BioWare: No Decision Yet On Mass Effect 3 Ending

Elios said:
ok then please explain to the class what happend then
Click to expand...
Watch matrix reloaded, it will make sense :) basicaly that child was the catalyst,and told sheperd he has 3 choices. The enemy was so great, that a sacrifice had to be made in order to save the galaxy. Seems about right,since the enemy was so strong there coulndt be a happy ending. Just like matrix revolutions when neo and trinity died at the end. Its just imposible for a bunch of humas to go so far,succed and live to fight another day, that only happens in fairy tails to keep kids happy :))) the ending made sense, and is the logical answer to a fight that big. The fact that your choices in the game matter less to influence the ending is another story.
 
Sure, I'd like you see your logic if it's logical.

Don't go too easy on me.
 
J W said:
Sure, I'd like you see your logic if it's logical.

Don't go too easy on me.
Click to expand...
On each mission u it was u and 2 team- mates,its not logical they would even make it this far, facing so many enemies. How can it be logical for 1 man to save the entire galaxy and live happily ever after. Sacrifices had to be done like destroying the mass relays, or even killing millions of people to save an entire galaxy. Thats war, the hero dies, sacrifices are made. I would have also enjoyed another ending, but the one we got make sense to me , its the grim reality of war....
 
I wouldn't be surprised if EA hired Michael Bay and instead of an ending in game form you get it as a trilogy of six movies. ME is pretty much Bay material - hot chicks, lots of explosions, it used to have a plot but they killed the hell out of it at the end - it's perfect!
 
The problem with the endings is that none of the choices are choices my Shepard would have considered. If I were to stay true to my Shepard, I'd have sat there, watching the space battle unfold and breaking the back of the Reaper fleet so that the next cycle will finish them off. But Bioware didn't let me go through with that. I could sit there forever and nothing would happen. I was required to take one of the three options presented to me.

The red one was the best, except for the fact that I can't take the red one after admitting to the Geth that yes, they have souls. They are individuals and each is as important as any human, asari, turian, quarian or any other organic's life. To a Paragon Shepard, who never compromises, killing the few for the benefit of the many is wrong.

But the underlying reason why I can't take any of the choices is that it implies the Child AI is right. These are not my choices, they're the AI's choices. I've proven that its reasoning is wrong, that their purpose is obsolete. It claims to protect organic life from synthetic destruction, but none of the AIs in the three games has shown a fundamental desire to destroy organic life.

We had the Geth in the first game, who had stayed behind the Veil for three hundred years minding their own business until Sovereign came along. We had also the AI in the Citadel, that only sought to transfer itself to a ship and hide. It becomes hostile only when it is discovered, because it knows it will be destroyed anyway (as the more primitive AI that created it was). We also have the 'Rogue VI' in Luna, which had just achieved sentience in a firing range and attempted to defend itself from the forces attacking it, not aware that it was a testing ground. It's last act as you kill it is a desperate plea for help.

In the second game we learn more about the Geth, and are introduced to EDI. We learn that most of the Geth chose not to follow Sovereign, only want peace with the Quarians, and are just holding on to their planet until they can achieve this goal. EDI starts as a shackled AI, until the crew is abducted and you have to free her and give her full access to the Normandy. Despite her imprisonment, however, she remains completely loyal to Shepard and his fight to save organic life. She even develops a rapport with Joker, the person who distrusted her the most before.

Finally, in the third game, we are given the opportunity to end a three centuries old war between the Quarian and the Geth, getting them to work in harmony. Each Geth unit reaches a level of intelligence on par with a person, and they help the Quarians resettle their homeworld and jumpstart their weak immune systems. EDI gets a body and continues to develop, with your guidance, towards a deeper appreciation for life and interests and values beyond preserving her functionality.

No one (except for understandably bigoted Quarians) ever expresses that there is a fundamental organic/synthetic schism. All evidence points towards synthetics being a different form of life, but that when you let go of your prejudice and fear cooperation is possible and even preferable. This is even reinforced by having the Reapers look down on synthetics. They use the Geth, but they're disgusted by them and even though they seek to 'preserve' organic life, they will destroy the Geth completely.

So after hammering down this notion that you can live with synthetics, that all intelligence is worth preserving whatever shape they inhabit, we reach the end. We meet the Catalyst, and it comes up with this retarded notion that they must reap advanced civilizations before they develop synthetic intelligences that eradicate all life in the galaxy. This is WRONG. This has been shown to be wrong by three games. I've spent hours proving this very notion wrong on every conceivable level.

But instead of telling the child that no, it is wrong and the reapers are stupid and it's whole cycle of extinction is dumb, Shepard just nods. The child then gives me the only three choice that it can come up with.

I can agree with him and destroy all synthetics, sparing all organic life but dooming them to recreate the cycle anew when they create more synthetics.

I can agree with him and lead the reapers away (for now? will they return a week from now? Will they just watch and bide their time? Am I becoming the intelligence behind the reapers?).

I can agree with him and join organic and synthetic life so that synthetics no longer have an incentive to kill organics. Even though it's never been shown that synthetics have any particular drive to 'kill all organics', and even though joining synthetic and organic life doesn't prevent this new cybernetic life from creating other forms of life (either organic or synthetic) and using it's own retarded reasoning, leading to a war where the 'created rebel against the creators'.

So I know the AI is wrong, I know it's motives are wrong, it's purpose needless, and all it needs to do is realize that the thing they've been guarding against for millions of years was an unfounded fear that existed only in it's mind. But no, I'm going to agree with it anyway. And anyone wonders why people are pissed at the ending? That ending belongs to a different story. I don't know who thought to shoehorn it in my Mass Effect, but it certainly doesn't belong there.

I don't want a happy ending. I can understand the themes of sacrifice and having Shepard die, having his crew die, I could even accept having this entire cycle die to give the next cycle a chance (and then the grandfather at the end would make sense, after they found Liara's boxes that spoke of 'the Shepard'). What I don't accept is giving in to the enemy when they are shown to be objectively, empirically wrong on every count and then letting them decide the fate of the galaxy.
 
You know, i think everyone would have been satisfied with a more mundane ending all together. Even something as expected as simply turning on the catalyst and having the reapers die. A pass/fail ending would have been enough. Then having a good 10 minute follow up about the story, the characters, who lived, who died.

It would have felt like a Triumph.

I would have loved to have seen some more cut scenes in London of your team mates in action too.
 
Dan_D said:
The center option is bullshit. So you mean to tell me that Shepard is going to force everyone into a synthetic-organic hybrid form whether they like it or not? News flash, this is pretty much what the Borg and Reapers, and any other similar beings do anyway. This is bullshit.
Click to expand...
Actually, no.
The Reapers destroy to that pure organic life can remain. The Borg destroy individuality to reproduce. In this case Shepard decides that both synthetic life (Reeapers and geth) and organic life have intrinsic value, and chose to retain those values by combining the two. And I'm going to move this part up:
Dan_D said:
What's even more bullshit about this ending is the fact that the Normandy crashes and the crew exit the ship unchanged by this sorry ass ending.
Click to expand...
They were changed. They retained WHO they were before (in my ending, Joker and EDI were still together in the video), but they were now changed. They have cyber-eyes and their skin is irridenscent with lines of circuitry.

Dan_D said:
I can't agree with this at all. For one thing, such stories are little more than philosophical and while that may be fine for some, I hardly consider it entertaining. Beyond that, this type of thing has been done before. It's not the ending that Mass Effect deserves. Deus Ex Machina type endings are easier to write than an actual satisfying conclusion. It's not high brow, it's fucking lazy.
Click to expand...
This seems to be more of an opinion thing, but I for one love high-concept sci fi like this. Books like Chilhood's End (Clarke) and The Book of Job/Stranger in a Strange Land (Heinlein) all are books without endings that wrap up neatly. Often the main character dies, often because they have to, ending the story in some way, but leaving the rest of the characters a bit afloat. They had tied themselves to the main character so tightly emotionally and physically that, though the central conflict of the story was over in some way, their ultimate fate is unknown. That's what we have here. In the red and blue endings, it doesn't matter what happens next because the galaxy is doomed. In the green ending, it is saved, but we, as the organic reader, have been left behind and could not 'get' what happens next.

Dan_D said:
Nothing shaped the story because the ends preclude the idea of your choices making any difference at all with regard to the outcome of that story. And again, based on the aspects of Shepard's personality we can't control, the stuff that BioWare has written which is consistent in all versions of Shepard, that ending makes the LEAST AMOUNT OF SENSE and seems very much against the idea of free will or choice, and causes Shepard to make a unilateral decision for all life based on the word of some stupid child AI.And again, just to reiterate, this ending is trash because it's essentially forcing upon the galaxy what the Reapers do ANYWAY. Again I think this is symbolic of "giving in" to indoctrination.
Click to expand...
I'll accept that what you mean by "nothing shaped the story because the end precludes the idea of your choices making any difference" as meaning, you will get one of the three choices no matter what you did in the main story, i.e. saving/killing the geth does not change anything in the Catalyst/Crucible construct. Sure, but that's a moot point. All of those choices were designed to GET you to that place so you COULD make that decision. This was the only ending that COULD happen (short of failure to reach the beam, and that would just make a bad game that could not be finished), both in terms of game development, and in terms of the story line.

The machines guided the flow of organic development towards one goal, one decision to be made at one place. The machines knew that organic life would fail to reach that point for a long time (resulting in the culling of advanced civs), but would eventually find its way there. But once there, organic life would be allowed to make the decision, via free will, between destruction or salvation. Nothing else mattered other than a means to getting a representative of organic life to that point. And overcoming the Reapers to do it, requiring the cooperation of all life in the galaxy, was the test that had to be overcome in order to prove that organics were ready to make that decision, good or bad.
Call it fate, call it destiny, call it the POINT of the Reapers/Catalyst/Mass Relays. But this was the ending that had been, essentially, preordained in the ME universe since the Reaper cycles had begun. Sure, that conveniently fits the strictures of modern game design, but that's how I saw it.

And all those decisions that so many people (rightly enough) feel so strongly about? Sure, they were important, at a character level. Saving the Krogan or destroying the Geth, seeing Thane die, or romancing Trainer in Shepard's shower etc., were all important. They were the relationships, decisions and experiences that shape your Shepard. I know a friend of mine played Shepard as closely to the IllusiveMan's hyper-humancentrism as possible. Killing every species he could and promoting humanity's interests at all costs. Though able to choose from all three at the end of the game, he chose blue, because that fit his Shepard's story. Mine was more of an altruistic hippy-type and she chose Green. The other endings don't matter to me, since those are not the choices my Shepard would make, based on her experiences with other species and characters along the way.
 
TheBluePill said:
You know, i think everyone would have been satisfied with a more mundane ending all together. Even something as expected as simply turning on the catalyst and having the reapers die. A pass/fail ending would have been enough. Then having a good 10 minute follow up about the story, the characters, who lived, who died.

It would have felt like a Triumph.

I would have loved to have seen some more cut scenes in London of your team mates in action too.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody would have given the ending a second thought. Instead, people would go on and on about the game as a whole. Heck, the entire game is basically an ending. Blowing everything up in the last few minutes of a 120 hour trilogy, as BioWare basically did, isn't going to make you a lot of friends.
 
J W said:
Well, nobody would have given the ending a second thought. Instead, people would go on and on about the game as a whole. Heck, the entire game is basically an ending. Blowing everything up in the last few minutes of a 120 hour trilogy, as BioWare basically did, isn't going to make you a lot of friends.
Click to expand...

They didn't blow everything up! I feel like I saw a different game ending than everyone else! I saw a signal propagated by the mass relays that changed the galaxy in one of three ways: Death of synthetics, dooming the galaxy to the eventual synthetic destruction of everything for one last time. Control of the reapers by Shepard, leading to the same. Propagation of synthesis leading to peace, and an open ended universe, out from under the shadow of eventual synthetic domination.

Nothing blew up except the citadel and the mass relays when they propagated its signal!
 
You know.. wouldn't it have made more sense for the Reapers to Cull Synthetic Life, since that is what the problem is overall? I mean.. they obviously can easily control advanced synthetics like the Geth.
 
TheBluePill said:
You know.. wouldn't it have made more sense for the Reapers to Cull Synthetic Life, since that is what the problem is overall? I mean.. they obviously can easily control advanced synthetics like the Geth.
Click to expand...

No, stupid, the point is to SAVE organic life! You need to kill a whole bunch of organic life to.. prevent the synthetic life from killing it. Killing the synthetic life would have done nothing!

Obviously!
 
KatalDT said:
No, stupid, the point is to SAVE organic life! You need to kill a whole bunch of organic life to.. prevent the synthetic life from killing it. Killing the synthetic life would have done nothing!

Obviously!
Click to expand...

Darn plot holes and logic bombs! :D
 
Modred189 said:
Nothing blew up except the citadel and the mass relays when they propagated its signal!
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned...

masseffectwiki said:
The consequences of destroying a mass relay are immense: as a huge mass effect engine manipulating massive quantities of energy, a relay could produce an explosion of supernova proportions. This proves true when during Arrival, a large asteroid is purposely steered into the Bahak system's Alpha Relay. The resulting impact tears apart the relay, causing an explosion which annihilates the Bahak system and kills its more than 300,000 inhabitants.
Click to expand...
 
J W said:
As others have mentioned...
Click to expand...

Again, DESTROYING a mass relay is different than using for one of it's intended purposes:
travel
propagation of the citadel signal

Blowing one up releases its energy in an uncontrolled way. USING that energy to propagate the signal is an efficient use of that energy, thus no super nova. I didn't have a problem with this, I don't know why so many do.
 
Modred189 said:
They didn't blow everything up! I feel like I saw a different game ending than everyone else! I saw a signal propagated by the mass relays that changed the galaxy in one of three ways: Death of synthetics, dooming the galaxy to the eventual synthetic destruction of everything for one last time. Control of the reapers by Shepard, leading to the same. Propagation of synthesis leading to peace, and an open ended universe, out from under the shadow of eventual synthetic domination.

Nothing blew up except the citadel and the mass relays when they propagated its signal!
Click to expand...
The intrinsic problem with these is that the Catalyst is wrong. Synthetics don't threaten organic life. This is shown all throughout the three games. Yes, organics are paranoid and fearful of AIs, but when you give them a chance they show that they're the same as everyone else.

The same way that aliens are just as human as humans, which was an important theme in the first game, AIs being human too is a theme that runs through the second and third games. To the point that you can settle the Quarian/Geth conflict in a way that everyone benefits through cooperation.

So the three choices are stupid, because they're based on a false premise. On a false premise that you proved to be false empirically not three missions ago. EDI thanks you for making her feel alive before you reach the beam, willing to risk non-functionality to preserve organic life.

How does any of this back a decision to alter the face of the galaxy, whichever ending you 'choose', over an unfounded fear?
 
Kynnath said:
The intrinsic problem with these is that the Catalyst is wrong. Synthetics don't threaten organic life. This is shown all throughout the three games. Yes, organics are paranoid and fearful of AIs, but when you give them a chance they show that they're the same as everyone else.

The same way that aliens are just as human as humans, which was an important theme in the first game, AIs being human too is a theme that runs through the second and third games. To the point that you can settle the Quarian/Geth conflict in a way that everyone benefits through cooperation.

So the three choices are stupid, because they're based on a false premise. On a false premise that you proved to be false empirically not three missions ago. EDI thanks you for making her feel alive before you reach the beam, willing to risk non-functionality to preserve organic life.

How does any of this back a decision to alter the face of the galaxy, whichever ending you 'choose', over an unfounded fear?
Click to expand...

Shepard's mission has always been arguing against the false logic of another race or person to achieve peace. This is no different, calling the catalyst's Logic as false.
 
Kynnath said:
The intrinsic problem with these is that the Catalyst is wrong. Synthetics don't threaten organic life. This is shown all throughout the three games. Yes, organics are paranoid and fearful of AIs, but when you give them a chance they show that they're the same as everyone else.

The same way that aliens are just as human as humans, which was an important theme in the first game, AIs being human too is a theme that runs through the second and third games. To the point that you can settle the Quarian/Geth conflict in a way that everyone benefits through cooperation.

So the three choices are stupid, because they're based on a false premise. On a false premise that you proved to be false empirically not three missions ago. EDI thanks you for making her feel alive before you reach the beam, willing to risk non-functionality to preserve organic life.

How does any of this back a decision to alter the face of the galaxy, whichever ending you 'choose', over an unfounded fear?
Click to expand...
Because you are ignoring one of the major concepts of the game: Tolerance. Throughout the entire series the tolerance, or intolerance, between species is front and center. ME3 in particular, is about gathering species together to fight the Reapers, some who have been mortal enemies, including the Salarians having committed genocide against the Krogan. Independent of what you actually choose, tolerance between entities is one of ME's central ideas.

The Reapers, via the Catalyst, are the embodiment both of intolerance, as well as one extreme way of forcing it on the universe. For some reason, the Catalyst believes that inorganic life is intrinsically and absolutely intolerant of organic life, and will eventually wipe it out. This intolerance to an entire type of being results in the 50k year cycle, functioning as it's solution to intolerance.
What Shepard, via the Crucible, represents is the absolute polar opposite solution to this intolerance. By combining these supposedly irreconcilable type of being (synthetic and organic), the two sides are finally able to coexist. Think about race here in the US. Whites and Blacks were (and remain, though to a lesser extent) intolerant of one another. But over time, by forcing them to become integrated into one entity (whether it be country, business, armed forces or even offspring), that intolerance is slowly erroded.

So what if the Catalyst is wrong? I think that's the point. Shepard's presence on the citadel, fighting against the Reaper paradigm is organic life's rejection of the Catalyst's system. Nowhere in ME is anyone or anything shown as infallible. Shoot, if you pick up Javik and take him to the Asari shrine mission, he points out how all of Asari religion is actually worship of Protheans. There are no God's in ME, and Javik serves to show that technological superiority and power does not make a species omniscient.

And besides, just because the Geth were settled does not mean the Catalyst is inherently wrong, it just means it was wrong in relation to the Geth right now. there's no reason to believe that other synthetic species won't rise and take over, or that the Geth won't change.
 
Modred189 said:
Actually, no.
The Reapers destroy to that pure organic life can remain. The Borg destroy individuality to reproduce. In this case Shepard decides that both synthetic life (Reeapers and geth) and organic life have intrinsic value, and chose to retain those values by combining the two. And I'm going to move this part up:

They were changed. They retained WHO they were before (in my ending, Joker and EDI were still together in the video), but they were now changed. They have cyber-eyes and their skin is irridenscent with lines of circuitry.
Click to expand...

Your right I rewatched it and your right. I hate it even more now. Still bullshit IMO. Again Shepard making a unilateral choice without the knowledge that anyone would retain their identities is a bunch of crap. This is a god complex if I ever saw one. No one individual has the right to make such a decision and forcing someone into an altered state is about as evil as it gets. Imposed order between races through this type of means is the worst kind of totalitarian behavior.

Modred189 said:
This seems to be more of an opinion thing, but I for one love high-concept sci fi like this. Books like Chilhood's End (Clarke) and The Book of Job/Stranger in a Strange Land (Heinlein) all are books without endings that wrap up neatly. Often the main character dies, often because they have to, ending the story in some way, but leaving the rest of the characters a bit afloat. They had tied themselves to the main character so tightly emotionally and physically that, though the central conflict of the story was over in some way, their ultimate fate is unknown. That's what we have here. In the red and blue endings, it doesn't matter what happens next because the galaxy is doomed. In the green ending, it is saved, but we, as the organic reader, have been left behind and could not 'get' what happens next.
Click to expand...

High concept and low detail is what I call it. I just can't stand endings like that. I think they are a cop out.

Modred189 said:
I'll accept that what you mean by "nothing shaped the story because the end precludes the idea of your choices making any difference" as meaning, you will get one of the three choices no matter what you did in the main story, i.e. saving/killing the geth does not change anything in the Catalyst/Crucible construct. Sure, but that's a moot point. All of those choices were designed to GET you to that place so you COULD make that decision. This was the only ending that COULD happen (short of failure to reach the beam, and that would just make a bad game that could not be finished), both in terms of game development, and in terms of the story line.
Click to expand...

That's horseshit. A million different things could have happened. The crucibal could have disrupted the Reaper indoctrination signal which would destroy their soldiers. As we saw in ME1, when the Reapers are linked to living beings that die, they can lose control of things like their shields for a short time as was the case with Sovereign. The ME3 codex also reflects this in the entry concerning Sovereign. This could have left the relays intact, allowed the fleet to destroy the Reapers and they'd still be left with the task of rebuilding the galaxy. This game could have brought real closure to the story, not nonsensical garbage which creates too many questions and requires wild theories to make enough sense to avoid chucking your copy of the game in the trash for being so frustrating.

Modred189 said:
The machines guided the flow of organic development towards one goal, one decision to be made at one place. The machines knew that organic life would fail to reach that point for a long time (resulting in the culling of advanced civs), but would eventually find its way there. But once there, organic life would be allowed to make the decision, via free will, between destruction or salvation. Nothing else mattered other than a means to getting a representative of organic life to that point. And overcoming the Reapers to do it, requiring the cooperation of all life in the galaxy, was the test that had to be overcome in order to prove that organics were ready to make that decision, good or bad.
Call it fate, call it destiny, call it the POINT of the Reapers/Catalyst/Mass Relays. But this was the ending that had been, essentially, preordained in the ME universe since the Reaper cycles had begun. Sure, that conveniently fits the strictures of modern game design, but that's how I saw it.
Click to expand...

This idea requires someone to have created the Reapers who is clearly an asshole trying to decide how life should be. Again, I call bullshit on this. I do not like the idea that life should be structured into some techno-organic form.

Modred189 said:
And all those decisions that so many people (rightly enough) feel so strongly about? Sure, they were important, at a character level. Saving the Krogan or destroying the Geth, seeing Thane die, or romancing Trainer in Shepard's shower etc., were all important. They were the relationships, decisions and experiences that shape your Shepard. I know a friend of mine played Shepard as closely to the IllusiveMan's hyper-humancentrism as possible. Killing every species he could and promoting humanity's interests at all costs. Though able to choose from all three at the end of the game, he chose blue, because that fit his Shepard's story. Mine was more of an altruistic hippy-type and she chose Green. The other endings don't matter to me, since those are not the choices my Shepard would make, based on her experiences with other species and characters along the way.
Click to expand...

Ugh, I hate hippies. Too each their own I guess. The endings sucked no matter which one you choose.
 
Modred189 said:
Because you are ignoring one of the major concepts of the game: Tolerance. Throughout the entire series the tolerance, or intolerance, between species is front and center. ME3 in particular, is about gathering species together to fight the Reapers, some who have been mortal enemies, including the Salarians having committed genocide against the Krogan. Independent of what you actually choose, tolerance between entities is one of ME's central ideas.

The Reapers, via the Catalyst, are the embodiment both of intolerance, as well as one extreme way of forcing it on the universe. For some reason, the Catalyst believes that inorganic life is intrinsically and absolutely intolerant of organic life, and will eventually wipe it out. This intolerance to an entire type of being results in the 50k year cycle, functioning as it's solution to intolerance.
What Shepard, via the Crucible, represents is the absolute polar opposite solution to this intolerance. By combining these supposedly irreconcilable type of being (synthetic and organic), the two sides are finally able to coexist. Think about race here in the US. Whites and Blacks were (and remain, though to a lesser extent) intolerant of one another. But over time, by forcing them to become integrated into one entity (whether it be country, business, armed forces or even offspring), that intolerance is slowly erroded.

So what if the Catalyst is wrong? I think that's the point. Shepard's presence on the citadel, fighting against the Reaper paradigm is organic life's rejection of the Catalyst's system. Nowhere in ME is anyone or anything shown as infallible. Shoot, if you pick up Javik and take him to the Asari shrine mission, he points out how all of Asari religion is actually worship of Protheans. There are no God's in ME, and Javik serves to show that technological superiority and power does not make a species omniscient.
Click to expand...

Tolerance is exactly my point. The ending does away with tolerance. Following your example with different races, the tolerant solution is to make these different people work together and realize that their differences strengthens the whole, not weaken it. Celebrate diversity.

The Catalyst's solution is to rewrite everyone's genetic code so that everyone is the same shade of brown, and thus can't fight each other over race. If it's a cultural difference, rewrite culture so that everyone shares one culture. Homogenization is not tolerance. It is the opposite of tolerance. It is admitting that differences will inevitably lead to strife and that the only chance for peace is to destroy diversity.

This is given by the game as the best solution, when in fact it is the most abhorrent one.

So we agree that the Catalyst is on the wrong. If we know it's on the wrong, why are we letting it choose the possible alternatives? That's like arguing with someone and him saying "Ok, so we can agree that you are wrong, or that I am right." These are not real choices, even if they let you choose the answer.

Modred189 said:
And besides, just because the Geth were settled does not mean the Catalyst is inherently wrong, it just means it was wrong in relation to the Geth right now. there's no reason to believe that other synthetic species won't rise and take over, or that the Geth won't change.
Click to expand...
Your defense of the synthesis solution betrays the intolerance and fear it is based on. "We don't know that they won't kill us all!" Tolerance means trusting the 'other' not to screw you, the same way you will not betray them.

They might change, true. And the Rachni might try to kill you too unless you kill the queen. And the Krogan, if you cure the genophage. And the Turians if they don't like you. And the Salarians might poison your water, the Quarians might steal your ships and the Asari will steal your women. If we let fear guide our actions, it leads to intolerance and strife.

The whole game, however, makes the point that if you look past your fear and extend a hand in friendship, you'll find a trustworthy ally. That all life is worth preserving, no matter what shape it has.
 
Kynnath said:
Tolerance is exactly my point. The ending does away with tolerance. Following your example with different races, the tolerant solution is to make these different people work together and realize that their differences strengthens the whole, not weaken it. Celebrate diversity.

The Catalyst's solution is to rewrite everyone's genetic code so that everyone is the same shade of brown, and thus can't fight each other over race. If it's a cultural difference, rewrite culture so that everyone shares one culture. Homogenization is not tolerance. It is the opposite of tolerance. It is admitting that differences will inevitably lead to strife and that the only chance for peace is to destroy diversity.

This is given by the game as the best solution, when in fact it is the most abhorrent one.

So we agree that the Catalyst is on the wrong. If we know it's on the wrong, why are we letting it choose the possible alternatives? That's like arguing with someone and him saying "Ok, so we can agree that you are wrong, or that I am right." These are not real choices, even if they let you choose the answer.


Your defense of the synthesis solution betrays the intolerance and fear it is based on. "We don't know that they won't kill us all!" Tolerance means trusting the 'other' not to screw you, the same way you will not betray them.

They might change, true. And the Rachni might try to kill you too unless you kill the queen. And the Krogan, if you cure the genophage. And the Turians if they don't like you. And the Salarians might poison your water, the Quarians might steal your ships and the Asari will steal your women. If we let fear guide our actions, it leads to intolerance and strife.

The whole game, however, makes the point that if you look past your fear and extend a hand in friendship, you'll find a trustworthy ally. That all life is worth preserving, no matter what shape it has.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Assuming the endings can be taken at face value. That's ignoring the possible indoctrination theory which seems popular right now.
 
I'm ignoring the indoctrination theory, mostly because the only ending that has you beating it (destruction, over 4000 assets I think) is unachievable without multiplayer. I'm already pretty pissed that they hid stuff behind multiplayer as it is, after claiming that you didn't need to play the multiplayer to experience everything the game had to offer. If they put the only winning scenario behind it, that would be even worse.

Besides, you are scanned for indoctrination on Ilos, by Vigil, and by the Prothean VI in Thessia and TIM's lair. You come up clean on all three. Even if you had some small amount of indoctrination that passed the scans, indoctrination is described as taking some time and being subtle.

Some of the points could work, but on the whole it strikes me more as wishful thinking and conspiracy than the real intent of the writers.
 
Kynnath said:
I'm ignoring the indoctrination theory, mostly because the only ending that has you beating it (destruction, over 4000 assets I think) is unachievable without multiplayer. I'm already pretty pissed that they hid stuff behind multiplayer as it is, after claiming that you didn't need to play the multiplayer to experience everything the game had to offer. If they put the only winning scenario behind it, that would be even worse.

Besides, you are scanned for indoctrination on Ilos, by Vigil, and by the Prothean VI in Thessia and TIM's lair. You come up clean on all three. Even if you had some small amount of indoctrination that passed the scans, indoctrination is described as taking some time and being subtle.

Some of the points could work, but on the whole it strikes me more as wishful thinking and conspiracy than the real intent of the writers.
Click to expand...

Incorrect sir. The codex entry in ME3 does state that indoctrination can either be slow or rapid. It's very clear on this point. Also, it may have simply been due to the fact that Shepard can normally fight off the indoctrination. But as his despair mounts in the game's climax, it may be much harder to avoid it's influence. In fact in the game the dream sequences, sightings of the boy and the ending itself all take place when Shepard is feeling the most despair, has doubts about the outcome of his efforts and at virtually all of his lowest points. As Javik puts it, "the enemies greatest weapon is despair."
 
Well, I suppose the theory might have some merit. As I said, I'm ignoring it. Not saying it's wrong.

If they do try to claim that was what they were after, though, what's next? If Shepard can fight off indoctrination and wakes up in the rubble in London, he still has to reach the beam, and we still have to find out what the Crucible does. They would be admitting that they shipped a game, charged 60 to 80 dollars for it, and didn't give it an ending. They would then have to provide the real ending, only this time the stakes are a lot higher now that everyone is angry.

It's an interesting theory, but it seems too risky a gambit for EA.
 
Youn said:
I always wait for the end of a series before investing any time in it. I learned a hard lesson from watching Lost.

Never again will I waste so much time. If they eventually offer a good ending I might consider buying the games. Simple as that. I don't want to get a fat juicy sarcastic thumbs up from the devs after giving them my money and my time. It's like eating a great dinner then for desert a nice looking chocolate cake only to find out when you put it in your mouth it's made of feces.
Click to expand...

Fuck, that lost ending pissed me off to the point I wanted to assassinate Abrams. 4 years of teasing only to basically end it with the speculation of what you figured out in the middle of the first episode if not the first season. Oh well.
 
Dan_D said:
Your right I rewatched it and your right. I hate it even more now. Still bullshit IMO. Again Shepard making a unilateral choice without the knowledge that anyone would retain their identities is a bunch of crap. This is a god complex if I ever saw one. No one individual has the right to make such a decision and forcing someone into an altered state is about as evil as it gets. Imposed order between races through this type of means is the worst kind of totalitarian behavior.

High concept and low detail is what I call it. I just can't stand endings like that. I think they are a cop out.

That's horseshit. A million different things could have happened. The crucibal could have disrupted the Reaper indoctrination signal which would destroy their soldiers. As we saw in ME1, when the Reapers are linked to living beings that die, they can lose control of things like their shields for a short time as was the case with Sovereign. The ME3 codex also reflects this in the entry concerning Sovereign. This could have left the relays intact, allowed the fleet to destroy the Reapers and they'd still be left with the task of rebuilding the galaxy. This game could have brought real closure to the story, not nonsensical garbage which creates too many questions and requires wild theories to make enough sense to avoid chucking your copy of the game in the trash for being so frustrating.

This idea requires someone to have created the Reapers who is clearly an asshole trying to decide how life should be. Again, I call bullshit on this. I do not like the idea that life should be structured into some techno-organic form.

Ugh, I hate hippies. Too each their own I guess. The endings sucked no matter which one you choose.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily have anything against hippies, per say, but the rest of your post is pretty much exactly how I feel.

Kynnath said:
Tolerance is exactly my point. The ending does away with tolerance. Following your example with different races, the tolerant solution is to make these different people work together and realize that their differences strengthens the whole, not weaken it. Celebrate diversity.

The Catalyst's solution is to rewrite everyone's genetic code so that everyone is the same shade of brown, and thus can't fight each other over race. If it's a cultural difference, rewrite culture so that everyone shares one culture. Homogenization is not tolerance. It is the opposite of tolerance. It is admitting that differences will inevitably lead to strife and that the only chance for peace is to destroy diversity.

This is given by the game as the best solution, when in fact it is the most abhorrent one.

So we agree that the Catalyst is on the wrong. If we know it's on the wrong, why are we letting it choose the possible alternatives? That's like arguing with someone and him saying "Ok, so we can agree that you are wrong, or that I am right." These are not real choices, even if they let you choose the answer.


Your defense of the synthesis solution betrays the intolerance and fear it is based on. "We don't know that they won't kill us all!" Tolerance means trusting the 'other' not to screw you, the same way you will not betray them.

They might change, true. And the Rachni might try to kill you too unless you kill the queen. And the Krogan, if you cure the genophage. And the Turians if they don't like you. And the Salarians might poison your water, the Quarians might steal your ships and the Asari will steal your women. If we let fear guide our actions, it leads to intolerance and strife.

The whole game, however, makes the point that if you look past your fear and extend a hand in friendship, you'll find a trustworthy ally. That all life is worth preserving, no matter what shape it has.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They drive that point home throughout an entire series and then force you to somehow reject that point in order to end the game. What's the point? Instead of giving you an endgame reward that satisfies that mission and mentality of trust, all three of the options will compromise the freedoms and liberties of at least one or possibly ALL of the groups that you've been fighting and working so hard to protect and unite throughout the entire series. Synthesis forces a complete and utter union, for better or worse, upon ALL life, artificial and organic. Control pretty much guarantees the reapers stay in control. Perhaps you will think you control them, but look where that got the Illusive man. Destruction of all the reapers also means destruction of an artificial body of life forms that you have helped liberate and shape as a society, and who have been (since you intervened) loyal and helpful as crazy to the Quarians, their creators, disproving that the offspring will always rebel against their creators.

What was the point of the whole Quarian/Geth conflict? The Quarians were the ones that went all gung-ho and started killing and hampering their creation out of fear. You work your tail off to elevate both groups beyond this fear and resentment, and help Legion elevate the Geth beyond a mere mentality of desperate survival to the extent that they join you against what they used to view as gods in your war (if you so choose in the game.)

And all for what? When Quarians are given some additional knowledge and the right to choose, what do they choose? Peace with the Geth. when the Geth are finally free of the Old Machines' code and the Quarians stop blasting them to smithereens, what do they chose? Peace and helping their former enemies rebuild. Krogans make peace with Salarians and Turians, etc.

And all for what? So you can use the crucible to force some imposed will upon one or more of their groups despite their own personal freedoms or desires.

Depressing and not fulfilling at all.
 
SirKronan said:
I don't necessarily have anything against hippies, per say, but the rest of your post is pretty much exactly how I feel.



Agreed. They drive that point home throughout an entire series and then force you to somehow reject that point in order to end the game. What's the point? Instead of giving you an endgame reward that satisfies that mission and mentality of trust, all three of the options will compromise the freedoms and liberties of at least one or possibly ALL of the groups that you've been fighting and working so hard to protect and unite throughout the entire series. Synthesis forces a complete and utter union, for better or worse, upon ALL life, artificial and organic. Control pretty much guarantees the reapers stay in control. Perhaps you will think you control them, but look where that got the Illusive man. Destruction of all the reapers also means destruction of an artificial body of life forms that you have helped liberate and shape as a society, and who have been (since you intervened) loyal and helpful as crazy to the Quarians, their creators, disproving that the offspring will always rebel against their creators.

What was the point of the whole Quarian/Geth conflict? The Quarians were the ones that went all gung-ho and started killing and hampering their creation out of fear. You work your tail off to elevate both groups beyond this fear and resentment, and help Legion elevate the Geth beyond a mere mentality of desperate survival to the extent that they join you against what they used to view as gods in your war (if you so choose in the game.)

And all for what? When Quarians are given some additional knowledge and the right to choose, what do they choose? Peace with the Geth. when the Geth are finally free of the Old Machines' code and the Quarians stop blasting them to smithereens, what do they chose? Peace and helping their former enemies rebuild. Krogans make peace with Salarians and Turians, etc.

And all for what? So you can use the crucible to force some imposed will upon one or more of their groups despite their own personal freedoms or desires.

Depressing and not fulfilling at all.
Click to expand...

Unless you have a high enough EMS score in which case you see Shepard wake up in London. Therefore the so called "destruction of all synthetic life including Shepard" idea posed by the AI child is an obvious lie.
 
Dan_D said:
Unless you have a high enough EMS score in which case you see Shepard wake up in London. Therefore the so called "destruction of all synthetic life including Shepard" idea posed by the AI child is an obvious lie.
Click to expand...

Well, let's hope that it's an all around lie and only destroys the reapers alone, leaving more socially "evolved" AI's like the Geth and EDI unscathed and we'll find out more in some kind of magical DLC they release soon....
 
SirKronan said:
Well, let's hope that it's an all around lie and only destroys the reapers alone, leaving more socially "evolved" AI's like the Geth and EDI unscathed and we'll find out more in some kind of magical DLC they release soon....
Click to expand...

I don't think it destroys all synthetic life. I think that's a lie to discourage Shepard from seeing the truth. Shepard is largely synthetic and is told he or she will die if he/she chooses that, yet that is the only ending in which he/she wakes up in rubble in London after the rest of the ending is shown. This one item alone tells you not to trust the child AI. I think the final dream sequence is also a clue as Shepard catches the boy in the dream and both of them burn.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think it destroys all synthetic life. I think that's a lie to discourage Shepard from seeing the truth. Shepard is largely synthetic and is told he or she will die if he/she chooses that, yet that is the only ending in which he/she wakes up in rubble in London after the rest of the ending is shown. This one item alone tells you not to trust the child AI. I think the final dream sequence is also a clue as Shepard catches the boy in the dream and both of them burn.
Click to expand...


After another play-through last night, i think you are correct.

Here is my take;

When Hammer makes the rush for the beam, and Harbinger lazes you, it’s not a direct hit, but you do catch the splash damage. When you come around, your face is bloodied and the edges of the screen are covered in drops of blood. You can see Harbinger flying away, thinking everyone is dead.

Reaching the beam, you of course arrive at the Citadel, see the bodies strewn about and the keepers working. You find a weapon and then you find Andersen.
Andersen is trying to open the Citadel, but he is frozen by the indoctrination. He isn’t physically capable of doing what he wants, his free will is compromised.

Upon the arrival of the Illusive Man, your viewpoint begins to wane. The edges of your screen are now surrounded with sharp, black, moving lines (instead of blood). The lines resemble the sharp black lines on the Illusive Man’s face, who is obviously indoctrinated.
During the discussion with the Illusive Man, you too are succumbing to indoctrination, to the point that you are frozen still and forced to point (and shoot) Andersen.
However, you manage to not only talk the Illusive Man into realizing he has lost control of his self, you too free yourself slightly from the indoctrination. The last bit of the illusive man’s will is used to commit suicide. One of your last bits of free will is to open the doors of the Citadel.

Upon elevation to the Crucible and the Catalyst, you are again faced with your own indoctrination, the voices inside your head. The AI, that is the Catalyst is the last effort at forcing control. Just as the illusive man thought his actions were just (and Saren, too), they were actually destructive to the species. Right seemed wrong and the voices in your head, the Catalyst are that control manifested. (In London, there is a log entry where someone is indoctrinated, the voices tell him to go somewhere to make the voices stop and safe himself, yet he knows that he will die. But the voices seem reasonable to him, leading to his own destruction.)

That is where the endings come into play.

In all but the most successful play-through, you are presented with two options. Follow the same path as the illusive man, or follow the old school path of your mentor, Andersen. The Paragon and Renegade colors are the Indoctrination, confusing your mind. (And confusing the player, for this is really the first True “Decision” you, the player, has to make with little-to-no information, except to trust the enemy’s system of control). There are no pre-programmed conversation trees for the final decision, its totally in your control to decide.

The endings get a little convoluted. Both main choices are actually “Happy Endings”, though I think they all have a price.

Destroying the Reapers, goes to show that the Catalyst was a Liar. Sheppard survives, and it is assumed that the only things that were destroyed were the systems of control (Reapers, Citadel, Mass Relays).

If you choose to control the Reapers, it appears that the control works, the Reapers leave and the galaxy is saved. The other two systems of control, the Citadel and the Mass Relays are destroyed, but the Reapers Remain. Just like Legion added his code to the Geth to evolve them, Sheppard ads his consciousness to the Reapers. But, does the Reaping Cycle Truly End?

The Synthesis ending is the truest form of Science Fiction. It is a unique option and is the ultimate expression of unity. Nevertheless, the price is high.
For the rest of the ending segments; The Normandy crashes on a world and the crew obviously starts over there. The “stargazer” who is talking with his grandchild is on that same world in winter, evidenced by the twin worlds in the same sky.
 
@Dan

Very interesting. I agree that no one should be attacking their employees. That's not right. As for the rest though, I don't have a problem with them taking their creative license here, but it needs to make more sense. Also, people need to realized. This is an interactive game. A HUGE, vast universe. It is NOT a movie and thus cannot be treated as such. Games like Assassin's Creed can get away with more linear and creative story lines because the game doesn't evolve and change based on their choices. Mass Effect transends this and I hope that those at Bioware understand that's the reason why so many are frustrated.
 
Sorry, again no edit. I don't agree with everything in that article as some is nitpicky, but most of it.
 
Dan_D said:
Good News:

http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is-working-on-a-modified-mass-effect-3-ending
Click to expand...

I guess that good news technically but not really. It's as I feared. They actually thought that these endings were pretty good and don't understand the backlash.

I was hoping they had never intended those 3 to be the real endings and had some good DLC coming up. Now we're gonna have to settle with a "patch job" DLC in an attempt to quiet the protests.

Oh well at least they're trying to fix this and are actually listening so that's always a good thing and I have pretty high hopes that they can come up with some decent endings and/or answers.
 
byusinger84 said:
@Dan

Very interesting. I agree that no one should be attacking their employees. That's not right. As for the rest though, I don't have a problem with them taking their creative license here, but it needs to make more sense. Also, people need to realized. This is an interactive game. A HUGE, vast universe. It is NOT a movie and thus cannot be treated as such. Games like Assassin's Creed can get away with more linear and creative story lines because the game doesn't evolve and change based on their choices. Mass Effect transends this and I hope that those at Bioware understand that's the reason why so many are frustrated.
Click to expand...

At some point you have to accept that it is BioWare's decision to do what they will. If BioWare said that's the end, deal with it, then I would just simply wash my hands of the series, the company and anything EA had to do with. I can respect that type of stance to a degree, but that doesn't mean I'd like it.

BioWare needs to understand and expect the reaction we have to the game's endings. We had a certain amount of trust in the developer based on what we had been told and based on what was implied by the first two games. We expected that same level of choice and that same level of quality we had always seen in the series. What we got was anything BUT that. It is no wonder we all felt betrayed. I certainly did. I'm not normally a 3rd person shooter guy, or even an RPG guy. But something about Mass Effect's universe and characters gripped me in a way I never thought possible and when I saw the ending in Mass Effect 3, I thought, "I surely screwed something up. This can't be right." When I researched it and found out that all the endings were basically the same, I was pissed off and hurt by the experience. I have a little Normandy SR-2 statue sitting on a shelf and I couldn't look at it or touch these games for two days until I cooled off and heard about the indoctrination theory, which is the only thing that makes any sense of the nonsense we were fed.

I hate general feelings of entitlement. I really do but in this case I felt entitled to what I was promised by BioWare in all their interviews about the game. I feel that the characters deserved a better ending to the series and Shepards story, and even felt like I deserved a better ending given that I played all three games and all DLC's etc. To have spent so much money and time with these characters and games only to get shafted now felt horrible. I've never had a game bother me so much. You win some and you lose some. BioWare made a mistake with this ending and they need to own up to that and make it right. BioWare is being sensitive to the community and the people who love these games. They claim to be "hurt" by the visceral reaction of the fans to what they seemed to think was a good ending to the series. Well good. I hope that's true. They should be hurt. Maybe they'll now make good on their original promises of some fucking choice and make an ending that matches an otherwise AWESOME game and a memorable series.

The thing is, I am not normally the tinfoil hat kind of guy either, but I'm almost certain this is a stunt to piss off people and get them to buy DLC and get free publicity. Mass Effect has always gained a lot of attention due to controversy. ME1 did it with their alien human lesbian sex scene and so called pornographic content. "rolleyes: ME2 did it with the DLC model. ME3 did it with multiplayer, requirements to play it to get the best endings, crazy space editions on balloons, teh man sechs, and of course endings that are subpar and piss everyone off.

But this shit kept people talking about the endings and trying to make sense of it long after they finished it. It also got people upset enough due to their investment in the characters and story, that they'd be willing to pay $10 just to have some closure to the story. Given the quality of the story and the abruptness of the ending, combined with the "Look for future play via DLC" message after you beat the game, I have to believe this was their plan all along.

Well played EA. I fucking hate you, but well played.
 
MacLeod said:
I guess that good news technically but not really. It's as I feared. They actually thought that these endings were pretty good and don't understand the backlash.

I was hoping they had never intended those 3 to be the real endings and had some good DLC coming up. Now we're gonna have to settle with a "patch job" DLC in an attempt to quiet the protests.

Oh well at least they're trying to fix this and are actually listening so that's always a good thing and I have pretty high hopes that they can come up with some decent endings and/or answers.
Click to expand...

Again, don't believe everything you read. They had a script which leaked with a better ending and they wanted to push the game back further as I stated in another post. I'm thinking that this is damage control at it's finest and continued manipulation of the consumer. It doesn't seem nearly as evil to say; "well we thought it was awesome, we're sorry." vs. "well we just did this to piss you off and make you buy DLC."
 
MacLeod said:
I guess that good news technically but not really. It's as I feared. They actually thought that these endings were pretty good and don't understand the backlash.

I was hoping they had never intended those 3 to be the real endings and had some good DLC coming up. Now we're gonna have to settle with a "patch job" DLC in an attempt to quiet the protests.

Oh well at least they're trying to fix this and are actually listening so that's always a good thing and I have pretty high hopes that they can come up with some decent endings and/or answers.
Click to expand...

And for 580 Bioware Points, you can get the ending you crave! ;)
 
Dan_D said:
Again, don't believe everything you read. They had a script which leaked with a better ending and they wanted to push the game back further as I stated in another post. I'm thinking that this is damage control at it's finest and continued manipulation of the consumer. It doesn't seem nearly as evil to say; "well we thought it was awesome, we're sorry." vs. "well we just did this to piss you off and make you buy DLC."
Click to expand...

Sorry man but I just can't get there. If they put out the crappy endings with the intent of some DLC with the real endings and all this rage started boiling up, they come out and say "hey guys just chill out cause better things are coming soon". Then if there was more backlash they could put the DLC out for free and I don't think there would be that much rage about it.

I can't see why it makes any sense to come out with an apology and admit you are surprised at the backlash and are considering how to fix it, if that's not actually what happened. That just admits that the whole thing was on purpose and there isn't some additional content coming that has long been in development. This is saying "we'll probably be throwing something together and have it out in the next couple weeks".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top