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.

For that matter, the titular mass effect things itself is basically "space magic" from our perspective. I'm okay with that

 Melissia wrote:
For that matter, the titular mass effect things itself is basically "space magic" from our perspective. I'm okay with that

They explain the Mass Effect enough to demystify it within the context of the universe. Sure it's not an explaination that would hold up to any real scrutiny but it works well enough to convince the audience the setting has rules and those rules are being followed.

The Starchild's magic is given no such explanation, it just happens. It's a mystical event not playing by any the rules established in the setting. It's miracle in a setting where miracles don't happen. I don't have any problem with miracles generally... I just didn't want one for the ending of mass effect.

 Chongara wrote:
The Starchild's magic

Calling the Catalyst AI something different in order to insult it doesn't make for a convincing argument.

The only ending that could have your description applied to it (and yet I still don't necessarily agree) is the Synthesis ending . The Control and Destroy endings, as well as the "everyone dies" ending of course (since it involves no actions by said AI), both make sense within the context of the game, when you listen to / read about how the construct that the allied forces have been making actually works.

Galdos wrote:Actually you are miss remembering the scene. The Admiral gives NO such order.
The Commander of the GROUND FORCES calls for a retreat OF THE GROUND FORCES so they can regroup and try again.
The Navy continues to fight the entire time.

Hah, you're right - though I not only misremembered that scene, I also misremembered the original argument as it was actually referring to the ground forces.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/441497.page#4226419

It's been some time!

Having just watched the original ending on YT again, they do say that "the entire force is decimated", though, and with task force Hammer representing all the Alliance could throw at them, the mission was effectively considered a failure. A second attempt was not possible, so they'd pull out everyone - and I'd now assume that the Normandy is in FTL because she's part of the forces allowed to jump out whilst part of the fleet covers their retreat against the Reaper onslaught. There was no good reason for the Normandy to remain in combat and sacrifice herself, after all.

Asherian Command wrote:That was an actual possible ending if you shoot the AI you get that ending.

Ashiraya wrote:You can also get it by telling the catalyst you won't use the crucible.

Or by really just doing nothing and letting the hidden timer run out.

... I accidentally did that during my first game, trying too hard to decide.

Chongara wrote:Enter the Starchild the catalyst. It is not a thing but a character. That's a big problem, a big, big, big problem. See players like me expected the catalyst to resolve things, but we expected it to be something Shepard used or set into motion to resolve things. By making the catalyst a character, they hand the all responsibility for the resolution to that character.

I think a bigger problem for many players was the design of the Catalyst as a holographic kid. A whole lot of gamers didn't appreciate "their" Shep getting nightmares "just" for seeing some random kid die (I mean, it's not like real world PTSD soldiers don't go through the exact same experiences or anything), and seeing this kid pop up again fans the flames of an existing bias. The derogatory moniker "starchild" is a good hint here.

On a sidenote, I also don't think the Crucible was actually supposed to work, because it was a poorly-understood (<- they actually said that, too!) piece of tech cobbled together from puzzle pieces left behind by other civilisations who likewise struggled to understand the Reapers. The Crucible was, in the end, just an idea, but it failed to work.

This only makes the Crucible pointless from a narrative perspective if you consider the path to an objective pointless and just want to "get there", though. It's a bit like Han and Luke flying to Bespin just so that Vader can capture them. A plan goes awry, forcing the heroes to adapt and improvise.

Chongara wrote:The, we have the three colored lights of the ending. These... whatever they were are so poorly defined they seem like magic, they operate outside the rules of the setting. They are so broadly reaching and powerful they're out of scope with anything in the setting.

Not necessarily. It depends on your interpretation .. as mentioned previously, all three endings employ elements of the Reapers, and so it doesn't take much of a leap to assume that they'd make use of Reaper tech as well. If you can transform a human into a husk, why not Synthesis? And Control/Destroy really were just a galaxywide communication issueing override orders the Reapers (as a product of the same people who built the Catalyst) would have to follow, be it retreat or self-destruct.

After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.

I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.

ME3, like almost all Bioware games, told a bad story very well, and provided game play on a scale between "iffy" and "boring."

My problems with it, however, are far more rational than all this "the end is off" nonsense:

1) Is Shepard Alliance Navy or is he an Alliance Marine? If the former, what's he doing leading infantry squads? If the latter, what's he doing captaining ships?

2) Ashley gets promoted at least five grades, including obtaining an officer's commission, in the span of two years. WTF?

That's it. That's really all that bothered me.

 Seaward wrote:
1) Is Shepard Alliance Navy or is he an Alliance Marine? If the former, what's he doing leading infantry squads? If the latter, what's he doing captaining ships?

Yes, and yes. She is a Marine in the Alliance Navy. This is clearly a different power structure than the American Marines vs the American Navy.

 Seaward wrote:
2) Ashley gets promoted at least five grades, including obtaining an officer's commission, in the span of two years. WTF?

That's it. That's really all that bothered me.

Those were extra-ordinary times and she was an extra-ordinary person.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.

I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.

You know. I read this and thought... Wow. Okay. I mean its not like you were going in with a bias already.

Mate I am sorry to say this, but there have been the few here who have liked the ending, we are a minority it seems. Because we see more than just a 'sour' ending. In fact I am one of the few that said. "That ending could of been better, if it was more cruel to the player."

I mean I am equating it to lovecraft, who is notorious for killing his main leads off at the end of the book.

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, and yes. She is a Marine in the Alliance Navy. This is clearly a different power structure than the American Marines vs the American Navy.

Oh, indeed. Certainly one in which officers are allowed to bang the bejesus out of enlisted sailors and marines, which is sketchball deluxe at best.

Those were extra-ordinary times and she was an extra-ordinary person.

So's Shep, and he got, at most, a bump of one whole grade.

Seaward wrote:Oh, indeed. Certainly one in which officers are allowed to bang the bejesus out of enlisted sailors and marines, which is sketchball deluxe at best.

Actually, Evil-Shep can fire Traynor for fraternization if she romanced her, so the Alliance does seem to have regulations for this.
But just like in the real world, that obviously doesn't magically remove people's ability to do it anyways.

As for Shep's rank and function, I vaguely recall it was an exception. The Normandy was supposed to be commanded by Anderson, but he gave the ship to Shep when the latter became a Spectre. So this has nothing to do with the Alliance, it's in recognition of his/her authority as a Citadel Operative.

Seaward wrote:So's Shep, and he got, at most, a bump of one whole grade.

To be fair, Shep already started fairly high in the chain of command, and didn't need a higher rank for the tasks s/he was assigned to.

Skipping ranks is not unknown in military history, and certainly not during or shortly after a crisis. Real-world Custer was commissioned as a 2nd lieutenant (1861), then promoted to captain (1862), then brigadier general (1863). Three years to general!
If you have more troops than officers to lead them, promotions come quickly! Especially for someone whose name is affiliated with various heroics and whose career attracted the attention of influential superiors.

 Seaward wrote:
Oh, indeed. Certainly one in which officers are allowed to bang the bejesus out of enlisted sailors and marines, which is sketchball deluxe at best.

While I actually share your objections, I'd like to point out that, with the exception of Traynor and the Virimire Survivors, the people that Shepard can sleep with are not Alliance forces under her command.

 Seaward wrote:
So's Shep, and he got, at most, a bump of one whole grade.

Not really no. See, Shep became a Spectre. That's a political force well above just about anything the Alliance can promote her to. By game three, she was the unofficial leader of the galaxy.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.

I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.

You know. I read this and thought... Wow. Okay. I mean its not like you were going in with a bias already.

Mate I am sorry to say this, but there have been the few here who have liked the ending, we are a minority it seems. Because we see more than just a 'sour' ending. In fact I am one of the few that said. "That ending could of been better, if it was more cruel to the player."

I mean I am equating it to lovecraft, who is notorious for killing his main leads off at the end of the book.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me in this response. You don't have to apologize to me that you liked the ending, this stuff is incredibly subjective and I can certainly acknowledge that the reasons I hated it could easily be the reasons others loved it and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm also not sure where you were going with the bias comment, it's not like I didn't play the game and simply hopped onto the bandwagon. I was actually quite vigilant not to read anything about the ending on my first playthrough, so my disappointment was genuine.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
After reading through all four pages, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything Chongara said. I haven't played the game since release, but even right after beating it I don't think I could have articulated my criticism as well as he did in this thread. There was something incredibly off-putting about the ending for me, I mean aside from the fact that none of your decisions in the rest of the series influence the ending in a series that built itself up on giving players the power of choice. Thanks to Chonagara, I now know what that is.

I also have to agree with others who have said that the ending of 3 was bad enough to sour the entire experience for them, I'm honestly not sure I could play the whole trilogy over again knowing how it ends. Which is a shame because I really loved the series right up until that final encounter.

You know. I read this and thought... Wow. Okay. I mean its not like you were going in with a bias already.

Mate I am sorry to say this, but there have been the few here who have liked the ending, we are a minority it seems. Because we see more than just a 'sour' ending. In fact I am one of the few that said. "That ending could of been better, if it was more cruel to the player."

I mean I am equating it to lovecraft, who is notorious for killing his main leads off at the end of the book.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me in this response. You don't have to apologize to me that you liked the ending, this stuff is incredibly subjective and I can certainly acknowledge that the reasons I hated it could easily be the reasons others loved it and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm also not sure where you were going with the bias comment, it's not like I didn't play the game and simply hopped onto the bandwagon. I was actually quite vigilant not to read anything about the ending on my first playthrough, so my disappointment was genuine.

WEll the major thing i think is people take it differently. I use to dispise. Till I stepped back and thought about it. Because at the time. I had also started playing Spec Ops: The Line. (Which is a true Lovecraftian story, IN THE GREATEST SENSE, play the game and tell me I am wrong here, I dare you, and then take the ideas of lovecraft and apply it to the game, it is kind of scary)

But anyway I became a little indifferent to the ending. Then I sat down and played it again after reading a few more books and after my whole spec ops dillema. I was quite changed by it and I regarded the ending as how it was suppose to end. I couldn't really see it ending differently. I mean the game had gotten darker and darker.

I mean earth is basically a dead world by the end. The population of the gaxaly has been decreased by at least 60%, the fleet is in ruins, and I didn't know how they would survive.

I pre-ordered ME3, and was amazingly hyped. I went into internet lockdown when I was playing it, to avoid even the faintest hint of a spoiler. And the ending took all that, and turned it into a giant, epic....."meh". Not hatred, that implies some sort of strong emotion. I just stopped caring about the series, or my character. Sold my copy on, never got the "fixed" ending or any DLC.

The reason the ending failed for me was....look, the ending to "2001: A Space Odyssey" is great, something really mindblowing and powerful. But let's say you've watched the original Star Wars movies as they first come out in cinema, you go into "Return of the Jedi" on tenterhooks for how this is going to end. And when Luke enters the throne room of the Emperor, then we get the ending from "2001". That doesn't work (any more than 2001 ending with a lightsaber fight between Hal and Dave would). Not because it's a bad ending, but because it clashes massively with what the films were about. And the Mass Effect games were about the characters, and individual stories. All of the big pivotal moments in the story are based around the choices and personalities of individual people.

Even the Big Significant Events of the games are seen through the lens of an individual, a flawed and believable person whose development serves as a smaller version of a grand impersonal conflict. We see how the Reapers work through Saren's collaboration, and his realisation that he's being transformed into a puppet and (possibly) taking his own life in horror at what he's become. We see the Krogan conflict through Wrex's desire to redeem his people, Eve's stoic faith in a better tomorrow, and Mordin's gnawing guilt and the wish to fix his mistake before he dies. We see how desperate the quarians are to regain their homeworld through the extremes Tali's father goes to, and we see the geth's search for purpose through Legion. And so on, and so on.

And the ending forgets that. When I played through it, after the blast I wasn't wondering about how to defeat Space Squid, I was worried about what had happened to Javik and Garrus, and the people on the Citadel*. The game just suddenly and jarringly forgot about them (we just assume Bailey, Kelly and everyone else we knew on there got melted, I guess?), and became about abstract cosmic stuff, from a character who appeared out of nowhere and whom I had no connection to. Indeed, I had no reason to believe a word the creator of the Reapers said to me. It's an an utter monster responsible for countless trillions of sadistic murders!

The ending discarded every character that the story had been built around up to that point, and dragged in a new one, saying "Now the game is about this creature, which is giving you three rather random choices, for vague reasons.". But I had no reason to care about or even trust this character, their thesis made no sense and violently clashed with my own achievements in the game**, but was right because the plot forbade you to argue. You simply cannot bait and switch what a story is about that late in the narrative and end up with something good.



* Remember how the point of the first games climax was that if the Reapers took the Citadel, they would switch off the mass effect relays and win? Bioware didn't.

** Just a second, Starkid, let me call up EDI, the quarians and the geth who are fighting together against your space squids, and see if they can think of a better solution to your "inevitable" organic / synthetic conflict than murdering everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

WEll the major thing i think is people take it differently. I use to dispise. Till I stepped back and thought about it. Because at the time. I had also started playing Spec Ops: The Line. (Which is a true Lovecraftian story, IN THE GREATEST SENSE, play the game and tell me I am wrong here, I dare you, and then take the ideas of lovecraft and apply it to the game, it is kind of scary)

But anyway I became a little indifferent to the ending. Then I sat down and played it again after reading a few more books and after my whole spec ops dillema. I was quite changed by it and I regarded the ending as how it was suppose to end. I couldn't really see it ending differently. I mean the game had gotten darker and darker.

I mean earth is basically a dead world by the end. The population of the gaxaly has been decreased by at least 60%, the fleet is in ruins, and I didn't know how they would survive.

I don't think there's really a comparison between the two. Spec Ops is a game where you know from a quite early point (if not by the phosphorous bombing, then certainly by the water tankers) that this is not a happy story, that your protagonist is slipping from hero to antihero to horrifying villain, and neither they nor the other characters are going to get a happy ending. It has a theme and steadily sticks to that theme up to the final revelation which, critically, makes perfect sense, and which the story so far has been preparing you for.

With ME3, yes, there was horrifying stuff going on (it had been built up from the first game what the Reapers were and what they did), but the other recurring theme through all three games was that yes, you could make a difference through being the biggest badass or the biggest hero in the galaxy. In every stage, and at every crisis point of all three games, personal heroism or sacrifice is what makes the difference--it's going back to this series being all about the characters rather than big abstract threats, and I'd say that's the antithesis of Lovecraftian horror where the universe is brutal and uncaring, and you are an insignificant flicker in the void which will end in the blink of a god's eye. Except suddenly, that stops mattering. For a comparison with Spec Ops, imagine that at the end, you'd found out that the 33rd and the citizens were actually building a secret doomsday weapon under Dubai with which to hold the world hostage, so everything you'd done had actually been justified. That's the sort of "take the themes of the game, crumple them up and throw them into a bin" that I'm talking about.

I don't think there's really a comparison between the two. Spec Ops is a game where you know from a quite early point (if not by the phosphorous bombing, then certainly by the water tankers) that this is not a happy story, that your protagonist is slipping from hero to antihero to horrifying villain, and neither they nor the other characters are going to get a happy ending. It has a theme and steadily sticks to that theme up to the final revelation which, critically, makes perfect sense, and which the story so far has been preparing you for.

With ME3, yes, there was horrifying stuff going on (it had been built up from the first game what the Reapers were and what they did), but the other recurring theme through all three games was that yes, you could make a difference through being the biggest badass or the biggest hero in the galaxy. In every stage, and at every crisis point of all three games, personal heroism or sacrifice is what makes the difference--it's going back to this series being all about the characters rather than big abstract threats, and I'd say that's the antithesis of Lovecraftian horror where the universe is brutal and uncaring, and you are an insignificant flicker in the void which will end in the blink of a god's eye. Except suddenly, that stops mattering. For a comparison with Spec Ops, imagine that at the end, you'd found out that the 33rd and the citizens were actually building a secret doomsday weapon under Dubai with which to hold the world hostage, so everything you'd done had actually been justified. That's the sort of "take the themes of the game, crumple them up and throw them into a bin" that I'm talking about.

Yeah. I feel like Spec Ops and games of its ilk need a separate thread because damn it I need an analysis of it. Its actually in the works, I have pages upon pages to work on though and I might work it as a thesis or something.

I agree. And great sub-analysis.

This thread is mere a supposing of certain threads and ideas. But I can see the mass opposition in the matter.

Guys, guys, guys.

This explains the ending of ME3.

You see, at some point before, the Catalyst and Wrex were watching TV...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH3TMjxKVMM&t=2m16s

Elemental wrote:And the ending forgets that. When I played through it, after the blast I wasn't wondering about how to defeat Space Squid, I was worried about what had happened to Javik and Garrus, and the people on the Citadel*. The game just suddenly and jarringly forgot about them (we just assume Bailey, Kelly and everyone else we knew on there got melted, I guess?), and became about abstract cosmic stuff, from a character who appeared out of nowhere and whom I had no connection to.

I actually considered this "a feature, not a bug". The game's original ending set me into a mood where I wanted to imagine for myself what could have happened, rather than being fed by the game. The way I see it, the game just "zooms out" to show you a glimpse of the consequences of your actions throughout the galaxy, and then back in to tease and leave you with a spark of hope for a new beginning.

All the details? Headcanon. I actually think the "Extended Cut" destroyed this, but I guess I can see why other gamers just prefer this style of narration. It comes down to personal preference.

Elemental wrote:The ending discarded every character that the story had been built around up to that point, and dragged in a new one, saying "Now the game is about this creature, which is giving you three rather random choices, for vague reasons.". But I had no reason to care about or even trust this character, their thesis made no sense and violently clashed with my own achievements in the game**, but was right because the plot forbade you to argue.

The game never became "about" the Catalyst for me. The AI was just another trigger for me.

And are you sure that you wishing to argue with the Catalyst isn't just you trying to enforce your own "plot" for the game? The way I see it, sometimes, you simply can't convince your opponent. Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.
Or did you really expect to be able to walk up to the Catalyst and the AI being like: "huh, in all those millennia, I never actually thought about it that way. I've got more processing power than your entire fleet combined, but I guess what you say makes more sense than my calculations and program directives" ?


Really, it's the very same as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Curiously I've never seen people criticise that ending, even though it applies the very same concepts and supposed lack of "individual resolution".

Really, it's the very same as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Curiously I've never seen people criticise that ending, even though it applies the very same concepts and supposed lack of "individual resolution".

I've seen plenty of criticism of it. It's the whole final sequence is kind of a dull non-climax. The endings are profoundly lazy being narration over stock footage and the pick-an-ending buttons weren't terribly compelling there. However these are relatively minor problems in the context of human revolution. It's lazy and a bit dull but what happened fit with the themes and tone of the game, broadly speaking


If the ME ending had only been lazy and dull (which it was), it wouldn't have faced the kind of backlash it did. Folks would have still been angry but not nearly to the degree they were. The bigger is wasn't just lazy and dull, it was lazy dull and nearly the antithesis of everything Mass Effect had been up until that point.

 Lynata wrote:
Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.

As a great example of this, see: Thessia.

 Lynata wrote:

Really, it's the very same as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Curiously I've never seen people criticise that ending, even though it applies the very same concepts and supposed lack of "individual resolution".

People did critise Deus Ex: Human Revolutions ending for the exact same thing. - Nowhere near as much, but it was a non-zero number.

If I remember right (which, admittedly, I'm probably not), it was actually Bioware taking the mick out DX:HR's ending that originally spurred lots of the anger for ME:3. - They actually talked about not going up to a machine and picking button A, B or C.

The other thing to remember, is that DX: HR was a prequel. - You knew how things were going to end for it all. What mattered was how the specific characters you interacted with were resolved, which is what the 3 endings provided. Heck, DX:HR could make the same claim with as much validity as Bioware for the number of endings. - The voice-over dialogue changed depending on how big a jerkface you were during the game.

 Compel wrote:


If I remember right (which, admittedly, I'm probably not), it was actually Bioware taking the mick out DX:HR's ending that originally spurred lots of the anger for ME:3. - They actually talked about not going up to a machine and picking button A, B or C.

Yes. In fact it was of the two guys that locked the other writers out of the room and wrote the ME3 ending on their own that were the most vocal about it.

 Lynata wrote:
I actually considered this "a feature, not a bug". The game's original ending set me into a mood where I wanted to imagine for myself what could have happened, rather than being fed by the game. The way I see it, the game just "zooms out" to show you a glimpse of the consequences of your actions throughout the galaxy, and then back in to tease and leave you with a spark of hope for a new beginning.

All the details? Headcanon. I actually think the "Extended Cut" destroyed this, but I guess I can see why other gamers just prefer this style of narration. It comes down to personal preference.

Like I said, ME3 was all about the characters, and the grand story is told through their personal stories that had been built up. I can understand leaving everything that happens afterwards ambiguous, but I want to see more of my effects on the galaxy than the same cutscene with a palette swap. The Extended ending did patch that, thankfully.

And honestly, if you take the pre-Extended ending, the outlook is pretty inarguably bleak and horrific.

 Lynata wrote:
The game never became "about" the Catalyst for me. The AI was just another trigger for me.

And are you sure that you wishing to argue with the Catalyst isn't just you trying to enforce your own "plot" for the game? The way I see it, sometimes, you simply can't convince your opponent. Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.
Or did you really expect to be able to walk up to the Catalyst and the AI being like: "huh, in all those millennia, I never actually thought about it that way. I've got more processing power than your entire fleet combined, but I guess what you say makes more sense than my calculations and program directives" ?

I expect to be able to point of the yawning holes in its thesis. Remember the climax of Rannoch, if you get the "good ending"?

Reaper: Synthetics and organics are doomed to fight eternally.
Shepard: That's not true, we don't have to be enemies!
Reaper: The battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion.

And then you prove it wrong. Totally, unambiguously, wrong. You resolve a vendetta that has lasted for decades and looked at some points to be verging on genocidal war. Both species work together to make their world a better place, and to aid you in your war. On a more personal level, there's EDI and her quest to understand and relate to humanity, and her being a stalwart companion in the fight against the Reapers. So yes.....I do appear to know better than Starkid. The plot so far has shown me no reason to agree with it, and several reasons that it's just plain wrong. If the story wants to suddenly U-turn on that and make Starkid seem more than delusional with its thesis of "inevitable war, to which mega-genocide is somehow the best solution", it needs to show evidence.

Yes, you can fanwank a reason why that doesn't apply. It's still bad storytelling, but I can understand wanting to salvage the ending. But if Starkid has a crushing counterpoint, then we need to hear it. But not being able to ask and get an explanation for this incredible assertion does not say to me that it had godlike intelligence and comprehension, it says that the writers were being lazy and forgot their own plot holes.

(And incidentally, the idea of "AI is always right because it's smarter than you" doesn't fit in the setting. Mass Effect never did the SF trope of "When you put enough processors onto an AI, it becomes godlike and always right.". It doesn't happen with any AI we see in the game--even the geth collective, the biggest AI we see in the game, have understandable motivations and outlooks, and make mistakes and bad calls.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Sometimes, it's impossible to make something work the way you want it to. C'est la vie ... literally.

As a great example of this, see: Thessia.

Well, that was more because of Kai Leng's ability to trigger cutscene invulnerability at will, after spending the actual boss fight stunlocked.

Though Thessia and other unavoidable setbacks still adhere to what makes the game work. You see the impact of the failure on other characters, and the game very quickly offers you a possible way to pull back that defeat. Thessia (and Virmire, Horizon, the first siege of the Citadel, and other dark moments) stick to the themes that drive 2.95 of the games--that big stories are told through relatable individuals, and that personal heroism and sacrifice can salvage even the grimmest of situations.

... actually, I wiped the Geth out. They had their chance, and the fact that they were not a unified codebase and could have a faction that would later populate into the trillions and go all Dalek was enough to have me End them.

Also, I had to have Tali's back... which immediately paid dividends when not-Legion (he died in my Suicide Mission in ME2... sniper round to the flashlight) tried to kill me.

So, screw the Geth.

Me? I pressed the button. The button that blew up the links and exterminated the Reapers. Yes, this does away with the galaxy's current form of FTL... but it doesn't destroy the knowledge of it. The galaxy will recover and rebuild. It always has, and in this case, I'm giving them a much better starting point than the Reapers ever did.

The Normandy apparently made it with my surviving crew to Planet Tahiti, so those guys and gals at least get to spend the rest of their lives on a Paradise World.

Me? I'm left broken and bleeding... but obviously alive... in the ruins of Earth. I'm fine with that. Let me find a copy of Covenant's "Final Man" and I will be fine just wandering the blasted ruins.

Compel wrote:People did critise Deus Ex: Human Revolutions ending for the exact same thing. - Nowhere near as much, but it was a non-zero number.

Hmmh, guess I must have missed all of that.

Only goes to show how it's a matter of taste, I guess. With me enjoying both endings, my preferences seem fairly consistent.

Compel wrote:You knew how things were going to end for it all. What mattered was how the specific characters you interacted with were resolved, which is what the 3 endings provided.

The characters? Now, it's been some time since I played it, but I am fairly sure that the ending was solely concerned about the path humanity would take when it comes to augmentation. Everything that concerns the characters is "resolved" before (insofar that they either die or survive, with you being left in the dark about their future).

Elemental wrote:And honestly, if you take the pre-Extended ending, the outlook is pretty inarguably bleak and horrific.

How so?

This is what I wrote up as one of the possible eras for a homebrewed Mass Effect P&P, before having seen the Extended Cut:

"In the chain reaction that followed Shepard's final sacrifice onboard the Citadel, the mass relays that served to connect the star clusters of the galaxy for millions of years discharged all their energy in one final pulse before breaking down for good. The many worlds colonized by the sentient species that had barely survived the Reaper onslaught suddenly found themselves cut off from their neighbors. Yet in spite of the ensuing chaos, the people prevailed, and scattered communities soon began to rebuild.

Depending on the exact time of your campaign, this epoch will feature a mix of peaceful exploration and hazardous adventuring either on a single planet, a star system, or beyond. The SSV Normandy, having managed to escape through the Sol Relay after general retreat was ordered, had stranded on an unknown world, an arc whose survivors would become the first settlers of a new colony built upon the interracial cooperation that had ensured victory in the recent war. Elsewhere, other planets, ranging from heavily urbanized city-worlds to small frontier colonies, found themselves similarly confronted by enforced independence. Everywhere the people reacted differently to this enormous change and to their isolation amidst the chaos left by the Reapers. Yet eventually, things would simmer down and some sort of stability would come to be. Most of the time.

If history has proven one thing, it is that, ultimately, the species of this galaxy would find a solution to any problem. With minds no longer shackled by complacency and reliance on Reaper-originating technology, it was only a matter of time until alternate forms of interstellar propulsion were discovered. Meanwhile, the legend of The Shepard would still be told centuries later, inspiring a new generation of heroes that would eventually grow up and seek out the stars, intent on reconnecting with their long-lost relatives. Of course, these brave adventurers would have their own problems to face, just like the people that came before them ..."

Less bleak and horrific, more of a "fresh start", imho.

Elemental wrote:And then you prove it wrong. Totally, unambiguously, wrong. You resolve a vendetta that has lasted for decades and looked at some points to be verging on genocidal war.

It's not exactly proof if it requires outside influence (you), as ultimately something like this will happen again, and what if no-one like Shep isn't around then? It may be "fanwank" for you, but at the same time I consider it "fanwank" to just disregard the entire ending because you believe the solution you concocted in your mind is so much better.

Though let me be clear, I actually agree that the whole "naturals vs synthetics" is BS. Imho they should've just changed that to a claim of "technology ultimately leads to destruction", based on the idea that at some level some civilisation, instead of only killing themselves and maybe one or two other species, is going to blow the entire galaxy up in a way that it won't be able to sustain life. Same plot device, much more waterproof.

Elemental wrote:And incidentally, the idea of "AI is always right because it's smarter than you" doesn't fit in the setting. Mass Effect never did the SF trope of "When you put enough processors onto an AI, it becomes godlike and always right.".

Of course not. But it ought to be able to understand things that are, quite simply, too obvious to miss.


Also, exalted @ Psienesis
Welcome to Club Destroy

I forged a peace between the Geth and the Quarians. I love Legion so much.

I chose control. My immortal conscience shall now be the guardian of this galaxy, protecting it against any unforeseen future threats and helping the other races achieve things we never could have without each other.

 Lynata wrote:
How so?

The Alliance fleet is trapped in a ravaged solar system, with a world that can no longer sustain them. Quarians and turians can't even eat human food, so unless they can sustain themselves from the surviving quarian fleet, they'll starve. The leader who was keeping the krogan from reverting back to war is trapped far from his people, and the quarians will never see their homeworld again. There are likely a lot of small colonies and stations out there which will die or revert to barbarism because they never expected to sustain themselves without mass relay resupply. Yay?

Of course, I don't believe those dark implications were intentional, just careless.

 Lynata wrote:
If history has proven one thing, it is that, ultimately, the species of this galaxy would find a solution to any problem. With minds no longer shackled by complacency and reliance on Reaper-originating technology, it was only a matter of time until alternate forms of interstellar propulsion were discovered. Meanwhile, the legend of The Shepard would still be told centuries later, inspiring a new generation of heroes that would eventually grow up and seek out the stars, intent on reconnecting with their long-lost relatives. Of course, these brave adventurers would have their own problems to face, just like the people that came before them ..."[/i]

Less bleak and horrific, more of a "fresh start", imho.

To me, that sounds like the same thing you're accusing me of, overwriting the ending with one that actually makes sense and thinks about the implications of the setting-changing things that are casually thrown out there with no real build-up.

And that's cool! I'm glad you were able to salvage it rather than being completely turned off the setting, as I was.

 Lynata wrote:
It's not exactly proof if it requires outside influence (you), as ultimately something like this will happen again, and what if no-one like Shep isn't around then? It may be "fanwank" for you, but at the same time I consider it "fanwank" to just disregard the entire ending because you believe the solution you concocted in your mind is so much better.
Though let me be clear, I actually agree that the whole "naturals vs synthetics" is BS. Imho they should've just changed that to a claim of "technology ultimately leads to destruction", based on the idea that at some level some civilisation, instead of only killing themselves and maybe one or two other species, is going to blow the entire galaxy up in a way that it won't be able to sustain life. Same plot device, much more waterproof.

There is no "solution I've concocted in my mind". I only have criticisms of what we got.

The "inevitable war" thing gets bought up once, by a character you can immediately prove wrong. And then at the end, it gets bought up as if it's a proven truth. Yes, we've seen a war between synthetic and organic species', but that was due to circumstances and misunderstandings that made perfect sense for the races concerned (and could have been avoided if things had panned out differently), rather than some inherent and inevitable race-hatred.

It's like saying that avian- and simian-descended races are eternal enemies who can never co-habit, based on the First Contact War between humans and turians. The geth and quarians seemed much more friendly at the end than other species who had patched up their differences to join the alliance. Based on what we see, I'd consider a new salarian-krogan war far more likely than those two. And even if there is a war, it will not be down to "You are made of meat / metal, MUST KILL."

And even if we make the tremendous leap to accept that synthetic and organic must inevitably war, the fact remains that the Reaper's solution is massive serial genocide, in a pointlessly cruel way. That was really the best solution? How about exterminating species (or threatening to do that) once they start actually mistreating synthetics? Nope, wipe out every species, even those that show no interest in creating artificial life. It's a solution that's worse than anything the problem could possibly lead to.

And again, the one telling you this is the creator of the Reapers and therefore someone with an unimaginable amount of blood on their hands. I wouldn't trust their sanity, never mind their accuracy on race relations. But considering each Reaper is created from millions of screaming, tormented sentient beings, gibbering insanity is quite plausible on their part.

 Lynata wrote:
Of course not. But it ought to be able to understand things that are, quite simply, too obvious to miss.

Then it would have taken a couple of lines to explain that to the player. Again, it's introducing a new concept to the series with maybe one fragment of foreshadowing, and saying "the setting is about this now". You can't throw something like that out there with yawning plot holes, and then say "You don't get to question this or have it explained. Take our word for it and forget what you thought you know, this character is right, and you must base your decision on the premise that they are right."

Elemental wrote:Of course, I don't believe those dark implications were intentional, just careless.

I think they were not unintentional, just ultimately unimportant. Even if the Alliance fleet is trapped (whether or not the Earth was ravaged actually depended on your EMS - it's one of the small, oft-forgotten details that greatly expand the number of possible endings), even if there are multiple colonies and stations who may or may not "revert to barbarism" ... in the big picture, none of this matters. The galaxy is saved. Life will continue. Civilisation will continue.

Did anyone weep for the many innocents who died when the first Death Star exploded?

Elemental wrote:To me, that sounds like the same thing you're accusing me of, overwriting the ending with one that actually makes sense and thinks about the implications of the setting-changing things that are casually thrown out there with no real build-up.
And that's cool! I'm glad you were able to salvage it rather than being completely turned off the setting, as I was.

What exactly am I rewriting or ignoring here?

I wanted to stick to the game as close as possibly, so if I missed something, please tell me so I can make the necessary changes.

Elemental wrote:The "inevitable war" thing gets bought up once, by a character you can immediately prove wrong.

But you can't prove it wrong. It's just as impossible as saying that Earth will never see a big war again just because we've got the UN now. Look at what good the League of Nations did. It's just a matter of time.

The only silliness I see is in the idea that a war with synthetics must be more devastating than a war between organic nations. Although one could make the claim that synthetics are just incredibly more efficient and resilient, and - in the rather understandable quest for raw resources - will ultimately expand into organic space, triggering further conflict which the organics have no chance at winning. It hasn't anything to do with hate, just expansionism and an unfair advantage. Although caution ("what is not us could destroy us") could easily factor into it. It's scary how cold logic can sometimes make genocide seem like the easiest solution to a problem. Eliminate chemically-induced morals and ethics from a decision, and you'll end up with something that is sinister without even wanting to be.
Still too thin for my taste, but I've seen waaay worse.

As for mass genocide - it is the safest solution, so it could indeed be seen as the best one. The Reapers are gardeners, and life in the galaxy is a patch of grass that occasionally needs to be trimmed in order to keep it neat and prevent it from destroying itself. Simple as that. Would you have any scruples for squashing a few bugs that are threatening your garden? Because that is what the Leviathans ultimately perceive your species as.

Elemental wrote:Then it would have taken a couple of lines to explain that to the player.

lol, the players would have never been satisfied unless there really was an option to let them win at everything, Disney-style, because that is what a whole lot of people expected from the ending. There was an option to debate to no avail. People had the option to ask questions and say "bs". It's just that none of this actually had an effect on the Catalyst, because it made up its mind, either according to itself or to the doctrines programmed into it by the Leviathans. So the players complained. Hell, there were even people who complained on BSN they weren't allowed to simply shoot the Catalyst. How could anyone believe this would solve anything?! Yet lo and behold, BioWare actually inserted an option to do so in the Extended Cut. Needless to say, people still weren't satisfied with the rather logical consequences of that. What else could you ask for?

Besides, shooting a hologram, seriously, what the hell did they expect to accomplish shooting an optical illusion created by refracting light?

 Psienesis wrote:
... actually, I wiped the Geth out. They had their chance, and the fact that they were not a unified codebase and could have a faction that would later populate into the trillions and go all Dalek was enough to have me End them.

Also, I had to have Tali's back... which immediately paid dividends when not-Legion (he died in my Suicide Mission in ME2... sniper round to the flashlight) tried to kill me.

So, screw the Geth.

Me? I pressed the button. The button that blew up the links and exterminated the Reapers. Yes, this does away with the galaxy's current form of FTL... but it doesn't destroy the knowledge of it. The galaxy will recover and rebuild. It always has, and in this case, I'm giving them a much better starting point than the Reapers ever did.

The Normandy apparently made it with my surviving crew to Planet Tahiti, so those guys and gals at least get to spend the rest of their lives on a Paradise World.

Me? I'm left broken and bleeding... but obviously alive... in the ruins of Earth. I'm fine with that. Let me find a copy of Covenant's "Final Man" and I will be fine just wandering the blasted ruins.

That is quite interesting of an opinion and one that I agree with.