I'm starting to think the current endings are not the real endings.
Spoiler!
Shepard's indoctrination theory is making a lot more sense at this moment.
Spoiler!
I was initially sceptical about the indoctrination theory, but I'm coming around to it. For me, the most telling part is that there's only one possible ending where Shepard can survive: if you choose Destroy and your war assets are high enough, the ending adds a very brief scene where you see Shepard take a deep breath and wake up...on Earth...in what we can assume is the ruins of London. From this, I draw a few conclusions:
If the Citadel/Crucible exploded with Shepard on board, how did (s)he end up back on Earth? Even if (s)he survived the explosion, wouldn't the body burn up when re-entering the atmosphere? If Shepard is indeed back in London, perhaps that's a clue that everything that takes place after being hit by Harbinger's beam was all in your head.
Why does this scene only play if you choose the destroy option but not one of the other two? Might it be because the other two endings consist of Shepard unwittingly aiding the Reapers? Controlling them -- a force nobody really understands -- is impossible; I destroyed the Collector base in ME2 for a reason. Likewise, Synthesis also seems like it's just helping the Reapers. Afterall, aren't Reapers synthesized with humans, Asari, and Taurians nothing more than Husks, Banshees, and Marauders, respectively? Accordingly, I choose to interpret both the Control and Synthesis options as the Reapers trying to convince you to do their bidding. Only the destroy ending allows you to break free of their indoctrination attempt, and thus it's the only ending where Shepard wakes up.
Now whether all these hints were intentional by BioWare or entirely coincidental, it does give them a plausible exit strategy to release a story-continuation DLC (free or paid) that picks up with Shepard still in London after rejecting Harbinger's indoctrination attempt.
Next topic: a few questions for people who are defending the ending:
Spoiler!
What was your take on the part with the Normandy fleeing the explosion? How did my crew, who just minutes ago were in London for the ground battle, end up on the Normandy? Did Joker just abandon the fight against the Reapers in orbit to pick them up from the surface? If so, how would he know to do that? Why would Joker leave the battle, and why would my other companions agree to join him in retreat rather than continue fighting? Doesn't that seem out of character for all of them?
Even if I can get behind the starchild sequence (and I certainly have other problems with that section), I can't think of any reason that is logically consistent with the setting and characters to explain how my squad would suddenly appear back on the Normandy and Joker would flee the fight. The game provides no explanation for this. How is that not objectively bad storytelling?
I'll start off with saying I harbor no anger towards Bioware for the ending they put in. It's there but I don't have to like it. I disagree with you here.
Spoiler!
I think it's bad writing to introduce a character in the final 5 minutes of a story but I'll put that aside for arguements sake. Now, I get to the Crucible and this god tells me that organics and synthesis cannot coexist peacefully. Oh really? Then why did I just end the Geth/Quarian war? It's not just a momentary cessation of hostilities in order for us to fight the Reapers. The war is done and they've made peace with each other. Having something tell me that it's impossible completely flies in the face of what I've just accomplished. I've proved that it's possible.
I have to be honest, I had a real hard time deciding which of the 3 endings I'd go with. Allow me to explain my difficulty and why I feel that the endings just don't work for my character.
1. Control the Reapers. My Shepard is pretty adamant that controlling the Reapers is the wrong course of action. He doesn't believe it's possible and even if it is, that we are not ready for that kind of power. So that ending was pretty much out of the question for me.
2. Synthesis. The trilogy has highlighted how individually we are weak but together our diversity makes us strong. Shepard defeated Sovereign, Saren and the Collectors with a team comprised of various races, backgrounds and beliefs. He's done the impossible because he's had the support of different species. This option is telling Shepard that diversity is a weakness. That if he makes everyone the same, they'll all get along and be better for it. He cannot accept that. Not given his personal experiences.
3. Destroy Synthetics. This is the only realistic option my Shepard is presented with and even then it goes against what he believes in. Shepard finishes his mission by destroying the Reapers leaving everyone as they are. However, he has to sacrifice his allies, the Geth, who he believes have every right to an existance and to which he just spent part of the game defending.
None of these choices are ones I think my Shepard would choose which is why I would have liked a 4th choice. Do nothing. I am serious. I've said this already but I spent 3 games building alliances and the entire 3rd game securing war assets. Shepard has personal proof through experience that everything the god tells him is wrong. So instead he decides to take his stand here and now. If the Reapers wipe out everyone then at least they went out on their own terms. Shepard doesn't bend to anyone and he believes that nothing is impossible to accomplish. Why all of a sudden does he just gives in at the end? It doesn't make sense. It's completely contradictory to his character. I'd be more satisfied if the game ended with Shepard and Anderson dieing on the Crucible after they activated it.
Even worse is that with the mass relays destroyed it's probably more than likely that everyone will die anyway. What happens when supplies run out? Many of those alien races cannot survive on human food and it will be impossible for them to get back to their home systems.
I don't know, it felt like a completely different team of writers took over in the end. But you're absolutely right, it is Shepard's story. That's why I dislike the ending because it fails to take into account his character.
Spoiler!
Thanks for the thoughtful response. What I worry about is that people are being too hasty and get locked in a hostile posture, which is not something any story can withstand. Stories are fragile things. If there's not enough good will between the teller and the audience, there's no story.
But you're not one of those people. I tried to make it clear that the criticism is completely fine by me. No one has to like it.
On the Quarian-Geth example, I've read it before and I think here the critics' logic simply doesn't hold. It's just one instance, two races in one moment of time. The Catalyst's perspective is far larger. Perhaps those two are in harmony now but the idea is that eventually synthetic life will extinguish organic life in the universe. The Quarians and the Geth do not invalidate that. The idea is not that synthetics and organics cannot live together in specific circumstances, it's that life in general in the universe follows a certain inevitable path unless someone acts against those laws.
It's true that you have to take this on trust, and that could be seen as a weak point in the narrative. But here we come to a very important point: the whole thing depends on the Crucible. This is something that you have to accept. The war is strategically hopeless. It is in effect already lost. They have all the fleets in one battle just to get the Crucible in place. You have to appreciate the implications of this.
The Reapers are in effect infinite, with infinite patience. Even if those that were in that particular fight were pushed back in that one battle, what would that solve? You can shoot a few down, sure, but it's just one battle. The worlds have already been lost, the Citadel is already lost. There's no infranstructure or resources to sustain a war against infinite machines with a single purpose. This is obvious to me. It's also obvious that this is what the storyteller tells us. And I think this is what haunts Shepard too, who is a military woman. The Crucible is the only hope. It's very desperate. Too desperate in fact.
So you have the choices. Perhaps you could give a fourth choice of not using it, but it would mean that the Reapers simply finish the cycle. The whole game is the "bad ending", it's not a winnable war, the catastrophy has already happened. Even if the Reapers lose the one battle it would be like America "losing" the Vietnam war.
I'll continue in another post. Hard to keep my thoughts in order in this little window.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-27-2012 at 09:20 AM.
This spoiler is in response to Henry Fool's post above:
Spoiler!
Quote:
So you have the choices. Perhaps you could give a fourth choice of not using it, but it would mean that the Reapers simply finish the cycle. The whole game is the "bad ending", it's not a winnable war, the catastrophy has already happened. Even if the Reapers lose the one battle it would be like America "losing" the Vietnam war.
Honestly, I actually would have preferred that ending to the one we got. I've said all along I wasn't expecting a sunshine and rainbows happy ending, and I would have been completely ok if the Crucible didn't work as expected (or the organic beings of this cycle didn't fully understand how to use it) and the Reapers won anyway.
I reject the Synthesis ending. Why should one person, Shepard, decide that every organic being in the galaxy should have its DNA rewritten and be merged with machine intelligence? The implications of that decision are far too huge for one person to make in the heat of the moment.
I also reject the Control ending. Everything I've been shown previously in the ME series has taught me that cooperating with the Reapers in any way is a Bad Idea (TM). It didn't work for Saren; it didn't work for The Illusive Man. Why should I assume it will be any different for Shepard?
So that leaves only the Destroy ending, but this also makes no sense. Why would choosing this option destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy? Aren't the Geth and EDI nothing more than complicated computer hardware and software code? Does this not imply that all computer equipment would be destroyed, not just AIs (i.e. the Crucible triggers a massive, galaxy-wide EMP)?
I was initially sceptical about the indoctrination theory, but I'm coming around to it. For me, the most telling part is that there's only one possible ending where Shepard can survive: if you choose Destroy and your war assets are high enough, the ending adds a very brief scene where you see Shepard take a deep breath and wake up...on Earth...in what we can assume is the ruins of London. From this, I draw a few conclusions:
If the Citadel/Crucible exploded with Shepard on board, how did (s)he end up back on Earth? Even if (s)he survived the explosion, wouldn't the body burn up when re-entering the atmosphere? If Shepard is indeed back in London, perhaps that's a clue that everything that takes place after being hit by Harbinger's beam was all in your head.
Why does this scene only play if you choose the destroy option but not one of the other two? Might it be because the other two endings consist of Shepard unwittingly aiding the Reapers? Controlling them -- a force nobody really understands -- is impossible; I destroyed the Collector base in ME2 for a reason. Likewise, Synthesis also seems like it's just helping the Reapers. Afterall, aren't Reapers synthesized with humans, Asari, and Taurians nothing more than Husks, Banshees, and Marauders, respectively? Accordingly, I choose to interpret both the Control and Synthesis options as the Reapers trying to convince you to do their bidding. Only the destroy ending allows you to break free of their indoctrination attempt, and thus it's the only ending where Shepard wakes up.
Now whether all these hints were intentional by BioWare or entirely coincidental, it does give them a plausible exit strategy to release a story-continuation DLC (free or paid) that picks up with Shepard still in London after rejecting Harbinger's indoctrination attempt.
Next topic: a few questions for people who are defending the ending:
Spoiler!
What was your take on the part with the Normandy fleeing the explosion? How did my crew, who just minutes ago were in London for the ground battle, end up on the Normandy? Did Joker just abandon the fight against the Reapers in orbit to pick them up from the surface? If so, how would he know to do that? Why would Joker leave the battle, and why would my other companions agree to join him in retreat rather than continue fighting? Doesn't that seem out of character for all of them?
Even if I can get behind the starchild sequence (and I certainly have other problems with that section), I can't think of any reason that is logically consistent with the setting and characters to explain how my squad would suddenly appear back on the Normandy and Joker would flee the fight. The game provides no explanation for this. How is that not objectively bad storytelling?
Spoiler!
I picked controlling the reapers by mistake, but did notice something. When Shepard grabs the levers and pulls them, his eyes turn blue with two more circles on them, just like The Illusive Man. Since ME2, I was wondering why the Illusive Man has those eyes.
It seems the ending is about Shepard able to resist and overcome indoctrination and not about the war against the Reapers. It still leaves a lot of questions up in the air.
I'll start off with saying I harbor no anger towards Bioware for the ending they put in. It's there but I don't have to like it. I disagree with you here.
Spoiler!
I think it's bad writing to introduce a character in the final 5 minutes of a story but I'll put that aside for arguements sake. Now, I get to the Crucible and this god tells me that organics and synthesis cannot coexist peacefully. Oh really? Then why did I just end the Geth/Quarian war? It's not just a momentary cessation of hostilities in order for us to fight the Reapers. The war is done and they've made peace with each other. Having something tell me that it's impossible completely flies in the face of what I've just accomplished. I've proved that it's possible.
I have to be honest, I had a real hard time deciding which of the 3 endings I'd go with. Allow me to explain my difficulty and why I feel that the endings just don't work for my character.
1. Control the Reapers. My Shepard is pretty adamant that controlling the Reapers is the wrong course of action. He doesn't believe it's possible and even if it is, that we are not ready for that kind of power. So that ending was pretty much out of the question for me.
2. Synthesis. The trilogy has highlighted how individually we are weak but together our diversity makes us strong. Shepard defeated Sovereign, Saren and the Collectors with a team comprised of various races, backgrounds and beliefs. He's done the impossible because he's had the support of different species. This option is telling Shepard that diversity is a weakness. That if he makes everyone the same, they'll all get along and be better for it. He cannot accept that. Not given his personal experiences.
3. Destroy Synthetics. This is the only realistic option my Shepard is presented with and even then it goes against what he believes in. Shepard finishes his mission by destroying the Reapers leaving everyone as they are. However, he has to sacrifice his allies, the Geth, who he believes have every right to an existance and to which he just spent part of the game defending.
None of these choices are ones I think my Shepard would choose which is why I would have liked a 4th choice. Do nothing. I am serious. I've said this already but I spent 3 games building alliances and the entire 3rd game securing war assets. Shepard has personal proof through experience that everything the god tells him is wrong. So instead he decides to take his stand here and now. If the Reapers wipe out everyone then at least they went out on their own terms. Shepard doesn't bend to anyone and he believes that nothing is impossible to accomplish. Why all of a sudden does he just gives in at the end? It doesn't make sense. It's completely contradictory to his character. I'd be more satisfied if the game ended with Shepard and Anderson dieing on the Crucible after they activated it.
Even worse is that with the mass relays destroyed it's probably more than likely that everyone will die anyway. What happens when supplies run out? Many of those alien races cannot survive on human food and it will be impossible for them to get back to their home systems.
I don't know, it felt like a completely different team of writers took over in the end. But you're absolutely right, it is Shepard's story. That's why I dislike the ending because it fails to take into account his character.
Spoiler!
I don't see synthesis as making everyone the same. At least physically the races clearly retain their individual character, we know that much, and there's no reason to assume that the synthetic-organic "DNA" makes everyone the same any more than organic DNA makes all organics the same.
Like I said, Shepard "gives in" in the end because that's their only hope. They put all their resources and hope in the Crucible plan. Don't forget that she's talking to the Catalyst itself which is necessary for the plan to work. The AI's logic is terrible from a human point of view and Shepard can't possibly know that it's right. But the idea is that there's no choice. If you're Shepard standing there half-dead, what do you do? Either you take the last desperate choice or you do nothing. Going out "on your own terms" doesn't seem noble or heroic to me when when we're talking about all advanced life in the universe right now and infinitely into the future. It would mean that Shepard suddenly abandons the plan that everyone agreed to and everyone is counting on and sacrifices everyone's lives - for what?
She's there to fire the Crucible, period. There's no plan beyond that.
You seem to object to the godlike nature of the Catalyst, but I don't think that's a mistake at all. Even Legion says that the Reapers are fundamentally unknowable to him. They are godlike in some aspects, so it makes sense that the Catalyst is as well. Like I said, the fact that you can talk to the Catalyst doesn't make it bad writing to me. They are introducing a new character in a sense but really it's just the godlike AIs explaining their motivation to Shepard. It's not as radically new as it might seem at first.
I agree that a lot of people will die when the relays are destroyed and in the struggles afterwards. There's no clean solution. It's a super weapon and it would have been naive to expect that it somehow just wipes out the Reapers leaving everything else unharmed. But I'd say that those that live and get back to the ruins of civilization have very good chances of surviving.
Next topic: a few questions for people who are defending the ending:
Spoiler!
What was your take on the part with the Normandy fleeing the explosion? How did my crew, who just minutes ago were in London for the ground battle, end up on the Normandy? Did Joker just abandon the fight against the Reapers in orbit to pick them up from the surface? If so, how would he know to do that? Why would Joker leave the battle, and why would my other companions agree to join him in retreat rather than continue fighting? Doesn't that seem out of character for all of them?
Even if I can get behind the starchild sequence (and I certainly have other problems with that section), I can't think of any reason that is logically consistent with the setting and characters to explain how my squad would suddenly appear back on the Normandy and Joker would flee the fight. The game provides no explanation for this. How is that not objectively bad storytelling?
Spoiler!
All I can say is that I saw Joker and EDI and Liara step out of Normandy. I don't think the whole crew is meant to be there. If that were the case, it might be more problematic. Between saying goodbye to her in London and the end, there's plenty of time for her to get back on Normandy, so it's a question of logistics and motivation.
I did the final charge with Garrus and Ashley. I assume they were either killed or lying wounded somewhere in London.
The first point I'd emphasize is that it wasn't "just minutes ago". Between goodbyes and the end, there's at least an hour even in game time, which can be significantly more in narrative time. The time that you spend actually playing is not the time that passes in the story, but even the time you spend playing is enough for a person to get back on Normandy.
I can see Liara getting back. She's not doing anything on Earth as far as I can tell. I can see others getting back too. The ones you take with you on the mission are a different story and also those who are clearly there to fight in the assault like James, I assume.
I'd say it would have been better if they had clarified these things, but I suspect they were worried that it would affect the pacing of the final sequence. This is a matter of good faith, basically. They can easily come up with a reason why someone was on the Normady. You and I can too. I don't think it counts as a plot hole unless you can show that such and such a person could not have possibly been on board in that playthrough. Everyone gets a person stepping out in the end for whatever reasons.
Joker fleeing the explosion is straightforward to me. Once the thing blows up, you run. You have to remember that the distances are so vast that they do have time to observe what's about to happen and try to outrun it. I don't understand why people insist that it's him fleeing the fight. It honestly makes no sense to me why people keep repeating this criticism.
FYI, Henry Fool, no matter who you take on the end mission your love interest usually steps out of the shuttle at the end. I took Liara with me at the end and she stepped off the shuttle with Joker. It really is nonsensical. I could forgive a little nonsense, it's more the total cacaphony of bull#### that makes the ending a disaster. If it was just 2 or 3 things that don't make sense or are poor storytelling, I'd be like "well, it's not perfect, but yknow, I can live with that".
The theory that you're supposedly indoctrinated and fail the end mission unless you choose the destroy option is probably wrong. People who convince themselves that it's more likely than not that the devs just got shut down on their "real" ending are kidding themselves because they can't accept the badness of the way it played out. Still, it does offer an opportunity to add DLC that would extend from that point and create a real ending.
For those wondering about part of the ending that makes no sense
Spoiler!
If you watch/read "The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3" - which is now available on the app store, there IS a deleted scene of the Normandy picking up the two crew members that were with you when you get blasted by the huge friggin' laser. I've no frakkin' idea why the scene was cut out, seeing as there's a clear and silly gap in narrative by having people who I had assumed died when the huge friggin' laser was fired all of a sudden step out of the Normandy
Spoiler!
At this stage, I don't think there's any question to it - the indoctrination theory IS the "right" answer when it comes to "wtf was up with that whack ending yo'?".
In my game, Liara and Javik accompanied Shepard during the final charge, yet it was these two it showed emerging from the Normandy with Joker. They were also apparently unharmed by Harbinger's blast even though Shepard was bleeding to death and radio chatter stated that Hammer Team was "wiped out". I agree it's less of a plot hole if the people emerging from the Normandy were not with Shepard during the run to the conduit (like in your game), but that's not what happened for me.
For those wondering about part of the ending that makes no sense
Spoiler!
If you watch/read "The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3" - which is now available on the app store, there IS a deleted scene of the Normandy picking up the two crew members that were with you when you get blasted by the huge friggin' laser. I've no frakkin' idea why the scene was cut out, seeing as there's a clear and silly gap in narrative by having people who I had assumed died when the huge friggin' laser was fired all of a sudden step out of the Normandy
Spoiler!
At this stage, I don't think there's any question to it - the indoctrination theory IS the "right" answer when it comes to "wtf was up with that whack ending yo'?".
If you bought the app, is it worth it? I'm just curious if I should get it or not.
If you bought the app, is it worth it? I'm just curious if I should get it or not.
I love behind the scenes stuff related to game development, so I jumped all over it. There's definitely some good content in there, and they've promised to update it with more content in the near future.
If you love game development/bioware/the mass effect universe, then I'd recommend it. Not mind blowing, but it's very well put together.
The Following User Says Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
FYI, Henry Fool, no matter who you take on the end mission your love interest usually steps out of the shuttle at the end. I took Liara with me at the end and she stepped off the shuttle with Joker. It really is nonsensical. I could forgive a little nonsense, it's more the total cacaphony of bull#### that makes the ending a disaster. If it was just 2 or 3 things that don't make sense or are poor storytelling, I'd be like "well, it's not perfect, but yknow, I can live with that".
The theory that you're supposedly indoctrinated and fail the end mission unless you choose the destroy option is probably wrong. People who convince themselves that it's more likely than not that the devs just got shut down on their "real" ending are kidding themselves because they can't accept the badness of the way it played out. Still, it does offer an opportunity to add DLC that would extend from that point and create a real ending.
Spoiler!
If that's correct, then it might present a problem, but I'd have to see all the possibilities first. But I'd remind you that it's unclear how much time Shepard actually spends up in the Citadel. For one, she's unconscious on two different occasions. I'm reluctant to say that someone who takes part in the assault can't possibly be on the Normandy but I have to admit that it's not a choice I'd make if I were writing it. One can speculate. The Citadel opens its arms well before the Crucible fires, which might be the cue when the Normandy picks up someone.
Is it clear what Normandy's role was in the battle? It has good weapons but its firepower is not what distinguishes it from other ships, it's its agility and ability to go undetected. If someone is bothered by these kinds of issues, that's the first thing I'd clarify.
Be that as it may, the point is that since there's enough time, you can always come up with a reason. Like I said, this is a matter of good faith. Since there is none for Bioware at the moment, people treat such things as insurmountable plot holes which they are not, at least necessarily. Bioware can explain afterwards what happened but very few of those who are angry will accept it at this point. Bioware counted on the good will between the storyteller and their audience.
It's not plausible to me that they are just too dumb to think about the logistics of getting a person from A to B. They must have concluded that it was possible. And they assumed they wouldn't have to explain such things. Maybe they were wrong in that assumption, but that doesn't necessarily make it incompetent writing.
I have more sympathy with the big issues and I can certainly understand if the ending just leaves someone unmoved. That's valid. Nothing you can do about that. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't.
People say that there were all these things wrong, so much that you can overlook one or two things, but when you discuss things issue by issue, it seems that those details that you're not attending to right now always kind of slip away and remain problematic, and since in the end you're always just discussing the one little thing, nothing in the general view changes. It's always crap. No matter how much you've discussed other things, the overall view remains that even if this one thing isn't so bad, there are so many problems. I've encountered this before and I suspect I can't really convince anyone that the ending isn't as riddled with errors that has been argued.
I agree that the indoctrination theory is wrong. That's not a debate I want to have now but there's no direct evidence for it and more importantly Bioware would not have ended the game the way they did if that's really what was going on. There would have been more afterwards. Not a chance in hell that's what they intended. But if someone prefers that ending, I think they have every right to.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-27-2012 at 12:05 PM.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. What I worry about is that people are being too hasty and get locked in a hostile posture, which is not something any story can withstand. Stories are fragile things. If there's not enough good will between the teller and the audience, there's no story.
But you're not one of those people. I tried to make it clear that the criticism is completely fine by me. No one has to like it.
On the Quarian-Geth example, I've read it before and I think here the critics' logic simply doesn't hold. It's just one instance, two races in one moment of time. The Catalyst's perspective is far larger. Perhaps those two are in harmony now but the idea is that eventually synthetic life will extinguish organic life in the universe. The Quarians and the Geth do not invalidate that. The idea is not that synthetics and organics cannot live together in specific circumstances, it's that life in general in the universe follows a certain inevitable path unless someone acts against those laws.
It's true that you have to take this on trust, and that could be seen as a weak point in the narrative. But here we come to a very important point: the whole thing depends on the Crucible. This is something that you have to accept. The war is strategically hopeless. It is in effect already lost. They have all the fleets in one battle just to get the Crucible in place. You have to appreciate the implications of this.
The Reapers are in effect infinite, with infinite patience. Even if those that were in that particular fight were pushed back in that one battle, what would that solve? You can shoot a few down, sure, but it's just one battle. The worlds have already been lost, the Citadel is already lost. There's no infranstructure or resources to sustain a war against infinite machines with a single purpose. This is obvious to me. It's also obvious that this is what the storyteller tells us. And I think this is what haunts Shepard too, who is a military woman. The Crucible is the only hope. It's very desperate. Too desperate in fact.
So you have the choices. Perhaps you could give a fourth choice of not using it, but it would mean that the Reapers simply finish the cycle. The whole game is the "bad ending", it's not a winnable war, the catastrophy has already happened. Even if the Reapers lose the one battle it would be like America "losing" the Vietnam war.
I'll continue in another post. Hard to keep my thoughts in order in this little window.
Thanks to you as well. I can elaborate more.
Spoiler!
In terms of synthetics another pretty obvious example is EDI. So you have 2 different forms of synthetics that have shown cooperation with organics. Maybe it won't last, but who's to say it can't?
I also didn't buy the whole, "the Crucible is our only chance" argument. I was hoping it would fail because what would be the point of gathering war assets? If you take a step back and really look at it, none of your decisions mattered at that point. Save the Rachni and the Geth? Elminate the Genophage? What's the point? Their contributions are made completely meaningless by the ending.
Now to the point of defeating the Reapers in a straight up fight. Why can't it be done? They spent the two previous games showing the player exactly that they can be beaten. They aren't infinite and the bulk of their forces are in the Sol system. They defeated Sovereign and I would associate the majority of their losses at that battle to the Geth fleet. Now our fleets have improved weaponry (based on Reaper tech) enhanced sheilds and most importantly, that the fleet is a Galaxy wide union of forces. Also keep in mind that in the codex, there are people who believe we can win a conventional war against the Reapers. In fact there are also a number of codex indexes that suggest we are doing serious damage to their forces.
Back to the point, the god states that we have come further than any cycle before us. So I'd say it's safe to assume the Reapers have never had to fight a united force or had their plans repeatedly blown up in their faces. The Citadel trap failed. The human Reaper failed. Why can't their plan fail now? It would have been interesting if they let you choose to sacrifice systems. If Earth really is lost and the largest Reaper force is there then perhaps the greatest decision would have been to abandon Sol. Destroy the mass relay and wipe everything out. Maybe it won't be a happy ending but that won't make it a bad ending.
As an aside, I can see another reason why people are upset with the ending and it has everything to with the fact that it is everything that Bioware said they wouldn't do. These quotes come after the game went gold and it seems pretty obvious that people were misled.
Quote:
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) 02/23/12
There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets?
Well that's clearly wrong. We have 3 endings that everyone can get regardless of their decisions.
Quote:
Casey Hudson (Director) 01/10/12
At this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff.
It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C...
The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.
Again, blatently false. All you get is ending A, B or C. Previouis decisions were apparently thrown out the window when it came to the ending.
Quote:
Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) 02/02/12
Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens.
Whether you're happy or angry at the ending, know this: it is an ending.
Bioware will not do a "Lost" and leave fans with more questions then answers after finishing the game.
You'll get answers to everything.
Did my decisions have an impact on the ending? I don't feel they did. I'll agree that they did give us an ending but it very much was a "Lost" style ending.
Quote:
Mac Walters (Lead Writer) 02/28/12
Presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.
Whaaaa?
I think it would have been a different story if these comments came a year ago but this was a couple weeks to a month before the game was released.
The Following User Says Thank You to cDnStealth For This Useful Post:
For those wondering about part of the ending that makes no sense
Spoiler!
If you watch/read "The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3" - which is now available on the app store, there IS a deleted scene of the Normandy picking up the two crew members that were with you when you get blasted by the huge friggin' laser. I've no frakkin' idea why the scene was cut out, seeing as there's a clear and silly gap in narrative by having people who I had assumed died when the huge friggin' laser was fired all of a sudden step out of the Normandy
Spoiler!
Thanks for that! It was as I thought: Bioware just cut it because of pacing and because they mistakenly assumed that it would be something people would accept.
In that case, another thing they maybe should have done is indicate how much time passes in the Citadel. There are ways to do that. Since you're playing through the Citadel part in 20 minutes, it can feel like there's not enough time even though there is.
The major flaw that I see now is that they never explicate what Normandy's plans are. All they had to do is tell us what the ship was going to do, for example if they were planning to pick up people when the ground assault was over, which appears to be the case.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-27-2012 at 10:39 AM.
In terms of synthetics another pretty obvious example is EDI. So you have 2 different forms of synthetics that have shown cooperation with organics. Maybe it won't last, but who's to say it can't?
I also didn't buy the whole, "the Crucible is our only chance" argument. I was hoping it would fail because what would be the point of gathering war assets? If you take a step back and really look at it, none of your decisions mattered at that point. Save the Rachni and the Geth? Elminate the Genophage? What's the point? Their contributions are made completely meaningless by the ending.
Now to the point of defeating the Reapers in a straight up fight. Why can't it be done? They spent the two previous games showing the player exactly that they can be beaten. They aren't infinite and the bulk of their forces are in the Sol system. They defeated Sovereign and I would associate the majority of their losses at that battle to the Geth fleet. Now our fleets have improved weaponry (based on Reaper tech) enhanced sheilds and most importantly, that the fleet is a Galaxy wide union of forces. Also keep in mind that in the codex, there are people who believe we can win a conventional war against the Reapers. In fact there are also a number of codex indexes that suggest we are doing serious damage to their forces.
Back to the point, the god states that we have come further than any cycle before us. So I'd say it's safe to assume the Reapers have never had to fight a united force or had their plans repeatedly blown up in their faces. The Citadel trap failed. The human Reaper failed. Why can't their plan fail now? It would have been interesting if they let you choose to sacrifice systems. If Earth really is lost and the largest Reaper force is there then perhaps the greatest decision would have been to abandon Sol. Destroy the mass relay and wipe everything out. Maybe it won't be a happy ending but that won't make it a bad ending.
As an aside, I can see another reason why people are upset with the ending and it has everything to with the fact that it is everything that Bioware said they wouldn't do. These quotes come after the game went gold and it seems pretty obvious that people were misled.
Well that's clearly wrong. We have 3 endings that everyone can get regardless of their decisions.
Again, blatently false. All you get is ending A, B or C. Previouis decisions were apparently thrown out the window when it came to the ending.
Did my decisions have an impact on the ending? I don't feel they did. I'll agree that they did give us an ending but it very much was a "Lost" style ending.
Whaaaa?
I think it would have been a different story if these comments came a year ago but this was a couple weeks to a month before the game was released.
Spoiler!
Whether promises were broken, that's not a discussion I can add to.
On the war, I maintain that it's hopeless and more importantly it's presented to us as hopeless. The one thing you have to accept that it's the Crucible or nothing. They wouldn't have put all their resources on it and all their fleets behind it if they thought there was any other way. That's something I feel very strongly about. There's no knowing how many Repears there really are. I'm not sure you're right that most of them were in Sol, but even so, there may be many more outside the active theaters. If they were beaten back in Sol, they can simply continue their work. They won't run out of resources but the allience will, and soon.
It's not a winnable war strategically, not by a long shot. But like I said, much more importantly, that's how the story is told to us. If there was any other source of hope, they would not have committed everything to this crazy, desperate plan.
As for leaving the players with new questions. In a sense, but I still think that what the player actually gets is an explanation of their motivation more than an introduction of a new mystery. The mystery is essentially the same as it was before: the existence of millions of years old AIs. It's the same mystery as with the Reapers and I think it's one that's better left unexplained at this point. I don't think people would complain if the mystery had not been given a new face (the child), but it really is just a new face.
EDIT
Spoiler!
On the war, remember that it can take centuries to harvest and root out the advanced civilizations. That's how it was with the Protheans. Javik had known nothing else but the war against the Reapers. That's the time scale and it means nothing to the Reapers. Slowly but surely the races will run out of resources. It's not that you can retreat and build new civilizations to gather your strength. The Reapers can hit anywhere they like, literally endlessly.
One battle is meaningless by itself in the scheme of things. What made the Sol battle meaningful was the Crucible.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-27-2012 at 11:05 AM.
Whether promises were broken, that's not a discussion I can add to.
On the war, I maintain that it's hopeless and more importantly it's presented to us as hopeless. The one thing you have to accept that it's the Crucible or nothing. They wouldn't have put all their resources on it and all their fleets behind it if they thought there was any other way. That's something I feel very strongly about. There's no knowing how many Repears there really are. I'm not sure you're right that most of them were in Sol, but even so, there may be many more outside the active theaters. If they were beaten back in Sol, they can simply continue their work. They won't run out of resources but the allience will, and soon.
It's not a winnable war strategically, not by a long shot. But like I said, much more importantly, that's how the story is told to us. If there was any other source of hope, they would not have committed everything to this crazy, desperate plan.
As for leaving the players with new questions. In a sense, but I still think that what the player actually gets is an explanation of their motivation more than an introduction of a new mystery. The mystery is essentially the same as it was before: the existence of millions of years old AIs. It's the same mystery as with the Reapers and I think it's one that's better left unexplained at this point. I don't think people would complain if the mystery had not been given a new face (the child), but it really is just a new face.
EDIT
Spoiler!
On the war, remember that it can take centuries to harvest and root out the advanced civilizations. That's how it was with the Protheans. Javik had known nothing else but the war against the Reapers. That's the time scale and it means nothing to the Reapers. Slowly but surely the races will run out of resources. It's not that you can retreat and build new civilizations to gather your strength. The Reapers can hit anywhere they like, literally endlessly.
One battle is meaningless by itself in the scheme of things. What made the Sol battle meaningful was the Crucible.
I agree, commenting on broken promises was not in our original discussion. I just brought it up because I see a lot of people complaining about it and I guess I see where they're coming from.
Spoiler!
The whole, "relying on the Crucible" thing is where I feel the ending fails. You spend the time building up your forces in the event that this thing might not be the solution. I mean, what if the Crucible docks and it does nothing? What if you get on board and find out that all it's capable of is obliterating everything? Do you just fire it because "its the last thing we were banking on?" No. And that's why I didn't like the choices presented to me at the end because, to me, I might as well have just been droping a giant nuke on the galaxy and all that I cared for. I'd rather go down fighting then submit and that is what the god is asking me to do. It would be like you get to Soveriegn in ME1 and it tells you that you're going to be annihilated and you are presented with the choice of submitting or dieing. That's what the ending of 3 feels like to me. I can't stand up and say, no. It's not a good ending because it throws out 3 games worth of build-up and decisions.
There is an article I linked to a couple pages back which I thought was an excellent read as to why the ending is terrible. I'll link it here again because he brings up a lot of points that I have issues with. http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/201...mass-effect-3/
Saying the war is unwinable is different from showing it is unwinable. To me I've seen a lot of success to suggest that well coordinated attacks could be the ticket to destroying the Reapers. Perhaps its not but they haven't shown that it's impossible. Again I bring up the mass relays. You destroy a few of those in a few key systems with large Reaper presences and all of a sudden those enemy forces drop considerably.
Which brings me to my biggest question regarding the ending. When the Reapers capture the Citadel why do they not just go ahead with their original plan? They have control of the Citadel so why not lock down the mass relays and prevent the Crucible force from even being able to enter the system? It doesn't make sense.
EDIT
Spoiler!
Also, if the Citadel is sentient why did they need Sovereign to activate the mass relay? Couldn't the god just have opened the relay and signaled the Reapers?
Last edited by cDnStealth; 03-27-2012 at 12:43 PM.
It's still worth playing. For me, ME3 was 39 hours and 45 minutes of pure distilled awesomeness followed by 15 minutes of absolute suckage. Everything up until the ending was just amazing, by far the best experience in the entire series. I don't think it's fair to rate the entire game as a failure because the ending was such a huge disappointment.
Chances are I'll eventually pick it up, I'm still really engrossed in SWTOR and that takes up most of my gaming time.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I agree, commenting on broken promises was not in our original discussion. I just brought it up because I see a lot of people complaining about it and I guess I see where they're coming from.
Spoiler!
The whole, "relying on the Crucible" thing is where I feel the ending fails. You spend the time building up your forces in the event that this thing might not be the solution. I mean, what if the Crucible docks and it does nothing? What if you get on board and find out that all it's capable of is obliterating everything? Do you just fire it because "its the last thing we were banking on?" No. And that's why I didn't like the choices presented to me at the end because, to me, I might as well have just been droping a giant nuke on the galaxy and all that I cared for. I'd rather go down fighting then submit and that is what the god is asking me to do. It would be like you get to Soveriegn in ME1 and it tells you that you're going to be annihilated and you are presented with the choice of submitting or dieing. That's what the ending of 3 feels like to me. I can't stand up and say, no. It's not a good ending because it throws out 3 games worth of build-up and decisions.
There is an article I linked to a couple pages back which I thought was an excellent read as to why the ending is terrible. I'll link it here again because he brings up a lot of points that I have issues with. http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/201...mass-effect-3/
Saying the war is unwinable is different from showing it is unwinable. To me I've seen a lot of success to suggest that well coordinated attacks could be the ticket to destroying the Reapers. Perhaps its not but they haven't shown that it's impossible. Again I bring up the mass relays. You destroy a few of those in a few key systems with large Reaper presences and all of a sudden those enemy forces drop considerably.
Which brings me to my biggest question regarding the ending. When the Reapers capture the Citadel why do they not just go ahead with their original plan? They have control of the Citadel so why not lock down the mass relays and prevent the Crucible force from even being able to enter the system? It doesn't make sense.
EDIT
Spoiler!
Also, if the Citadel is sentient why did they need Sovereign to activate the mass relay? Couldn't the god just have opened the relay and signaled the Reapers?
Spoiler!
The article you link to doesn't appear to offer anything new to the discussion. Much of it is criticism of storytelling techniques and we just have to accept the (1) neither of us are idiots and (2) we nevertheless disagree in our judgments about the ending's naturalness or artistic merit.
I think I'll mostly just be repeating myself at this point. I'd respond that there's no way of "showing" that the war is unwinnable other than to experience it right to the end and that's not an option to those making military evaluations in an uncertain situation. Again, I'm completely convinced that the war is unwinnable and that clearly the characters in the story are as well. You can disagree with this, of course, and say that they were wrong, but let's be clear that within the parameters that Bioware presents, the Crucible really was their only hope, even if you yourself would have written a different story. I think that's an understandable criticism of the story but it's not something that illogical within the story that is actually told.
I think that's a discussion that you can have but it's not really something you can use as evidence of Bioware's incompetence as writers. You can certainly criticize the whole idea of the Crucible. What made it more interesting to me was that it had been planned for many cycles, not just by Protheans. And just the alien unsettling uncertainty about it. They're trapped inside a nightmare and here's this thing they don't fully understand. And once it's in place, it changes the Catalyst, making all the options available. All along they have been at the very edge of their understanding of the universe. Is the fact that Shepard talks to the Catalyst really such a huge game changer that it takes you out of the story? I just don't think so.
To me it's clunky writing only on the surface. It doesn't introduce as much as some say it does: it gives (1) the reason why the Reapers do it and (2) the three ways that you can use the Crucible. Would it have been so radically different if Shepard had simply been presented with a VI interface rather than an old AI?
As for why the Reapers don't "lock down" the mass relays and stop the Crucible. Well, I suppose if they had been in the position to do that, they would have, but obviously they were not in control of the Crucible or the relays. I don't know why you assume that they could lock down the relays. Has something like that ever been referred to?
I'm not sure destroying the relays would have been a sound plan for the alliance even if it was possible. It would only leave the forces more vulnerable. The Reapers can move through "dark space", they have all the time in the world, they are the ones who don't need the relays. And the relays are extremely difficult to destroy, and there are no guarantees that you'd be able to catch a significant number in an explosion.
I have to repeat that I don't understand the idea of going down fighting on your own terms, when you consider the stakes. Shepard is forced to make an impossible choice under impossible conditions, I agree with that, but to me it's clear that she has to do it. That's the plan. She can't just sit down and cross her arms and let the chips fall where they may.
Look at it this way. She can sacrifice her own life in the hope that it will end the war even if she can't know what will actually happen. That's just her life. She has to try it. If nothing happens, they've only lost her, and she's pretty much at the end of her road anyway. In that case the war will simply go on. Possibly sacrificing every advanced species by not following the plan in the hope that they'll somehow win a war they themselves have evaluated as unwinnable by conventional means, that's just not an option.
The fact that she isn't presented with perfect choices under perfect conditions, that's just life. She is barely conscious and she has to make that kind of choice! Unfair! Crazy! Yes, life is unfair and crazy and you never get perfect conditions. I fully agree that it's an insane situation. But as I was playing it, too late at night, a bit tired, I was there, I was with the story right to the end. It didn't occur to me to rebel against the whole situation. I guess I was fortunate that it fit my playthrough of the game. I just lunged forward and hoped for the best. Very gut-level. So for me it worked, and it's not because there was something there that I didn't understand.
And it turns out that the Catalyst was right, at least as far as the Crucible is concerned. It's impossible to verify the idea that synthetics will inevitably wipe out the organics, but the game doesn't ask you to accept that part. You can choose outcomes that will end the war but in the Catalyst's view eventually lead to more conflicts and ultimately the extinction of all organic life.
Really the desperation of the whole situation has to be appreciated. Just the rush toward the beam of light in London shows just how dire the situation was. Events were just rushing forward like in a nightmare.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-27-2012 at 02:13 PM.
