Mass Effect 3: The Wall

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Roboto:

Darkmantle:

doesn't it imply that the next cycle killed the reapers though?

it's not too big a stretch to imagine that if you had a high enough EMS you could still take the reapers with heavy losses.

OT: It's definitely better, but the problem is that I still have a crippling dislike of deus ex machinas, But I guess that fails down to personal bias. EA probably shouldn't have rushed the game.

Liara had that capsule thing very well thought out with all the information they got from other beacons in stuff, that it is not too much of a stretch to think some form of life found one near the beginning of the next cycle, took it seriously, and started preparing much earlier. Does that mean the Reapers didn't come back way, way, WAY after that by rebuilding? Impossible to tell, that's speculation. All you can tell from it is that they fought those freaky human reapers. The greatest story never told, or Mass Effect 4: Refusal Ending :D

Don't forget a fleet of the magnitude you brought in would probably kill more reapers than they could replace,

Honestly, if handled right, the refusal ending could be considered the most heroic ending, sacrificing your whole cycle's life, to damage the reapers just enough so that the next cycle can finish them. If portrayed from the angle of "it's too late for our cycle, but we will make room for the next". I honestly would have preferred the catalyst not working and shepard giving that kind of speech to the last of the alliance forces, would be better than the deus ex machina.

It just feels cheap you know, relying on what turned out to be essentially space magic to finish the game. It would have felt better if it was something done under your own power, and not under a god like figure.

If there was no catalyst the end would be great
Since he is still there the end is still shit
Bio ware obviously thought people were going nuts because the ending was too sad or something and are therefore deluded. They must actually think that ending makes sense or at least somebody more important than the rest does.

Darkmantle:

Roboto:

Darkmantle:

doesn't it imply that the next cycle killed the reapers though?

it's not too big a stretch to imagine that if you had a high enough EMS you could still take the reapers with heavy losses.

OT: It's definitely better, but the problem is that I still have a crippling dislike of deus ex machinas, But I guess that fails down to personal bias. EA probably shouldn't have rushed the game.

Liara had that capsule thing very well thought out with all the information they got from other beacons in stuff, that it is not too much of a stretch to think some form of life found one near the beginning of the next cycle, took it seriously, and started preparing much earlier. Does that mean the Reapers didn't come back way, way, WAY after that by rebuilding? Impossible to tell, that's speculation. All you can tell from it is that they fought those freaky human reapers. The greatest story never told, or Mass Effect 4: Refusal Ending :D

Don't forget a fleet of the magnitude you brought in would probably kill more reapers than they could replace,

Honestly, if handled right, the refusal ending could be considered the most heroic ending, sacrificing your whole cycle's life, to damage the reapers just enough so that the next cycle can finish them. If portrayed from the angle of "it's too late for our cycle, but we will make room for the next". I honestly would have preferred the catalyst not working and shepard giving that kind of speech to the last of the alliance forces, would be better than the deus ex machina.

It just feels cheap you know, relying on what turned out to be essentially space magic to finish the game. It would have felt better if it was something done under your own power, and not under a god like figure.

Therein lies the problem of building an enemy up too much, it becomes hard, perhaps not impossible, but hard to deal with them any other way.

Mcoffey:
The endings still suck. Now they only suck less. Atleast this shit is done with.

Also anyone else feel the refusal ending was Bioware giving a big "fuck you" to the people who called them out on the original shitty endings?

Yes. Pretty much.

They give you no chance of actually beating the reapers in that ending. No matter how much you gain, you failed...

just... wow. Way to treat your fan-base.

lord Claincy Ffnord:

Darkmantle:

Roboto:

Liara had that capsule thing very well thought out with all the information they got from other beacons in stuff, that it is not too much of a stretch to think some form of life found one near the beginning of the next cycle, took it seriously, and started preparing much earlier. Does that mean the Reapers didn't come back way, way, WAY after that by rebuilding? Impossible to tell, that's speculation. All you can tell from it is that they fought those freaky human reapers. The greatest story never told, or Mass Effect 4: Refusal Ending :D

Don't forget a fleet of the magnitude you brought in would probably kill more reapers than they could replace,

Honestly, if handled right, the refusal ending could be considered the most heroic ending, sacrificing your whole cycle's life, to damage the reapers just enough so that the next cycle can finish them. If portrayed from the angle of "it's too late for our cycle, but we will make room for the next". I honestly would have preferred the catalyst not working and shepard giving that kind of speech to the last of the alliance forces, would be better than the deus ex machina.

It just feels cheap you know, relying on what turned out to be essentially space magic to finish the game. It would have felt better if it was something done under your own power, and not under a god like figure.

Therein lies the problem of building an enemy up too much, it becomes hard, perhaps not impossible, but hard to deal with them any other way.

That's the thing though, the reapers weren't even built up to be unstoppable until late into ME3. You killed one in ME1 when you got surprise attacked, with only a handful of human ships. but all of a sudden it takes the entire quarian flotilla 3 volleys in a weak point to kill it? What the HELL man? The reapers just didn't feel right all through ME3, they got about 20x more powerful because space magic basically.

It's one of the reasons why I don't get the amount of people praising the story, I found lots of problems all throughout ME3. It just REEKS of pointless escalation basically. Not only the reapers, but Cerberus for crying out loud!!! Did the writers forget that only 150 people were in Cerberus at the end of me2 (you can ask EDI about it after the joker section), if that, considering you stole their crew and two of their top operatives (miranda and jacob), but now they have enough dudes to take over multiple military installations, assault the citadel itself and raid colonies unopposed? With no real explanation or build up? That's too much for me man.

Honestly, I find the story just overall kind of bad in ME3, and I loved ME1 and ME2 :(

tmande2nd:

Still is a total author avatar though.

Humorously, people have pointed out how appropriate it is that this author avatar essentially throws a temper tantrum when you say that you don't like his endings ^_^

When I saw that title I thought it was for some kind of Mass Effect/ Pink Floyd crossover... how disappointed I was...

I.Muir:
If there was no catalyst the end would be great
Since he is still there the end is still shit
Bio ware obviously thought people were going nuts because the ending was too sad or something and are therefore deluded. They must actually think that ending makes sense or at least somebody more important than the rest does.

Alas his very existence pretty much ruins the ending's narrative coherence, though he isn't the only problem by far, he is by far the biggest one.

-His very existence renders the keepers pointless and therefor unravels Mass Effect 1's main conflict in its entirety, as well as destroying the significance of ilos and its prothean scientists.

-His arguments still make no sense, even given the additional background we get in EC. In fact, his new background makes him the perpetrator of his own motivation, "created always rebels etc."

-There is no legitimate reason ever given as to why he, as the citadel, is incapable of using the crucible

-He completely devalues the existence of the otherwise well-done harbinger character, rendering him redundant, pointless, and nullifying a full game's worth of great characterization of him in Mass Effect 2

-He is revealed as "the big bad" essentially, the main antagonist, leader of our enemy, in the last 5 minutes of the last game of a trilogy

-If he controls the reapers and is the citadel, then there should be no reason why he kept the transport beam on during the battle for london

-If he's so damn certain of his fucking motives, why even give the destruction choice, which he claims won't solve anything? Why not just offer to fly the reapers into a black hole if we ask him to, so we can save the geth and joker's girlfriend?

Sandytimeman:
My problem is that the new endings would never be as exciting or as cool as the indoctrination theory. As I tweeted to Grey, nothing can beat a mountain dew fueled conspiracy theory.

I was right for the most part the new endings with the plot holes dry walled and patched just doesn't leave me disappointed but it doesn't excite me either.

Now that the ending is out I would like to see Casey Hudson give a play by play on why this video is completely wrong.

Like why are the piles of bodies next to the pillar of light, why are the dead bodies wearing the same default armors as Ashley and Kaiden.

Why you see the oily shadows during the confrontation with TIM and Anderson. Why when you shoot Anderson you are then wounded and why when you reach the top of the light you arn't wounded anymore?

There are tons of tiny details that are still left unexplained and I would really like some answers.

Rushing it out the door and cutting corners in the process? Sometimes the simplest explanation is best - call me crazy but I don't think these are the subtlest writers of our generation..

Darkmantle:
That's the thing though, the reapers weren't even built up to be unstoppable until late into ME3. You killed one in ME1 when you got surprise attacked, with only a handful of human ships.

If by 'a handful of human ships', you mean the entirety of the Alliance's fleets, as well as the Turian/Asari fleets assigned to defend the Citadel, then yes. And even then, they still only won the battle because Sovereign made the mistake of possessing Saren's corpse to try and kill you, which backfired and overloaded his shields when you destroyed Saren for good. And even after all that, the Alliance's fleets still took heavy losses. And that was for one Reaper. One that wasn't even the biggest or the strongest. No, the reapers were quite thoroughly built up as an insurmountable threat right from the beginning, and ME3 is what happens when you have thousands upon thousands of them all coming at once.

It's one of the reasons why I don't get the amount of people praising the story, I found lots of problems all throughout ME3. It just REEKS of pointless escalation basically. Not only the reapers, but Cerberus for crying out loud!!! Did the writers forget that only 150 people were in Cerberus at the end of me2 (you can ask EDI about it after the joker section), if that, considering you stole their crew and two of their top operatives (miranda and jacob), but now they have enough dudes to take over multiple military installations, assault the citadel itself and raid colonies unopposed? With no real explanation or build up? That's too much for me man.

They did give explanation during the course of the assault on Cerberus HQ. EDI describes during the mission how Civilians lured to Sanctuary by promises of safety are rounded up, indoctrinated to be loyal to Cerberus and given reaper tech surgical implants that make them individually tougher than any Alliance soldier, and are then turned into new shocktroops for Cerberus's forces. Also, for many (though certainly not all) of the places where you fight Cerberus, they literally WERE unopposed. Everyone was so focused on the Reapers that there weren't enough forces left to defend areas from Cerberus. The only major exception to this is when they attacked the Citadel, but even then they had a member of the Citadel council help them sneak on-board to launch a surprise attack.

praetor_alpha:
Yo, we heard you didn't like being killed by machines, so we are sending machines to kill you so you won't be killed by machines.

Nope, still the same problem, but the end is now rainbows and unicorns compared to what it was. Everything seemed to be rebuilt overnight; I'd thought it would be decades before London was rebuilt (much less the rest of the galaxy) and the Normandy would never fly again.

The control ending gives me the creeps. Not the low voice, but the weird third/first person way it (he?) talks about Shepard. I would not trust.

We got a turd of an ending originally, and this is a polished turd. It looks odd, and you might even show it to your friends, but it still smells funny.

I still hate the constraint on each of the color coded endings with a passion.

Blue: No you can't save the world without playing god. You always have to stoop to the monster's level to beat it. Everyone can't live as they were with shepard as a martyr, or shepard living her life in peace (and with blue babies), she has to become fucking(creepy) robot god.

Green: Everyone knows this bullshit doesn't make any sense. How the fuck does an energy burst change dna to interact with computers anyway? Synthesis is the epitome of what the reapers want anyway. Mordin describes why it's wrong to seek perfection in ME2 when he talks about the collectors. LIMITATIONS! Besides, its a decision way too big for any one person to make, it's unfair to the masses.

Red: It is so PAINFULLY obvious that the only reason the geth and EDI die in this one is to prevent everyone and their grandmother from choosing it. It makes the most sense to choose, imo, after all the reapers' destruction has always been your goal. So, to create false tension, bioware decided 'oh btw legion sacrifice and Joker's romance will also mean nothing in this endingkthxbye'.

It's also incredibly stupid. Why wouldn't the crucible be designed to target something less general then "all sufficiently advanced technology", like, say, maybe, large mass effect drives! Like, the kind that ALL reapers have. The alliance ships crash anyway, this way it limits the damage, however.

Gizen:

If by 'a handful of human ships', you mean the entirety of the Alliance's fleets, as well as the Turian/Asari fleets assigned to defend the Citadel, then yes. And even then, they still only won the battle because Sovereign made the mistake of possessing Saren's corpse to try and kill you, which backfired and overloaded his shields when you destroyed Saren for good. And even after all that, the Alliance's fleets still took heavy losses. And that was for one Reaper. One that wasn't even the biggest or the strongest. No, the reapers were quite thoroughly built up as an insurmountable threat right from the beginning, and ME3 is what happens when you have thousands upon thousands of them all coming at once.

I'll have to disagree here.

In the first game, either due to limitations of the engine or simply poor choice of camera direction, the "fleet" looked like a comparably small number of ships.

The citadel defense fleet was virtually non-existent due to the Geth assault (Hell, the Destiny Ascension was destroyed/not destroyed depending on the intervention of Hackett) and, if I remember correctly, only one fleet, those stationed around Arcturus, were sent in to fight Sovereign. Specifically, it was the 5th fleet, also known as the Arcturus Fleet. After the citadel fight, reaper tech was used to create better weaponry...ie. thanix cannons...which were supposedly fit on most turian/alliance vessels, giving them a pretty damned huge power boost if they were remaining consistent with their own lore.

ME2/3 added or outright changed details surrounding that which altered the context of the engagement.

Lastly, it was said several times prior to 3 that the primary reason, if the only reason, that the Reapers were able to take out galactic civilizations was due to their ability to cut off all forms of travel and communication simultaneously. They'd never had a galactic armada to contend with, and specifically didn't want that to happen, because they always cut off the snake's head by annihilating the seat of galactic government/travel by warping in on the citadel.

We even see the fleet killing reapers in the cinematics.

With that in mind, I don't really see why a skin-of-the-teeth victory is so impossible, given the context/previous information we've been subjected to in the same series. D:

Sandytimeman:
My problem is that the new endings would never be as exciting or as cool as the indoctrination theory. As I tweeted to Grey, nothing can beat a mountain dew fueled conspiracy theory.

I was right for the most part the new endings with the plot holes dry walled and patched just doesn't leave me disappointed but it doesn't excite me either.

Now that the ending is out I would like to see Casey Hudson give a play by play on why this video is completely wrong.

They won't as they treat IT as a valid interpretation of the endings. It is not canon - no interpretation is - but it is something you can believe if you wish. It is simply not the only thing you can believe.

Like why are the piles of bodies next to the pillar of light,

Not going to watch a 1 and 1/2 hour video on an interpretation of various things in the game, so which pillar of light? The ME3 Conduit, or the One leading up to the Crucible? Before you go up, or once you are up?
Either way, likely because the Reapers are harvesting humans on Earth, sending them up the Conduit into the Citadel and are likely to create a new Human Reaper inside.

why are the dead bodies wearing the same default armors as Ashley and Kaiden.

Texture re-use. Its quite common. Re-use old textures to save space on disk. Nothing new here.

Why you see the oily shadows during the confrontation with TIM and Anderson.

Because TIM is taking control of you?
Yeah, they're in the dream sequences too. Big whoop. They are a visual indicator of stress being put on Shepard's mind. You could argue that this could be indoctrination, but it could also be PTSD [In dreams] and TIM controlling [On Citadel].

Why when you shoot Anderson you are then wounded

Does everyone forget that Shepard was shot by A GIANT FREAKING LASER BEAM. You were hurt long before you shot Anderson. You are hurt long after you shot Anderson, which leads me to...

and why when you reach the top of the light you arn't wounded anymore?

You are still wounded. Note how your limping, and moving at the world's slowest pace, and bent over half the time? Why are you not crawling along the ground or unconscious? 'cause then the game couldn't progress. Its like asking why you don't fall over and have to crawl everywhere after you get down to one bar of health in a fight. 'cause the game wouldn't move on if that were the case.

There are tons of tiny details that are still left unexplained and I would really like some answers.

I could have said the same about Indoc Theory, however any questions I would have asked would have been met by an answer from the IT perspective that followed their interpretation of events. Likewise, IT's "Evidence" can be seen from a different perspective as entirely normal events.

Nothing against IT, but it is not an infallible-must-be-true-only-real-ending sort of thing. Its an interpretation of ME3, but nothing more.

I think they made one of the worst and most non sensical endings ever into a decent ending on the same level of for example Dragon Age Origins.

The Catalyst was no longer an awful character thanks to some extra dialogue options and it's amazing what just some simple details helped the plot make sense.

The shots showing what happened to all the galaxy help a lot to make all your actions in the trilogy have some consequences.

The scene with your friends putting Shepard's name on the memorial was very emotional, something that was lacking in the original endings.

I liked the refusal ending because it was like a bad ending for me, very sci-fi. I wished more endings were added though, like the typical heroic ending with Shepard surviving and getting many medals and a celebration and after that meeting the guys at the bar in Rio. But overall they're good enough endings and I hope all developers take note and focus much more on making decent endings, especially in RPGs.

Joccaren:
*snip*

True, true, but I still like the IT explanation much better than the colored endings,

and really wish Bioware had just rolled with it instead.

It would only seem like SLIGHTLY more of an ass-pull than harbinger deciding to stop shooting JUST long enough for Shepard to very *slowly* and *dramatically* hoist her squadmates on to the Normandy before resuming on her epic desperate last-bid charge towards the citadel.

Apparently "retreat via starship" is a free action.

pilouuuu:

The Catalyst was no longer an awful character thanks to some extra dialogue options and it's amazing what just some simple details helped the plot make sense.

The catalyst will always be awful by virtue of existing.

Other than being a blatant deus ex machina, I listed some of my personal reasons why about 7 or 8 posts up. Past the post about the colored endings.

Innegativeion:

Joccaren:
*snip*

True, true, but I still like the IT explanation much better than the colored endings,

and really wish Bioware had just rolled with it instead.

It would only seem like SLIGHTLY more of an ass-pull than harbinger deciding to stop shooting JUST long enough for Shepard to very *slowly* and *dramatically* hoist her squadmates on to the Normandy before resuming on her epic desperate last-bid charge towards the citadel.

Apparently "retreat via starship" is a free action.

Is it bad that I laughed during that scene?
It was just so utterly rediculous.
"Joker, I need an extraction"
"The fightings hard up here commander" [Or W/E]
[Insert Shepard repeating that he needs a pickup here]
"I'm on my way"
literally 0.5 seconds later the Normandy has all but landed. Then Shepard slowly and dramatically lifts his squad onto the Normandy, tells them to stay onboard, then watches it dramatically lift up right in front of Harbinger - who, like all the Alliance grunts, must have been standing there in awe of how hilarious the scene was, as none of them took the opportunity to get to the beam, and Harbinger did a whole lot of f*** all whilst this was happening.
It was so surreal I couldn't help but laugh. I could not take that scene seriously if I tried.

I am pleasantly surprised with how satisfying I found these ending to be. The control ending is by far my favorite though. It just seems fitting that Shepard would get the final speech. It's not perfect, but it's a decent end to my favorite sci-fi series of all time.

Susan Arendt:
Mass Effect 3: The Wall

A last farewell to Commander Shepard.

Read Full Article

Great article, quite poignant.

That's exactly how I took everything while playing. It was the little things and the personal reactions I got through my choices that I got a kick out of. The endings before bothered me only slightly. I will get to do a replay when I'm at a place with a proper connection that can actually download large things quickly and conveniently.

But yeah, the little things. One of the best and most hilarious things I experienced was seeing Tali drunk at the Normandy bar after the Horizon mission.

"That's a straw Tali."

LostGryphon:

Gizen:

If by 'a handful of human ships', you mean the entirety of the Alliance's fleets, as well as the Turian/Asari fleets assigned to defend the Citadel, then yes. And even then, they still only won the battle because Sovereign made the mistake of possessing Saren's corpse to try and kill you, which backfired and overloaded his shields when you destroyed Saren for good. And even after all that, the Alliance's fleets still took heavy losses. And that was for one Reaper. One that wasn't even the biggest or the strongest. No, the reapers were quite thoroughly built up as an insurmountable threat right from the beginning, and ME3 is what happens when you have thousands upon thousands of them all coming at once.

I'll have to disagree here.

In the first game, either due to limitations of the engine or simply poor choice of camera direction, the "fleet" looked like a comparably small number of ships.

The citadel defense fleet was virtually non-existent due to the Geth assault (Hell, the Destiny Ascension was destroyed/not destroyed depending on the intervention of Hackett) and, if I remember correctly, only one fleet, those stationed around Arcturus, were sent in to fight Sovereign. Specifically, it was the 5th fleet, also known as the Arcturus Fleet. After the citadel fight, reaper tech was used to create better weaponry...ie. thanix cannons...which were supposedly fit on most turian/alliance vessels, giving them a pretty damned huge power boost if they were remaining consistent with their own lore.

ME2/3 added or outright changed details surrounding that which altered the context of the engagement.

Lastly, it was said several times prior to 3 that the primary reason, if the only reason, that the Reapers were able to take out galactic civilizations was due to their ability to cut off all forms of travel and communication simultaneously. They'd never had a galactic armada to contend with, and specifically didn't want that to happen, because they always cut off the snake's head by annihilating the seat of galactic government/travel by warping in on the citadel.

We even see the fleet killing reapers in the cinematics.

With that in mind, I don't really see why a skin-of-the-teeth victory is so impossible, given the context/previous information we've been subjected to in the same series. D:

OK. Firstly in me1 it is just referred to as the entire Arcturus fleet which would be all fleets stationed at Arcturus which could be multiple fleets. However ignoring this we still have a minimum of 1/6th of the human armada attacking 1 reaper, yes they would have lost a few to the geth but watching the cinematic they pretty well tore through the geth who had been weakened by the Citadel defense fleet. You then see, taking casualties into account, at least 1/8th of the human fleet all firing on a stationary sovereign and doing pretty well Nothing. It's only when you disable sovereign that the fleets fire seems to have any effect whatsoever. So best case scenario a fleet that size might be a match for a reaper capitol ship, extrapolating from there the forces of the galaxy united are still completely screwed.

Moving on, there isn't really much proof of individual reapers power in me2 just a whole lot of talk about how they're virtually unstoppable.

In me3 we still get the picture that the reapers are way too tough, yes in the start of the battle you see, not a reapers being destroyed, but 1 reaper having a couple of legs blown off. Reading in the codex we also discover that when the reapers first attacked Palaven through a trick maneuver the turians managed to destroy a couple of reaper capitol ships, and lost a good chunk of their dreadnoughts in the process. Not a sustainable casualty rate.

Yes we learn that the reapers normally take the Citadel first to cut off transport was never shown as the only reason, just a brilliant way to get a foothold and to minimise reaper casualties. Also the thanix cannons were only able to be installed on destroyers, can't remember why. So yes the reapers would have taken a lot of casualties, but no the combined fleets still couldn't have come close to beating them conventionally.

However I do agree with you that the strength of reapers is inconsistent and that really annoys me. Particularly the destroyer on Rannoch has no right to stand up to that much firepower. Only thing I can assume with that is that most of the fleet was too busy fighting the geth (even though thats not what they said).

I still hate it, although I had a feeling I would, because BioWare said it would just expand on the original endings.

The last 15 minutes of the game serve as a complete disconnect from the context, tone and even genre of the preceding 100 hours. They had a random character show up in the last moments to spurn half-baked ideologies in an attempt by the developers to have higher-concept storytelling, despite it being unrelated to everything up until that point.

Although I like the little character stuff, this ending expands on a fundamentally flawed conclusion. To put it bluntly, they polished a turd. I don't accept it as the ending to Mass Effect 3.

Roboto:

Mcoffey:

Roboto:

Well the refusal simply takes what the player could expect to happen and makes it happen. The crucible is the last chance of all the galaxy and is the only thing they have left going for them. The last plan hinged on it, and that is where everything was amassed. You were given choices on how to fire it, but if you choose simply not to use it, the Reapers will continue to curbstomp the galaxy as they had been, regardless of how much military effectiveness there was. What else could be done? All that military might was only covering how well the crucible could be protected. Pushing back and defeating the reapers? Wasn't ever a remote possibility, which is why the crucible was made.

Why not? Its a work of fiction, and we're already accepting space magic as the only other possible solution. They couls have easily.worte " The war was brutal. Death was in the billions. But by the end we saw what few reapers remained flee back into dark space. We won on our terms." I thought of that in 30 seconds. Bioware could have made it work. Instead they chose to take their ball and go home if we didnt like their dumb endings.

"Rocks fall and they die."

EDIT: Hell, if they really wanted they could have tied it into EMS or something so that it would actually reflect our playthrough.

Thus negating the entire plot of building the crucible since you would have won anyway and probably would have won better if all the resources weren't put into it.

Which (IMO) would have been perfect; the Crucible storyline ultimately ruined the game.

Funny...

all this DLC did for me was spell out what I was perfectly capable of imagining before. When I first completed ME3, I was happy. My Shepard had doe what she had set out to do, destroyed the Reapers, no matter the cost.

Organic life could now continue to exist unmolested by the Reapers. With time and dedication proven throughout the series, the lifeforms of the Galaxy could rebuild.

My crew had mostly survived due to heroic rescues of Joker. And while they had to do an emergency landing, they survived and lived to eventually make it back to civilization on FTL engines.

And I knew Shepard was not gone...and she would see her friends again because of that.

I didn't need pretty pictures telling me that. I didn't need for BioWare to spell it out to me like apparently some people do.

The endings were fine. They left things to something called "imagination". Some plotholes aside, it was perfectly in line with the overall tone of Mass Effect.

A Space Opera does not always need to make sense. Anyway, I'm sure the frothing mouth brigade of would-be-much-better-writers is going to rant and rave some more regardless.

On the topic...the article was good and I am happy for the people who wanted exactly this, namely to make the endings clearer and less up to the player to imagine.

How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Joccaren:

Innegativeion:

Joccaren:
*snip*

True, true, but I still like the IT explanation much better than the colored endings,

and really wish Bioware had just rolled with it instead.

It would only seem like SLIGHTLY more of an ass-pull than harbinger deciding to stop shooting JUST long enough for Shepard to very *slowly* and *dramatically* hoist her squadmates on to the Normandy before resuming on her epic desperate last-bid charge towards the citadel.

Apparently "retreat via starship" is a free action.

Is it bad that I laughed during that scene?
It was just so utterly rediculous.
"Joker, I need an extraction"
"The fightings hard up here commander" [Or W/E]
[Insert Shepard repeating that he needs a pickup here]
"I'm on my way"
literally 0.5 seconds later the Normandy has all but landed. Then Shepard slowly and dramatically lifts his squad onto the Normandy, tells them to stay onboard, then watches it dramatically lift up right in front of Harbinger - who, like all the Alliance grunts, must have been standing there in awe of how hilarious the scene was, as none of them took the opportunity to get to the beam, and Harbinger did a whole lot of f*** all whilst this was happening.
It was so surreal I couldn't help but laugh. I could not take that scene seriously if I tried.

My thought went "why isn't he shooting at the normandy" to, Why the hells isn't the Normandy using all the sweet guns i put into it on the reaper? But, yah, the EC wasn't horrible at least.

AnarchistFish:
How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Just load up the Auto Save generated after you beat the game the first time. It'll put you ba just before the Assault on the Cerberus Base.

Captcha: follow me....see

AnarchistFish:
How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Simply play from any earlier save. Personally I played from cerberus base because I think thats what they originally said would be the limit of where changes happened. I don't recall seeing changes up until the final push toward the beam. I *think* Bioware also kind of gave everyone an autosave just before you enter the beam/just after you get hit and the vast majority of the EC is after that. I'm guessing it should just appear as an autosave if you go to load game. Although personally I liked the drama of the scene they added just before it that explains why your squad members are back on the Normandy.

lord Claincy Ffnord:

OK. Firstly in me1 it is just referred to as the entire Arcturus fleet which would be all fleets stationed at Arcturus which could be multiple fleets. However ignoring this we still have a minimum of 1/6th of the human armada attacking 1 reaper, yes they would have lost a few to the geth but watching the cinematic they pretty well tore through the geth who had been weakened by the Citadel defense fleet. You then see, taking casualties into account, at least 1/8th of the human fleet all firing on a stationary sovereign and doing pretty well Nothing. It's only when you disable sovereign that the fleets fire seems to have any effect whatsoever. So best case scenario a fleet that size might be a match for a reaper capitol ship, extrapolating from there the forces of the galaxy united are still completely screwed.

Moving on, there isn't really much proof of individual reapers power in me2 just a whole lot of talk about how they're virtually unstoppable.

In me3 we still get the picture that the reapers are way too tough, yes in the start of the battle you see, not a reapers being destroyed, but 1 reaper having a couple of legs blown off. Reading in the codex we also discover that when the reapers first attacked Palaven through a trick maneuver the turians managed to destroy a couple of reaper capitol ships, and lost a good chunk of their dreadnoughts in the process. Not a sustainable casualty rate.

Yes we learn that the reapers normally take the Citadel first to cut off transport was never shown as the only reason, just a brilliant way to get a foothold and to minimise reaper casualties. Also the thanix cannons were only able to be installed on destroyers, can't remember why. So yes the reapers would have taken a lot of casualties, but no the combined fleets still couldn't have come close to beating them conventionally.

However I do agree with you that the strength of reapers is inconsistent and that really annoys me. Particularly the destroyer on Rannoch has no right to stand up to that much firepower. Only thing I can assume with that is that most of the fleet was too busy fighting the geth (even though thats not what they said).

Eh. from the context, via character exposition and facts prior to ME2's release, it seemed to be just the 5th, as that was Hackett's command and the 1st fleet was the Arcturus area defense fleet (not referred to as "the Arcturus Fleet"...nomenclature sucks). In terms of Sovereign's power, it was left behind as a vanguard unit, so it stands to some reason that it'd be a bit more powerful than the majority of his peers simply due to the potential importance of its mission.

It certainly didn't LOOK like that many ships (aside from the shot when they initially warped...ported...mass-effected into the battle anyway...I know it's an entire fleet, but it just doesn't LOOK like it is), but even in the lore it'd be a fairly sizable group. They had no prior experience with the Reapers at that point, weren't sufficiently armed to combat it, and we're not 100% on Sovereign's capabilities relative to other reaper capital ships.

Thanix cannons, in ME3's codex, are widespread throughout the Alliance and council navies and can be fitted on anything, including fighters. They also have those Thanix missiles you use to blast that destroyer on Earth. They're not really hurting for armaments that can damage or outright destroy reaper tech, as is illustrated in cinematics. This doesn't jive with how battles were playing out though, as every ship that wasn't the Normandy SR2 was just firing the older projectile weapons...which made no sense even when compared to the damned in game codex.

I didn't mean to infer that their tactics regarding the citadel was the ONLY reason. I meant that it was heavily implied, and if I remember correctly outright stated, that they rather heavily relied on that lack of communication/organization amongst the civilizations they were seeking to extinguish. They genuinely didn't want to face a potential galactic armada, even if they were to lose a quarter of their strength, it'd be a severe blow to their self-perceived godhood. I'm aware a quarter isn't sufficient for the galaxy to be victorious, but that's a minimum...they really did seem like they were scared, or at least worried, about a combined offensive taking place.

The inconsistency of strength is the biggest problem, I agree. That destroyer on rannoch was just ridiculous. Especially when you take into account that the thing was in atmo, with gravity working against its ME core and what not. Then you compare that to the destroyer on earth getting whacked relatively easily and the one on Tuchanka getting taken out by a worm. :D

It's terribly inconsistent and, therefore, a lot more difficult to gauge whether a "screw you" ending would be successful, or at least enough so that the Reapers would maybe chill out on the 'killing you to save you' routine.

Susan Arendt:
Mass Effect 3: The Wall

A last farewell to Commander Shepard.

Read Full Article

Or is it?

*Breathe*

^.-

Susan Arendt:

The3rdEye:
"She's pushing it... she's pushing it..."

Susan Arendt:
"She is not just a really cool character to me, she is a fully realized person, with a clearly-defined value and belief system."

"... and she just pole vaulted over the edge."

You picked your background, the previous 30-some-odd years of your life from a list of three possible options, the binary morality system (which I still say is borked at times, changing who someone is against their will is comparatively more 'renegade' than just killing them), etc etc ad nauseam. Good character? Yes, but "fully realized person, with a clearly-defined value and belief system"? Koolaid.

To me, she is fully realized. I'm not talking just about what's in the games, I'm talking about the mindset that I use to make those choices. I know who Joanna is beyond the material that's provided in the Mass Effect lore. I know how she would react to virtually any situation, be it an awkward first date or an attack by space vampires. It's not Koolaid, it's personal investment in the character.

There is a lot of time in between games and the lore of the universe is quite vibrant, for some of us what we are given in the games are not sufficient for the very reason that you mentioned mr Eye, that in reality you wouldn't simply be at fork in the road, in fact had I not forgone the Paragon/Renegade system I would have given up on the game all together.

How ever, OT, and prepare yourselves for a wall of text, thematically the endings are still wrong. I'll move on with my life now, don't get me wrong, but there is still something off...

And this guy on the BSN forums effing nailed it!

"Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this

By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely - and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' - although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating - if disheartening - time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It's like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish - it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point - including the Illusive Man and Saren - all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness - not simply to ape human behaviours - is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes - Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason - because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) - indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity - indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post."

My issue isn't so much with the endings presented, but the fact that Samus Shepard (three guesses) didn't try and disprove the flawed logic of the machines, seems like the thing she would do for the same reason as Mrs Arendt stated, 'cause she is a HUGE fan of the Great Dictator.

EC doesn't fix the thematic inconstancies... and don't get me started on the holes in the plot.

Ok, moving on with my life now...

*edit, fixed Arendt's name... I've been banned on other forums for less

Just to post here some of the reasons that make the EC pointless to me:

The endings remain stupid for the most part, and the game seems to confirm that the catalyst has pretty much free will so it could easily:

1)Instead of control, simply do what Shepard asks him to do (no dying);

2)Instead of destroy, simply self destruct/fly away/whatever (no need to risk death for Shepard);

3)Synthesis justification is so stupid I don't want to discuss it, but for the sake of making my point clear, it says that it tried something like that on its own, but failed... WTF?! And it says that something like organics weren't ready, or some other bullshit like that... This comes from the most advanced AI in existance, supposedly, the collective consciousness of the reapers couldn't do it, but now by dumb luck Shepard fits the bill;

If you say that it couldn't do this before without the crucible, think again: this is an incredibly advanced AI, and the Reapers are shown to have better technology than everyone else in the game: they could have built their own version, easily. Also, the catalyst says that the crucible is basically a giant battery, so the designer of the crucible were either morons (let's make something that can't possibly be used to kill anything on its own, and let's attach it to citadel, that is always conquered from the Reapers as the opening act of each war! Which means that who planned for this couldn't possibly hope to do it... WHY?!?!?), or knew about the catalyst and somehow hoped it would agree to use it? It doesn't add up, and this sounds like the catalyst might actually be the one who designed it, for its purposes (I'll say this below, too, but it sounds like a AI that has gone crazy, more than anything else).

This doesn't explain why the EMS affects the ending at all, and doesn't address the fallacy of the catalyst (appeal to probability), but we can consider it crazy, after all (it goes on explaining its origins, and says something stupid... Again: that it was created by someone that feared the problem between organics and synthetics couldd arise, and he was to be a mediator of sorts, but the problems happened multiple times... This means that its creator created synthetics multiple times and never were destroyed? So it is wrong by its own admission, and its creator were morons, I guess. It also created the first reaper from its creators against their will, possibly being the first AI to get close to what it claims that synthetics might do.

Again, Shepard doesn't raise these points, and either goes along with this or decide to reject the catalyst... And then stand there like an idiot, instead of asking the fleet to at least obliterate the citadel, that is house to the evil AI.

In Bioware defense, I think that people that wanted just closure will be happy with it, and that if this was the ending from the beginning, they wouldn't have received that much negative feedback.

As for myself, it does nothing to fix it for me (as I said before), in fact it makes a few things worse. I guess I wasn't their target to begin with, and this is just more proof I don't fit with their games anymore... :(

P.S. Captcha: One way... I think there is a captcha guy somewhere, and he must be stalking me... ;p

P.P.S. I must also admit that I lolled hard at some of the explanations, so I got something from the extended cut, in a sense... :D

LostGryphon:
-snip-

I'd guess sovereign was fairly similar in power to the other capital ships, the impression I got was that they were all different inside but relatively consistent exterior excepting harbringer. Of course it would make sense for Sovereign to be somewhere in the upper boundary of the capital ships. In regards to the number of fleets, idk, in the me3 war assets it lists 3 of the fleets as having taken heavy casualties in that battle, but yeah it was never clear in any of the earlier games, actually when I first played me1 I think I thought it was pretty well all of humans combat ships that weren't on defense missions, which was clearly incorrect either way.

My apologies on the thanix cannons, you are correct. I only remembered that it had only actually mentioned it on fighters and frigates 'The weapon's relatively small size allows it to be mounted on most fighters or frigates.' but it would definitely have been mounted on other ships. Although whether or not they had a version that was comparable to a dreadnoughts cannons? idk. Regardless, I had forgotten but your comment reminded me: after I originally completed the game one of the things that really disappointed me about the space scenes was precisely that, where were the thanix cannons?

I think perhaps that, there has never been a case where they would have lost if they hadn't taken control of the citadel straight out, simply that it would have caused an unacceptable level of casualties. From the codex entry about reapers it said that every capital ship was basically an entire advanced species and this seemed unsustainable as it was. However even with the entire armada arrayed against them I'm still fairly sure they would have won, but yes they would have taken a lot of casualties, far more than they could replace in 1 cycle. Which actually makes the refuse ending make more sense when you see the stargazer bit at the end. It says that because of the data (from Liara) they found they were able to prevent the reaper war like our cycle had. Whether this was because they built the crucible and had it ready for when the reapers arrived or if they just found Liara's data a lot earlier and were able to prepare far more adequately for the now depleted reaper forces we can't tell.

I seem to remember that in some interview one of the devs said something about how the reapers were supposed to be too strong to defeat by conventional means. How well they presented this in game is a bit up to interpretation.

The inconsistencies in the game do bug me (a lot) but I tend to forget them after a while and its the emotional impact that I really remember. Hence my forgetfulness ie Thanix cannons.

Innegativeion:
It would only seem like SLIGHTLY more of an ass-pull than harbinger deciding to stop shooting JUST long enough for Shepard to very *slowly* and *dramatically* hoist her squadmates on to the Normandy before resuming on her epic desperate last-bid charge towards the citadel.

Apparently "retreat via starship" is a free action.

I just played that section and was thinking the same thing.

Yeah, it's nice to actually see where the squad went instead of them just magically appearing on the Normandy... but the camera deliberately shows Harbinger just kinda sitting there while Shepard says goodbye. But to be honest, the amount of times throughout this series that a Reaper could have just carved the Normandy in two with their magical "destroy-all" lasers and didn't, is staggering.

If it was so easy to fly a high profile star ship like the Normandy down to the surface, in front of the damn Citadel beam, in front of Harbinger, without it being in any threat... then why didn't they do that first instead of faffing about with all the ground forces and rockets to take down the destroyer?

Innegativeion:

I.Muir:
If there was no catalyst the end would be great
Since he is still there the end is still shit
Bio ware obviously thought people were going nuts because the ending was too sad or something and are therefore deluded. They must actually think that ending makes sense or at least somebody more important than the rest does.

Alas his very existence pretty much ruins the ending's narrative coherence, though he isn't the only problem by far, he is by far the biggest one.

-His very existence renders the keepers pointless and therefor unravels Mass Effect 1's main conflict in its entirety, as well as destroying the significance of ilos and its prothean scientists.

-His arguments still make no sense, even given the additional background we get in EC. In fact, his new background makes him the perpetrator of his own motivation, "created always rebels etc."

-There is no legitimate reason ever given as to why he, as the citadel, is incapable of using the crucible

-He completely devalues the existence of the otherwise well-done harbinger character, rendering him redundant, pointless, and nullifying a full game's worth of great characterization of him in Mass Effect 2

-He is revealed as "the big bad" essentially, the main antagonist, leader of our enemy, in the last 5 minutes of the last game of a trilogy

-If he controls the reapers and is the citadel, then there should be no reason why he kept the transport beam on during the battle for london

-If he's so damn certain of his fucking motives, why even give the destruction choice, which he claims won't solve anything? Why not just offer to fly the reapers into a black hole if we ask him to, so we can save the geth and joker's girlfriend?

Yep
Wonder if they will update the mod that skips him completely and goes to the destruction end
If they do Ill get it when I finally get round to buying the game
From someplace that isn't origin

NKRevan:

AnarchistFish:
How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Just load up the Auto Save generated after you beat the game the first time. It'll put you ba just before the Assault on the Cerberus Base.

Captcha: follow me....see

lord Claincy Ffnord:

AnarchistFish:
How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Simply play from any earlier save. Personally I played from cerberus base because I think thats what they originally said would be the limit of where changes happened. I don't recall seeing changes up until the final push toward the beam. I *think* Bioware also kind of gave everyone an autosave just before you enter the beam/just after you get hit and the vast majority of the EC is after that. I'm guessing it should just appear as an autosave if you go to load game. Although personally I liked the drama of the scene they added just before it that explains why your squad members are back on the Normandy.

Ahh, thanks.

Fuck, I really don't want to go through the whole last two levels again. Once I play through something once, I find second playthroughs pretty frustrating and boring.

Timmibal:
Heartwarming that your shep is now a God? And a potentially 'Righteous anger and furious vengeance' God of the Old Testament? I mean, He remembers His life prior to 'ascension', but expresses no desire to interact with his old crew or even sapients in general. His sole purpose seems to be being 'The One who can Save the Many'.

Yeah, I see religious crusades in the next few centuries. "Convert now! Receive the blessing of the Glorious and Eternal! Pray for the Beneficence of the Omnissiah! Kneel and give praise to The Shepard, who is God!"

Heartwarming? You worry me... :p

Shepard effectively becomes the hidden hand behind the Reapers, a silent force with his morals and beliefs guiding them at the cost of his life, not much unlike Legion when he sacrificed himself for the good of his race. He helps the Galaxy rebuild after the war and acts as the Guardian of the Galaxy so while he does have immense destructive power at his disposal he has dedicated the Reapers to preserve organics through survival rather than harvesting. And it isn't really 'Shepard' himself that is controlling the Reapers, but rather a consciousness born from his ideals and memories that uses the Reapers as his peacekeepers but otherwise has no physical form so he can't exactly just hook up with his old squadmates.

Can't you just accept that it's a happy ending? Fine by me if you don't want to but It's no going to change how I feel about the ending.

Ah, overwhelmingly positive write up.
Too bad the original ending had the same overwhelmingly positive write up too.

I'm still not touching this crap, even if Origin wasn't attached to it. In my universe ME3 never happened.

The ending still makes much more sense in my universe than in ME3 space magic age. :P

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here