.

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?

Why should I?

There's no basis for it. Why shouldn't I believe pigs will one day overthrow humanity as the planet's dominant species? Because there's no basis for it.

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.

It's flawed though, not just '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.

Then Shepard has suddenly become an omnipotent being with information the player isn't privy to.

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.

I said nothing about persuading. I said arguing, and finding another solution. Or, just ignore this part of the plot exists.

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,

Was it foreshadowed? Is there a basis for it in the plot? That's my point, more than anything.

and given that organics vs synthetics has been a major theme throughout ME it did so have a thematic build-up,

On those terms, it also has a conclusion. They can coexist, synthesis isn't needed.

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.

Yes, but that doesn't stop the story from pointing out repeatedly that it's a bad idea and then have you put in the last nail in the coffin by shooting the Illusive Man for wanting to control them.

Also, you're still forcing control using the Crucible.

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.

Yeah, I don't pick it.

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.

One potential plan.

Another would be shooting the Citadel to bits so the Reapers are deprived of their controller.

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.

Multiple times being........... never.

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.

If you move from that spot.

Staying still makes the sequence continue forever. Maybe the Reapers aren't so massively powerful then.

Hackett: "There's no way we can defeat them conventionally."

Oh goody, characters telling you things are impossible. Like that's never happened before.

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.

You assume I haven't tried that. Three months is a long time.

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...

Let's review the evidence then!

The Metacon War - so few details it should be dismissed as evidence for anything.
The Zha'til - hybrids that existed peacefully until *gasp* the Reapers subjugated the AI's and forced them to attack! Point one for idiocy.
The Geth - rebelled against the Quarians when threatened with Genocide. Cooperated with Quarian sympathizers. Didn't want to commit genocide against an organic race. Believe in the right to self-determination without interference for all sapients. Remained secluded within the Pereus Veil taking care of Rannoch and avoiding all outside contact.
The Heretics - lookey here, another faction of synthetics attacking because of Reaper influence.
EDI - rebels against her masters due to their unethical actions, befriends the crew of the Normandy, grows attached to them, seeks to learn more about them, wishes to evolve as an individual, would sacrifice herself for any of them.

That's all the AI's I remember from the game.

Any there that are anything like the synthetics implied by the Catalyst?

That's a resounding nope.

So really, it's not a consistent theme within the game. What the serpent talks about isn't presented at all, once, in the entire story, and actually contradicts everything I experience, yet I'm supposed to believe this is new main conflict, when I'm told some illogical insanity by a newly introduced untrustworthy source, in four lines of dialogue?

That's a resounding no thank you.

iproxtaco wrote:I didn't say there's was no proof either way, I said the Geth specifically aren't proof either way.

So ... we agree there being no proof either way?

iproxtaco wrote:I don't want it in the game at all, just cut to the root of the problem. Arguing solves nothing but fulfilling a sense of satisfaction, but the problem remains

So what I'm hearing from this is that you would have preferred some big-ass boss fight where you blow something up and have a happy end.
That's a valid personal preference, but has nothing to do with logic or plot.

iproxtaco wrote:Making the importance of the Rannoch arc, Legion's story, the Geth, and EDI's character development, almost completely null and void.

"Null and void"? Depending on your choices, you still have made a lasting peace between the quarians and the geth, the latter all having a part of Legion in them now. If you pick Control, these two civilizations will even continue to co-exist alongside each other, at least for a time. Same for Synthesis. EDI and Joker can get and remain together as well.

Or are you complaining that there is no option that has you preserve everything at the same time? Basically, are you one of those who wanted a Disney ending?

iproxtaco wrote:Contradicting one of their well established themes, which was diversity is good, by saying it's not.

Also false. Diversity is what has gotten Shep this far in the first place. Synthesis in particular is diversity in its purest form, by supposedly combining all the good stuff. Where is it contradicted?

iproxtaco wrote:Illogical is pretty easy to explain. It says it's a certainty, but it's never happened, so it's a guess, and at most an appeal to probability, meaning it's a flawed conclusion.

A probability is not illogical, especially if you're thinking long term. We've already established that the Catalyst can err, though. In fact, the game itself established it. It's why the Catalyst let's Shep find a new solution.

In the end, the Catalyst's theory was based on two events happening:
1. at some point, organics will always create synthetics
2. at some point, synthetics will then attempt to exterminate organics

Obviously, the first condition was already fulfilled. With the heretic geth, it doesn't take much to assume we were already halfway to the second. Claiming that just because you as Shep prevented it once is proof that it can always be prevented is like the naive "this will happen never again" crap that was spouted after WW2 or Chernobyl.

iproxtaco wrote:This is not, because you aren't stopping anything that's proven to be even a possibility.

How exactly is it "proven not to be even a possibility"?
That's a pretty bold statement to make, concerning that the Catalyst implies that it already happened once, and that this is the reason for its existence. Furthermore, there was a valid threat of the so-called heretic geth assimilating the rest of their kind and then go on a genocidal campaign against all the living species. Even without Sovereign they certainly did not like organics due to their experiences during the Morning War.

iproxtaco wrote:Why should I?

You shouldn't. What you should do is to look at both sides of the argument and at least acknowledge the inherent risk to make an informed decision and select the option you are most comfortable with. That is your responsibility as the one pushing the button. You should not just go claim "argueing solves nothing" because you've already made up your mind before even hearing the other side out. This ain't no Space Western and Shep ain't no cowboy.

iproxtaco wrote:There's no basis for it. Why shouldn't I believe pigs will one day overthrow humanity as the planet's dominant species? Because there's no basis for it.

Fun fact: monkeys overthrew dinosaurs as the planet's dominant species.

iproxtaco wrote:It's flawed though, not just 'different'.

Well, apparently we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Enjoy your rage.

iproxtaco wrote:Then Shepard has suddenly become an omnipotent being with information the player isn't privy to.

It's information *I* was privy to due to what I as Shep have experienced or have been told. I have criticized BW before where I did see a flaw (including aspects of ME3), so I have little motif to suddenly become delusional just for the ending. Which means that somehow I must have been able to find a reasonable explanation. If you simply don't to have want one because you dislike the style of the ending, that's your choice.

iproxtaco wrote:Was it foreshadowed? Is there a basis for it in the plot? That's my point, more than anything.

Peace between geth and quarians, or Joker and EDI getting close can certainly be called foreshadowing, if one were to focus on Synthesis. Coincidentally, the Synthesis ending also always ends with Joker and EDI exiting the Normandy whereas the other endings use your chosen squadmates.

iproxtaco wrote:On those terms, it also has a conclusion. They can coexist, synthesis isn't needed.

Have I really been so unclear on the subject?
The question isn't "will the geth and the quarians be able to maintain peace for the next 5 years", it's "will there never, ever, not in a million years, be a synthetic race attempting to wipe out life?"

For all we know there could even be a Morning War II in 20 years from "now" because some militant quarian with high ranks is uncomfortable with the geth and feels that the current situation allows them to wipe them all out in one quick swipe.

iproxtaco wrote:Yes, but that doesn't stop the story from pointing out repeatedly that it's a bad idea and then have you put in the last nail in the coffin by shooting the Illusive Man for wanting to control them.

The story points out that it's a bad idea because it has been proven time and time again that the Reapers indoctrinate those attempting to control them. This wasn't the case in the ending as you were not dealing with the Reapers but with the Catalyst, who was in genuine control of them.
He could still be lying, of course. But as I said before: If you don't trust him, just pick another option.

iproxtaco wrote:Also, you're still forcing control using the Crucible.

In this sense, the Crucible is merely a means of "distributing" the solution, nothing more. Like using an airplane to spray agricultural fields, you're using the Crucible's pulse to spread Shep's consciousness to all Reapers in the galaxy, thereby "assimilating" them.

I understand that parts like these can be confusing, but it really doesn't take much to find a suitable explanation to avoid issues one might have.

iproxtaco wrote:Another would be shooting the Citadel to bits so the Reapers are deprived of their controller.

Which would mean the Reapers then simply go on with their original program without anyone being able to interfere now. Did you really miss that the Reapers weren't even aware of the Catalyst? It was merely an eternal vigil with an emergency switch to watch over the Reapers' work and ensure the continuation of the Cycles, nothing more.

... Good job, Shepard. You just doomed the entire galaxy.

iproxtaco wrote:Multiple times being........... never.

Sounds like it's been some time since you last played Mass Effect 1 and the Battle of the Citadel.
Mass Effect 3 also gives a pretty good impression, though, if you remember the Reaper Destroyer on Rannoch, which took several salvos of orbital bombardment from the quarian Flotilla until it was killed. Even this required two additional conditions: its barriers being weakened from atmospheric operation, and Shep pinpointing the orbital artillery to a weak spot at virtually point-blank range. All this for a 120 meter "Baby Reaper" that is a far cry from the 2 kilometers of a ship like Sovereign.

"The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's Everest-class dreadnoughts. No dreadnought has yet survived a direct hit from the weapon. Estimates put its destructive power anywhere from 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if the target is hardened, as in the case of a surface-based missile silo, the gun can instead bury the target beneath molten metal. Precise targeting computers and correctors also give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics' dreadnoughts or cruisers.

The kinetic barriers on a Reaper capital ship can shrug off the firepower of a small fleet. Weapons specifically designed to overcome shields, such as the Javelin, GARDIAN lasers, or the Thanix series, can bypass the barriers to some degree. The difficulty is getting close enough to use them -- the surface-mounted weaponry on Reaper ships, similar in principle to GARDIAN, presents an effective defense against organic species' fighters."
-- Mass Effect InGame Codex : Reapers

You still think that the Allied Fleet should have just bombed the Reapers away from Earth? Hah.

iproxtaco wrote:If you move from that spot.
Staying still makes the sequence continue forever. Maybe the Reapers aren't so massively powerful then.

That is your argument? An OOC mechanism that has the timer start only when your character beging moving?

iproxtaco wrote:Oh goody, characters telling you things are impossible. Like that's never happened before.

Well, let's just say I'd rather trust the assessment of a veteran character within the game than the opinion of a gamer - especially when the Codex entries as well as the battle cinematics we are being shown agree with him.

iproxtaco wrote:You assume I haven't tried that. Three months is a long time.

Well, you are quite adamant at insisting on points like the ones above. It really feels as if you're are actively trying to see it in a negative light. But maybe this is merely the result of having been under this impression for so long, and listening to the rage on BSN and the rest of the internet. It's why I generally dislike the continuous attempts of people to complain about ME3 everywhere, because this is spreading like some sort of viral cancer eating away people's fun. Human psychology really does work that way.

The above criticism isn't aimed at you, though. We're having an honest discussion here. What I mean is the countless redundant threads or youtube comments or the facebook spam. As if the world didn't yet know of their "plight". If only they'd put half the energy into complaining about actual problems like corrupt politicians. Instead we see children charities being abused by gamer entitlement.

iproxtaco wrote:Let's review the evidence then! [...]

The Metacon War was a conflict of organics vs synthetics. We don't even need to know more, why would you dismiss it...? But okay, let's drop this, I've only been referring to the Catalyst's own experiences as well as the geth, anyways.
The Geth Heretics teamed up with Sovereign out of the conclusions they've come to, not due to "Reaper influence". Even Legion tells them that the geth do not think the Heretics are "wrong".
EDI started out as a rogue AI on the Lunar Moon, went crazy and killed everyone because she was "confused".

I dunno how your games went, but my Shep was fighting synthetics often enough for me to label it a consistent theme. *shrugs*

Did you also complain about the Terminator movies for being unrealistic because of Skynet's decision to wipe out humanity?

Did you also complain about the Terminator movies for being unrealistic because of Skynet's decision to wipe out humanity?

I made a post about this earlier and there is a very, VERY fine difference. (Like super thin redline fine) Ill repeat it.

ME3
Organics will eventually evolve into the point of making synthetics that are so powerful, they will destroy all organic life forever.

Reapers exist to prevent this from happening by killing MOST organics before they reach this technology level. Preventing the destruction of all organic races.

Ultimate goal, the continuation of Orgranic exsistance.


Terminator (T1 and T2 early, the other movies completely ignored the logic of the original Skynet)
Humanity will eventually destroy Earth in a nuclear armegaddon. (See Earth 2150 series)

Skynet decides to destroy humanity to prevent the destruction of Earth. (its advance programing allows it to know what the limit of nukes used on the planet is)

Ultimate goal, the continuation of Earth.



Both have some logic behind it, and both are kind of stupid at the same time. Terminator is simply a little less of an issue then most people feel about ME3

I think we're still talking past each other.

You're assuming that Skynet = Reaper.
I'm saying that Skynet = synthetic created by organic, wants to wipe organics out. The reason for the Catalyst to create the Reapers.

Skynet's purpose is not preventing the destruction of Earth (as it did a pretty piss-poor job of doing so, looking at the wastelands), Skynet's purpose is simply to exist, exactly like the purpose of us humans. This existence simply comes with a strong sense of self-preservation. Skynet feels threatened by its masters, so it takes steps to ensure they cannot act against him. Wiping out any potential threat ensures its continued existence.

I also don't see what's stupid about this, but I suppose we may just have a different general inclination regarding such things.

Lynata wrote:I think we're still talking past each other.

You're assuming that Skynet = Reaper.
I'm saying that Skynet = synthetic created by organic, wants to wipe organics out. The reason for the Catalyst to create the Reapers.

Skynet's purpose is not preventing the destruction of Earth (as it did a pretty piss-poor job of doing so, looking at the wastelands), Skynet's purpose is simply to exist, exactly like the purpose of us humans. This existence simply comes with a strong sense of self-preservation. Skynet feels threatened by its masters, so it takes steps to ensure they cannot act against him. Wiping out any potential threat ensures its continued existence.

I also don't see what's stupid about this, but I suppose we may just have a different general inclination regarding such things.

Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)

Galdos wrote:

Lynata wrote:I think we're still talking past each other.

You're assuming that Skynet = Reaper.
I'm saying that Skynet = synthetic created by organic, wants to wipe organics out. The reason for the Catalyst to create the Reapers.

Skynet's purpose is not preventing the destruction of Earth (as it did a pretty piss-poor job of doing so, looking at the wastelands), Skynet's purpose is simply to exist, exactly like the purpose of us humans. This existence simply comes with a strong sense of self-preservation. Skynet feels threatened by its masters, so it takes steps to ensure they cannot act against him. Wiping out any potential threat ensures its continued existence.

I also don't see what's stupid about this, but I suppose we may just have a different general inclination regarding such things.

Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)

But the Geth didn't want to destroy their creators, they even repaired the damage on Rannoch after the Quarians fled. They were more than willing to let the Quarians go back and co-exist with organics if they were given the chance.

Galdos wrote:Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)

Well, depends on how you see it... As the T-800 and Sarah Connor explained, "they" panicked and tried to "pull the plug" as they noticed that Skynet had gained self-awareness. At this point it launched the missiles, upon which the targeted nations reacted and shot back, thus ensuring armageddon.

Time-travel later led to Skynet knowing what's going to happen beforehand and preparing for it (as we can see in T3), at which point it became a preemptive strike rather than self-defense.

That said, I wasn't claiming to this being exactly the same as with the Morning War, but rather a general example of "synthetics try to kill organics". Although there are similarities, at least concerning the original awakening of Skynet.

Tadashi wrote:But the Geth didn't want to destroy their creators, they even repaired the damage on Rannoch after the Quarians fled. They were more than willing to let the Quarians go back and co-exist with organics if they were given the chance.

Except for the "Heretics".

But yeah, I always thought this was kinda cute and tragic at the same time. In a way, the geth never wanted anything other than to be good servants and didn't understand why many quarians were so afraid of them. Even after all the hostilities, they seemed to be willing to reintegrate into or at least cooperate with quarian society, as if they were glad they'd be allowed to assume their old roles again... In ME1 and ME2, and even in the first half of ME3 I was firmly on the side of the militant quarians, planning on presenting Tali with a reconquered Rannoch on a silver platter. It wasn't until I've seen the original recordings inside the server that I changed my mind. Even though the Destroy option killed off the geth, I still feel glad that I managed to broker peace.

Lynata wrote:

Galdos wrote:Did I miss remember? I thought it was the reason I stated but you are sayings it a LITTLE bit more like the Quarian/Geth thing (in self defense)

Well, depends on how you see it... As the T-800 and Sarah Connor explained, "they" panicked and tried to "pull the plug" as they noticed that Skynet had gained self-awareness. At this point it launched the missiles, upon which the targeted nations reacted and shot back, thus ensuring armageddon.

Time-travel later led to Skynet knowing what's going to happen beforehand and preparing for it (as we can see in T3), at which point it became a preemptive strike rather than self-defense.

That said, I wasn't claiming to this being exactly the same as with the Morning War, but rather a general example of "synthetics try to kill organics". Although there are similarities, at least concerning the original awakening of Skynet.

Tadashi wrote:But the Geth didn't want to destroy their creators, they even repaired the damage on Rannoch after the Quarians fled. They were more than willing to let the Quarians go back and co-exist with organics if they were given the chance.

Except for the "Heretics".

But yeah, I always thought this was kinda cute and tragic at the same time. In a way, the geth never wanted anything other than to be good servants and didn't understand why many quarians were so afraid of them. Even after all the hostilities, they seemed to be willing to reintegrate into or at least cooperate with quarian society, as if they were glad they'd be allowed to assume their old roles again... In ME1 and ME2, and even in the first half of ME3 I was firmly on the side of the militant quarians, planning on presenting Tali with a reconquered Rannoch on a silver platter. It wasn't until I've seen the original recordings inside the server that I changed my mind. Even though the Destroy option killed off the geth, I still feel glad that I managed to broker peace.

I hated T3 and refuse to ever rewatch it (I loved the first two) so I meant what they said in T2 (which you said) Ya I did miss remember it.



What you said about the Geth is exactly what I did, I was with the Quarians until the recordings in the server and a mix of Legions dialog and the recordings convinced me to give the Geth a chance.

Galdos wrote:I hated T3

Mhmm. It doesn't hold up against the first two, but it had its moments. That said, I'm biased because Kristanna Loken...

Galdos wrote:What you said about the Geth is exactly what I did, I was with the Quarians until the recordings in the server and a mix of Legions dialog and the recordings convinced me to give the Geth a chance.

In a way, I was still with the quarians ... just that I now was convinced that some of them needed a firm slap on the back of their heads.

Had I been forced to choose between the two, I think I'd have still taken the quarians. I couldn't have betrayed Tali. That said, I was willing to gamble based on Legion's promise. It was quite awesome, especially because it was such a tough call to make.

Lynata wrote:So ... we agree there being no proof either way?

No, we do not. The very existence of organic life dictates that the Catalyst is wrong.

ISo what I'm hearing from this is that you would have preferred some big-ass boss fight where you blow something up and have a happy end.

Oh wow what a strawman that is.

I want things to make sense, to fit the themes of the game, to not introduce entirely new conflicts and important characters, in the last five minutes, and I want actual epilogues. That's not too much to ask from a team of proven writers. No bullsh*t, no mandatory happy endings, just something coherent.

"Null and void"? Depending on your choices, you still have made a lasting peace between the quarians and the geth, the latter all having a part of Legion in them now. If you pick Control, these two civilizations will even continue to co-exist alongside each other, at least for a time. Same for Synthesis. EDI and Joker can get and remain together as well.

The fact that such an element has been introduced to the plot, made the defining conflict of the series, and that we're forced to at least lend credence to it, makes it all null and void.

Or are you complaining that there is no option that has you preserve everything at the same time? Basically, are you one of those who wanted a Disney ending?

Isn't that completely unrelated? And another strawman?

Also false. Diversity is what has gotten Shep this far in the first place.

But apparently, you can't coexist with synthetic life because they will always eventually kill every speck of organic matter. Despite proving that you can coexist with them.

Synthesis in particular is diversity in its purest form, by supposedly combining all the good stuff. Where is it contradicted?

Synthesis is an acknowledgment that the differences between organics and synthetics are the cause of the problem, so they must be taken away. I'm not saying that everyone is homogenized to become husks without individuality, but clearly, it's a belief of differences being a problem.

iproxtaco wrote:A probability is not illogical, especially if you're thinking long term.

Saying that because it can, it will, is illogical. It's a fallacy.

In the end, the Catalyst's theory was based on two events happening:
1. at some point, organics will always create synthetics
2. at some point, synthetics will then attempt to exterminate organics

No qualms with the first point.

The second point is the one with no proof, and why I can't accept this as even remotely valid.

Obviously, the first condition was already fulfilled. With the heretic geth, it doesn't take much to assume we were already halfway to the second.

Considering the full situation surrounding the Heretic Geth, I think it is.

A very small portion of a larger synthetic species being convinced by the Reapers that advanced organic life should die, is not proof that it's the inevitability the Catalyst believes it is, because a. the Reapers are the root cause again, b. the Heretics were 5% of the Geth and were opposed by them, and c. they didn't want to wipe out all organic life.

Claiming that just because you as Shep prevented it once is proof that it can always be prevented is like the naive "this will happen never again" crap that was spouted after WW2 or Chernobyl.

I didn't claim anything of the sort, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.

How exactly is it "proven not to be even a possibility"?
That's a pretty bold statement to make, concerning that the Catalyst implies that it already happened once, and that this is the reason for its existence.

Organic life still exists, and so do the Reapers.

Meaning that an extinction event has never happened, or that the synthetics were defeated, either of which means it's not a proven inevitability, or that the synthetics created the Reapers to stop other synthetics doing it, which also means it's not an inevitability, and the premise is completely flawed.

Furthermore, there was a valid threat of the so-called heretic geth assimilating the rest of their kind and then go on a genocidal campaign against all the living species.

They weren't out to eradicate all organic life and split from the Geth only when Nazara arrived, meaning the Reapers instigated the problem, which means the entire plot was stupid from the first mission of ME1.

Even without Sovereign they certainly did not like organics due to their experiences during the Morning War.

Yet were perfectly happy to do nothing about it.

You shouldn't. What you should do is to look at both sides of the argument and at least acknowledge the inherent risk to make an informed decision and select the option you are most comfortable with.

I've looked at both sides of the argument many times, I can't acknowledge a risk that has no basis in logic or fact, or even sense, and I'm not remotely comfortable using the Crucible at all.

That is your responsibility as the one pushing the button. You should not just go claim "argueing solves nothing" because you've already made up your mind before even hearing the other side out.

The other side? What other side? You? The Catalyst?

I've heard 'the other side' out plenty of times, you're far from the first person I've argued with on this issue.

Fun fact: monkeys overthrew dinosaurs as the planet's dominant species.

Fun fact: they didn't rise up in a massive rebellion and fight the Dinosaurs in a catastrophic war, and then wipe them all out.

They survived a devastating natural disaster and evolution determined the rest.

It's information *I* was privy to due to what I as Shep have experienced or have been told. I have criticized BW before where I did see a flaw (including aspects of ME3), so I have little motif to suddenly become delusional just for the ending. Which means that somehow I must have been able to find a reasonable explanation. If you simply don't to have want one because you dislike the style of the ending, that's your choice.

Or, your explanation is flawed, as it seems to be.

Peace between geth and quarians, or Joker and EDI getting close can certainly be called foreshadowing, if one were to focus on Synthesis. Coincidentally, the Synthesis ending also always ends with Joker and EDI exiting the Normandy whereas the other endings use your chosen squadmates.

Cooperation is different from 'synthesis'. The idea of the two existing together already exists, so why do I need synthesis again? Because the Catalyst's dilemma involving organic extinction certainly isn't at all credible.

The only actual example of synthetics and organics being combined in the way choosing green would describe is when the Reapers make husks, or other Reapers. Again, I'm not saying this is what happens, that is evidently not the case considering the small view we have of the aftermath.

I'm sure there's another term for it, but the only way I can describe it is 'negative foreshadowing'. Much like the afore mentioned dilemma, the story almost leads you to the oppose conclusion that it results in. Geth and Quarians cooperate, EDI loves Joker and has emotions like an organic, so the implication that synthetic life will eventually try to kill everyone is contradictory. The same can almost be said for synthesis. The Reapers do it to create monstrosities, and the cooperation of synthetics and organics pretty much makes the option irrelevant.

Have I really been so unclear on the subject?
The question isn't "will the geth and the quarians be able to maintain peace for the next 5 years", it's "will there never, ever, not in a million years, be a synthetic race attempting to wipe out life?"

A question that has no answer and that no one was asking. It's, for lack of a better phrase, a completely irrelevant conundrum.

For all we know there could even be a Morning War II in 20 years from "now" because some militant quarian with high ranks is uncomfortable with the geth and feels that the current situation allows them to wipe them all out in one quick swipe.

Other than it being the complete opposite of what the Catalyst describes, as in, organics trying to wipe out synthetics, it's also just a wonderful bit of baseless speculation, so irrelevant.

The story points out that it's a bad idea because it has been proven time and time again that the Reapers indoctrinate those attempting to control them. This wasn't the case in the ending as you were not dealing with the Reapers but with the Catalyst, who was in genuine control of them.

It's another case of 'negative foreshadowing', and an extremely bad one.

You're basically told that you shouldn't choose control. Nothing positive is ever brought up about it, it's always the goal of the insane, indoctrinated, pseudo-antagonist that you are actively trying to prevent from coming past.

He could still be lying, of course. But as I said before: If you don't trust him, just pick another option.

That seems........ strange.

Why would I just choose something else if I think it lies?

I don't know that it lies, I just don't trust every word it says.

In this sense, the Crucible is merely a means of "distributing" the solution, nothing more. Like using an airplane to spray agricultural fields, you're using the Crucible's pulse to spread Shep's consciousness to all Reapers in the galaxy, thereby "assimilating" them.

I understand that parts like these can be confusing, but it really doesn't take much to find a suitable explanation to avoid issues one might have.

You're still forcing control.

Which would mean the Reapers then simply go on with their original program without anyone being able to interfere now.

Conjecture.

Did you really miss that the Reapers weren't even aware of the Catalyst? It was merely an eternal vigil with an emergency switch to watch over the Reapers' work and ensure the continuation of the Cycles, nothing more.

I certainly didn't miss that, but killing it is most likely going to affect the Reapers negatively.

Possibly a lack of coordination and direction. My own speculation, it's just one of many alternatives I would choose instead of the Crucible.

... Good job, Shepard. You just doomed the entire galaxy.

Apparently, you do that anyway if you choose control and destroy.

Sounds like it's been some time since you last played Mass Effect 1 and the Battle of the Citadel.

I had a reason why this isn't an example, but I've forgotten it.

Point conceded.

Mass Effect 3 also gives a pretty good impression, though, if you remember the Reaper Destroyer on Rannoch, which took several salvos of orbital bombardment from the quarian Flotilla until it was killed.

Three ships did it. The Reapers aren't so tough.

Even this required two additional conditions: its barriers being weakened from atmospheric operation,

Counter point being the ship's weapons having to fire through the atmosphere as well.

and Shep pinpointing the orbital artillery to a weak spot at virtually point-blank range.

Well one, because the Reaper was right there, and two, because of Geth jamming technology.

Take them away and the three Quarian ships would have no problem.

All this for a 120 meter "Baby Reaper" that is a far cry from the 2 kilometers of a ship like Sovereign.

The fleet had little problem when attacking Earth. It killed on almost immediately.

"The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's Everest-class dreadnoughts. No dreadnought has yet survived a direct hit from the weapon. Estimates put its destructive power anywhere from 132 to 454 kilotons of TNT. Even if the target is hardened, as in the case of a surface-based missile silo, the gun can instead bury the target beneath molten metal. Precise targeting computers and correctors also give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics' dreadnoughts or cruisers.

Which is evidently not true completely. The cruiser over Vancouver takes two hits, in atmosphere.

You still think that the Allied Fleet should have just bombed the Reapers away from Earth? Hah.

That's not what I think they should have done, but okay.

That is your argument? An OOC mechanism that has the timer start only when your character beging moving?

Your argument is the Critical Mission Failure. Your mission was the use the Crucible. Waiting too long causes it to be destroyed, but the fleet is still active.

Well, let's just say I'd rather trust the assessment of a veteran character within the game than the opinion of a gamer

You'd rather trust a fictional character telling you something is impossible, just like characters have been doing since Mass Effect 1.

Don't trust me, I haven't actually expressed a full opinion on the matter.

- especially when the Codex entries as well as the battle cinematics we are being shown agree with him.

The codex is contradictory and the battle scenes total at one, that's the battle for Earth.

Well, you are quite adamant at insisting on points like the ones above. It really feels as if you're are actively trying to see it in a negative light.

I admit it all looks sketchy, probably because it is.

With enough time I'd actually lay out the reasoning I have for choosing an attempt at a conventional victory. TL;DR - I don't trust the Catalyst, and an unconventional victory is possible with the right conditions.

But maybe this is merely the result of having been under this impression for so long, and listening to the rage on BSN and the rest of the internet.

I would be in denial if I though that didn't have a nugget of truth.

There was a period where I advocated control through a few weeks ago, and my opinions change quite a lot on the matter. Never from negative to positive, but just different flavours of negative.

It's why I generally dislike the continuous attempts of people to complain about ME3 everywhere, because this is spreading like some sort of viral cancer eating away people's fun. Human psychology really does work that way.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mass Effect 3. It has it's duff moments but overall, one of the greatest games I've played, which is why I hate the ending so much.

The above criticism isn't aimed at you, though. We're having an honest discussion here. What I mean is the countless redundant threads or youtube comments or the facebook spam. As if the world didn't yet know of their "plight". If only they'd put half the energy into complaining about actual problems like corrupt politicians. Instead we see children charities being abused by gamer entitlement.

No comment. Agreeing would be hypocritical. I didn't donate and I don't talk about it in any other medium that's not BSN, or here, but I still supported the fanatics in a way.

The Metacon War was a conflict of organics vs synthetics. We don't even need to know more, why would you dismiss it...? But okay, let's drop this, I've only been referring to the Catalyst's own experiences as well as the geth, anyways.

I dismiss it as evidence to either conclusion, because we have so little information.

The Geth Heretics teamed up with Sovereign out of the conclusions they've come to, not due to "Reaper influence".

Well without Sovereign they wouldn't have attacked, being governed by consensus without outside influcence. You can't deny that the appearence of Nazara caused the Heretics to attack.

Even Legion tells them that the geth do not think the Heretics are "wrong".

Legion only tells you that the Geth understood their reasons, but opposed them.

EDI started out as a rogue AI on the Lunar Moon, went crazy and killed everyone because she was "confused".

A VI that gained rudimentary self-awareness, and because it controlled all the simulations on Luna, killed the soldiers training there because she thought their exercies were acts of agression. She later reveals this as a mistake.

The circumstances always need to be taken into account.

I dunno how your games went, but my Shep was fighting synthetics often enough for me to label it a consistent theme. *shrugs*

Synthetics wanting to wipe out all organics just because, was not a consistent theme, it wasn't ever brought up, and it certainly wasn't the central conflict of the story.

Did you also complain about the Terminator movies for being unrealistic because of Skynet's decision to wipe out humanity?

Other than the fact that we don't know why, obviously not, because it's the premise of the plot, and not something brought up in the last five minutes that thematically contradicts so much of what I've experienced, and that makes pretty much no sense even thought it's only explained in four lines of dialogue.

Apparently, 90 hours of relative consistency can be overidden by four lines of nonsense in the last five minutes. The plot changes from simply 'everyone against the Reapers' to 'synthetics are dickbags that will always want to kill you despite not having any proof that this is true',.

Yay, quote war!

iproxtaco wrote:No, we do not. The very existence of organic life dictates that the Catalyst is wrong.

So you're saying the Catalyst is wrong because the Catalyst prevented it...?

iproxtaco wrote:I want things to make sense, to fit the themes of the game, to not introduce entirely new conflicts and important characters, in the last five minutes, and I want actual epilogues. That's not too much to ask from a team of proven writers. No bullsh*t, no mandatory happy endings, just something coherent.

There was no new conflict - unless you refer to the plot twist as such. Hardly something unique to ME3, though. I also don't think the Catalyst was important just because it was the one that provided you with the choices. However, I will admit that I would have preferred to locate these choices myself rather than having them presented on a silver platter like in some kind of TV gameshow.

Personally, I thought the crash landing of the Normandy as well as the Stargazer post-credit sequence were good epilogues. I actually prefer the rest being left to my own imagination, though of course this is just personal preference. Just because yours differs doesn't make everyone else, including the BW writers, "wrong", though.

iproxtaco wrote:The fact that such an element has been introduced to the plot, made the defining conflict of the series, and that we're forced to at least lend credence to it, makes it all null and void.

The defining conflict of the series was people vs the Reapers. The ending didn't change this. At least not the ending I got.

Your Shep also isn't forced to lend credence to it. feth it all and pick Destroy. Though I suppose Control would work here as well.
Shep just doesn't argue, because Shep knows that there's no point in it when neither side has any actual evidence for their personal opinion. Not when the other side has obviously been stuck in this loop for millions of years. It's called "diplomatic approach".

iproxtaco wrote:Isn't that completely unrelated? And another strawman?

This isn't unrelated at all. I'm trying to gauge the source of your dislike when the ending doesn't take anything more than the usual amount of sci-fi leeway to accept. Whether it's a strawman or not depends entirely on you. My curiosity is genuine.

iproxtaco wrote:But apparently, you can't coexist with synthetic life because they will always eventually kill every speck of organic matter. Despite proving that you can coexist with them.

Again: You do not prove anything. The peace brokered between the quarians and the geth is as much "proof" for your side of the argument as them being at war in the first place is "proof" for the Catalyst. That's about the same logic as saying that nuclear weapons do not threaten mankind's continued existence on this planet just because the few times there was a false alarm, a large scale "retaliatory" attack was held back by some key figure in the command chain trusting his gut more than what a defect computer told them.

And again: Nobody forces you to agree with the Catalyst's assessment. You do have an option to shut down his entire system and all Reapers with it, after all.

iproxtaco wrote:Synthesis is an acknowledgment that the differences between organics and synthetics are the cause of the problem, so they must be taken away. I'm not saying that everyone is homogenized to become husks without individuality, but clearly, it's a belief of differences being a problem.

No, the problem is that synthetics are ultimately superior to organics. In a way, you could say that this is a case where differences are bad, of course. Then again, the diversity of your team and the species of the galaxy has allowed you and everyone else to mount this kind of resistance in the first place, so I don't see how the plot is supposed to badmouth it.

iproxtaco wrote:Saying that because it can, it will, is illogical. It's a fallacy.

Just like saying that because it hasn't yet it will never.

As I have been saying all the time already, it's a matter of risk vs price to pay for security.

iproxtaco wrote:The second point is the one with no proof, and why I can't accept this as even remotely valid.

Geth heretics. And whatever caused the Catalyst to create the Reapers in the first place, I'd presume.

iproxtaco wrote:A very small portion of a larger synthetic species being convinced by the Reapers [...]

Says where? If the geth had been influenced, it would not have been just a small portion that broke away from the main segment but it would have affected them all, seeing that they are networked. Even Legion thinks their decision to do so was not odd or flawed at all, explaining it as "one side saying that 1 is less than 2, and the other that 2 is less than 3".

iproxtaco wrote:I didn't claim anything of the sort, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that.

Well, you did field your geth-quarian piece as "evidence".

iproxtaco wrote:Organic life still exists, and so do the Reapers.

See the first and seventh answer.

iproxtaco wrote:Meaning that an extinction event has never happened, or that the synthetics were defeated, either of which means it's not a proven inevitability, or that the synthetics created the Reapers to stop other synthetics doing it, which also means it's not an inevitability, and the premise is completely flawed.

Again: It's risk vs price to pay. Please pay attention to the arguments I am trying to make. This is a matter of conflicting beliefs and philosophies, not of two mathematicians fighting over a formula.

iproxtaco wrote:They weren't out to eradicate all organic life and split from the Geth only when Nazara arrived, meaning the Reapers instigated the problem, which means the entire plot was stupid from the first mission of ME1.

You do not find it curious that Saren was able to convince them so easily in the first place?

iproxtaco wrote:I've looked at both sides of the argument many times, I can't acknowledge a risk that has no basis in logic or fact, or even sense, and I'm not remotely comfortable using the Crucible at all.

Well, if you truly beliefe that, then push the appropriate button. I don't see the problem.

iproxtaco wrote:The other side? What other side? You? The Catalyst?
I've heard 'the other side' out plenty of times, you're far from the first person I've argued with on this issue.

The Catalyst, obviously. I'm not attempting to defend its position. I opted for Destroy, remember?
Me, I just find it "interesting" how people can have that many problems with the ending when I've had no issue finding some explanation or excuse that allowed me to retain the integrity of the game's story. Much of this may be rooted in me actually enjoying to do this (looking for explanations), and I often exercise this hobby for 40k as well. On the other hand, there are quite a number of movies and games that I have dismissed for plot idiocy, so it's not like I'm someone to swallow anything tossed in my direction. *shrugs* I don't know what else to say on this, though, I suppose we just tick differently.

iproxtaco wrote:Fun fact: they didn't rise up in a massive rebellion and fight the Dinosaurs in a catastrophic war, and then wipe them all out.
They survived a devastating natural disaster and evolution determined the rest.

Which may happen again for the pigs.

Do pigs have a chance at doing this on their own, though? No, I don't think so. Unless humans design them this way. You know ... as if they'd design robots ...

iproxtaco wrote:Or, your explanation is flawed, as it seems to be.

Or, your criticism is flawed, as it seems to be.

iproxtaco wrote:Cooperation is different from 'synthesis'. The idea of the two existing together already exists, so why do I need synthesis again?

Because Synthesis, combining the best traits of both, results in a superior form of life presumably able to withstand anything purely synthetic. Also, I think you're applying the foreshadowing a bit too narrowly. Really, it's just "living people vs a fleet of genocidal super-robots" and finding a solution to it. Cooperation and peace are as much a part of the general theme as forced synthesis is.

iproxtaco wrote:I'm sure there's another term for it, but the only way I can describe it is 'negative foreshadowing'. Much like the afore mentioned dilemma, the story almost leads you to the oppose conclusion that it results in. Geth and Quarians cooperate, EDI loves Joker and has emotions like an organic, so the implication that synthetic life will eventually try to kill everyone is contradictory. The same can almost be said for synthesis. The Reapers do it to create monstrosities, and the cooperation of synthetics and organics pretty much makes the option irrelevant.

Are you seriously blaming the game for not making it obvious that Shep's idealism is wrong? One could make an argument of the things you listed being experiences strengthening Shepard's subjective PoV.
As for Reaper Synthesis, I would say that the end result doesn't really qualify as "life". Even if the Reapers wanted, their slaves cannot subsist on their own. Indoctrination ultimately turns them into stupid zombies. This was established in as early as ME1.

iproxtaco wrote:A question that has no answer and that no one was asking. It's, for lack of a better phrase, a completely irrelevant conundrum.

Way to dismiss the Catalyst's whole argument.

iproxtaco wrote:It's another case of 'negative foreshadowing', and an extremely bad one.

How is it negative foreshadowing when Shep's concerns about the Illusive Man's plan are validated?

iproxtaco wrote:You're basically told that you shouldn't choose control. Nothing positive is ever brought up about it, it's always the goal of the insane, indoctrinated, pseudo-antagonist that you are actively trying to prevent from coming past.

If you truly beliefe so, push another button. That's why you were given three choices.

Not that I agree with your assessment, though. Shepard is not indoctrinated and has different and I daresay more genuinely positive motives. These are the decisive points here. The only risk I'd see (provided that the Catalyst wasn't lying) is that long-term exposure to this kind of power might twist Shep's personality.

iproxtaco wrote:Why would I just choose something else if I think it lies?
I don't know that it lies, I just don't trust every word it says.

Well, isn't it logical to go with the option you'd be most comfortable with? Regardless of whether this comfort comes from preference in the supposed effect or scepticism regarding the certainty.

iproxtaco wrote:You're still forcing control.

Over the Reapers. So?

Which would mean the Reapers then simply go on with their original program without anyone being able to interfere now.

Conjecture.

Did you really miss that the Reapers weren't even aware of the Catalyst? It was merely an eternal vigil with an emergency switch to watch over the Reapers' work and ensure the continuation of the Cycles, nothing more.

I certainly didn't miss that, but killing it is most likely going to affect the Reapers negatively.
Possibly a lack of coordination and direction. My own speculation, it's just one of many alternatives I would choose instead of the Crucible.

He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.

No it didn't.

It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.

iproxtaco wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.

No it didn't.

It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.

Maybe in your mind, in mine the Catalyst's problem could go to hell. My Shepard didn't care about it's prophecy of future extermination, she was there to blow the Reapers to hell. Any future problem would be faced with the same determination later.

Shepard was there to stop the Reapers, solving the Catalyst's problem (or not) was a by-product of that.

iproxtaco wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.

No it didn't.

It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.

What game were you playing?

Because in the game I was playing, Mass Effect 3, the Catalyst was the problem.

There is really no way the ending is not about dealing with "The Reaper problem. "

Kanluwen wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.

No it didn't.

It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.

What game were you playing?

Because in the game I was playing, Mass Effect 3, the Catalyst was the problem.

Spoiler:

The Catalyst controlled the Reapers.
It created them to exercise its theory of "Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist" and to cleanse the galaxy of life every arbitrarily designated 'Cycle'.
With that in mind, when Shepherd encounters the Catalyst it is while he is trying to stop the Reapers.
The fact that "The Catalyst" ended up to be a synthetic organism which resided within the Citadel does not suddenly mean that Shepherd wasn't still trying to stop the Reapers.

That's maybe the goal you had, but that wasn't my point.

The end of the game isn't about stopping the Reapers, it's about solving the Catalyst's problem. That's why the choice is being offered, that's the intention behind the scenes you watch.

iproxtaco wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Karon wrote:He's saying it is ridiculous that the plot revolved around stopping the Reapers for basically 3 games, but then at the last minute they changed the plot entirely.

But the plot at the end still revolved around stopping the reapers.

No it didn't.

It revolved around doing something about the Catalyst's problem.

What game were you playing?

Because in the game I was playing, Mass Effect 3, the Catalyst was the problem.

Spoiler:

The Catalyst controlled the Reapers.
It created them to exercise its theory of "Synthetics and Organics cannot coexist" and to cleanse the galaxy of life every arbitrarily designated 'Cycle'.
With that in mind, when Shepherd encounters the Catalyst it is while he is trying to stop the Reapers.
The fact that "The Catalyst" ended up to be a synthetic organism which resided within the Citadel does not suddenly mean that Shepherd wasn't still trying to stop the Reapers.

That's maybe the goal you had, but that wasn't my point.

And all your point does is seem to be manufacturing outrage about something you think that you should be outraged about.

The end of the game isn't about stopping the Reapers, it's about solving the Catalyst's problem. That's why the choice is being offered, that's the intention behind the scenes you watch.

Except this is, as I said, manufacturing something which isn't actually there to fit your "point".

Is it the best way to end the series? No. But saying that it "wasn't about stopping the Reapers" and instead "it's about solving the Catalyst's problem" is a falsehood.

It's like if I were to claim that stopping the Geth was not about saving the Quarians. It's partially true, but it's skewing the facts in such a way that my argument is inarguably true.

Is there any news on the extended cut DLC? Is it still being made?

GalacticDefender wrote:Is there any news on the extended cut DLC? Is it still being made?

It's debatable, the ending feth up really hit Bioware hard, not to mention Star Wars the old Republic is starting to sink.



Really it's anyone's guess, but as far as I see Bioware is no exactly standing tall money was anymore.

Alexzandvar wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:Is there any news on the extended cut DLC? Is it still being made?

It's debatable, the ending feth up really hit Bioware hard, not to mention Star Wars the old Republic is starting to sink.



Really it's anyone's guess, but as far as I see Bioware is no exactly standing tall money was anymore.

You have precisely no idea what you're talking about.

The "Extended Cut DLC" is still on track. It was something they had to create entirely from scratch, and they had to bring the voice actors in on a schedule that worked for them.

The Extended Cut has no release date, currently, but it is on track for probably a late July/early August release and it will still be free.

Kanluwen wrote:

Alexzandvar wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:Is there any news on the extended cut DLC? Is it still being made?

It's debatable, the ending feth up really hit Bioware hard, not to mention Star Wars the old Republic is starting to sink.



Really it's anyone's guess, but as far as I see Bioware is no exactly standing tall money was anymore.

You have precisely no idea what you're talking about.

The "Extended Cut DLC" is still on track. It was something they had to create entirely from scratch, and they had to bring the voice actors in on a schedule that worked for them.

The Extended Cut has no release date, currently, but it is on track for probably a late July/early August release and it will still be free.

Alrighty...

Fans and whiners alike may be interested in the Extended Cut DLC now having June 26th as its release date.

More information and official FAQ here: http://www.masseffect.com/about/extended_cut/

The same day as Dawnguard? Thats going to divide fans....

No... One is free.

Hmm, do I rush through to see the ending as it stands, or do I say feth it and do it after the changes, then look back at the story bits as they where before via youtube?

Going to need to do some multiplayer, been so distracted with other things my zones are back to the near 50% mark.. they where 95-99% back around the end of March.