Question about an element of Mass Effect 3 ending and the hatred towards it. Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
It's a key principle of civilized debate. Points and counterpoints require support. That is what prevents the argument from devolving into an endless repetition of "is not" "is so". Similarly, it's considered a debate faux pas to declare yourself the winner/right (And by correlation, declaring your opponent to be the loser/wrong). If your argument is sound, it should speak for itself without such a declaration.
In my defense, the edit appeared after I started crafting my response. So let me go ahead and respond to that.
Considering that I explained the statement after that line, you might have wanted to read a bit further. The use of the inexplicable or unrelatable is far from an unusual, especially in those things meant to evoke fear. The very concept was a major source of inspiration for Lovecraft's work, from which the Reapers draw some inspiration and homage. The unknown is terrifying to us, which is why it works so well with horrific characters.
At the risk of seeming snide, don't flatter yourself. Poor debate form is a pet peeve of mine and I get annoyed at people failing to elaborate on their positions. | |
The moment you said something to the extent of "G-man is the same" is the moment I stopped reading. You know next to nothing about Half-Life if this is what you actually believe. I would explain just how unnecessary and cliche the whole existance of that 10 year old abortion is, but, thankfully, there seem to be quite a few people throwing walls of text at you already. And by the way, that kid is the least of the ending's problems. It makes zero sense through and through. | |
Believe in the indoctrination theory! Also, Sheppy weppy woo is very much still alive, depending on which choice you take of course. | |
There is much to be said for the effectiveness of an element of mystery. Not everything needs to be explained, especially if an explanation would severely damage its image. Nothing wrong with a good explanation, but I do take issue at the fact that you consider an absence of explanation automatically wrong, which most certainly isn't true. The motivation was supposed to be "incomprehensible". It was in terms of how little sense it made. It's certainly a mark of hubris to assume that a motive is needed to be given, that everything must be explained, that you must know all. Sometimes it's simply more effective to never say a thing. In this case, it would've been. | |
So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't? A) Bolded part - If "the star child said so" was considered reliable, we wouldn't be in this mess. I am more prone to believe he could call it off but won't no matter how much proof you give him. B) The star child basically says that synthetics will kill organics because it is in their nature. (paraphrasing) As it is in organic's nature to push against them. (Your implied sentiment not the star child's) How the hell do we know this? This "part of nature" was directly contradicted with the geth-quarian war being able to be resolved peacefully AND as the war beginning over the geth trying to save their organic creators. Further contradiction comes when EDI shows up and decides to help Shepard for no other reason than compassion for organics from an AI. To top it off, none of the end choices solve this "inevitable crisis". Being given the Destroy option contradicts it even further by allowing organics to wipe out the system of cycles, all synthetics and many organics. This ultimately leads us to an "inevitable doom" in ~60,000 years. Synthesis could be seen as a genocide of organics or at least a slow genocide as we begin to "upgrade" towards immortality. Control pretty much allows everything to go on the way it was but now the reapers are friendly synthetics. (Basically, he "called them off" See A) However, under control synthetics still exist so the will inevitably wipe us out at some point. C) Bolded part - Says the Star Child. Again, not evidence. As well, the star child does say that AI has never turned on organics and as Jim Sterling would say, "Thank God for him". The synth war isn't necessarily inevitable nor is the victor. To claim it is, is nonsense. Especially on the grounds that "the star child said so". I am not saying this to be mean. The end is junk and it stings a bit more because it had WAY more potential than this. This ending didn't deliver a quarter of the potential the trilogy held. That isn't mean, its just the way it is. Take my word on it, I am probably older than you and that is all you guys needed to hear believe the star child. (JK, couldn't resist) | |
Careful, logic doesn't bode well in this thread. He got a brain woody from someone supporting their argument with "star child said so" and he called it an intelligent response. | |
I don't have much to add that wasn't already, and I'll try to leave my emotional appeals out of it (because apparently others haven't done that, though I didn't really see that) 1. There were no references or allusions to him in the previous two games. You can pull of a Deus Ex Machina if it's a variety known as "Chekhov's Gun", where allusions and foreshadowing are made that the player (or reader) won't pick up on, until it reaches the "magic point", when everything comes together. However, this doesn't happen, and we only see any reference to him when we actually do see him. Now, Bioware has the right to do this, just as I have a right to call them out on making such a literary mistake. The end of Sixth Sense was good because there were details that alluded to something about the main character, and it wasn't apparent until that "magic point". The ME3 endings didn't have this with the Star Child, and as a result, it comes off as very odd and out-of-place. 2. It goes against everything we know of the Reapers. And we DO know a bit about them. Bioware did a good job explaining them in both cryptic messages, implied concepts, as well as their actions. For example, when we speak with Sovereign, he describes the Reaper ways as "incomprehensible", which implies that our human mindsets would find their motives unethical, illogical, as well as mysterious. The very act of calling them unexplainable actually explains a lot about their motives. Also, we can understand more about why the Reapers are doing what they're doing by their actions. And their actions are pretty apparent, and not at all mysterious (why they're doing it, however, is). They roam around the galaxy every 50,000 years and harvest civilizations. The very term "harvest" (a term THEY THEMSELVES use) implies that they aren't killing these civilizations all willy-nilly, but are indeed farming them for their own gain. This actually makes sense (as long as you keep it out of focus and don't pay attention to the details) and makes the Reapers a common threat to every civilization. They don't care if that civilization is war-like, or peaceful. They will harvest indiscriminately. Sovereign also said "each of us are a nation", implying that they are NOT a collective, but beings of individualistic minds, all working toward surviving. This makes them more like Lovecraftian beings than "galactic vacuums" clearing the way of Synthetics. The Protheans also never had the issue with AI. Well, actually, they did, and their defense mechanism was to control the Galaxy as a whole, so if an AI outbreak did happen, they would be more powerful than them. When the Reapers came, well, synthetics suddenly got the upper hand. So in this case, if the Reapers were never involved, Synthetics never would have defeated them. If what the Star-Child said is indeed correct, then everything we know about the Protheans is wrong. 3. He negates everything Sovereign was supposed to do. Sovereign was the messenger, the one who would activate the Mass Relay in the Citadel and start the Reaper Invasion. The Keepers rebelled against him by not listening to his orders, so he had to do it manually. However, all of this is irrelevant if the Star-Child was indeed an AI inside the Citadel. Why did Sovereign need to activate the Mass Relay if the Star-Child could do it for him? The very act that Sovereign did implied that there *wasn't* any other pro-Reaper forces at the Citadel. How does that make any sense when suddenly there was? Why use Sovereign in the first place? Why didn't Sovereign just tell the civilizations "Yeah, we're doing a purge of the Galaxy, sorry", if the Star-Child was already there? Any other points I could make have already been made, and I hope I didn't come of as "mad" or any other variant of anger. Bioware has every right to do this, but I have every right to call them out on it. | |
In my book, a deus ex machina ending is ALWAYS a bad/lazy/stupid ending - if you have to use the device then you've done something wrong. Some games may have gotten away with it, but it still doesn't change the fact. And Mass Effect 3 definitely didn't get away with it... | |
My main question about the reapers is: Then why not kill synthetics every 50k years? | |
I'm going to systematically explain why all of those things were done to each of their game's benefit, in regards to the games I've played/seen; Half life-Half life 2:ep 2, Gurren Lagann, and Majora's mask HL The G-man is, NOT, thrown in at the end of the game. He is also, NOT, omnipotent. In fact, there are nearly a dozen instances in the original half life in which you can catch a glimpse of the G-man spying on you. It's obvious that he's watching you, and planning something. Even in the endless swirling hell-hole you're trapped in he doesn't lift a finger to help while most scientists/guards you meet will at least speak to you. He was even present before the resonance cascade, and as it's later revealed, is partially responsible for it by bringing the crystal that caused it! He plays an integral, instrumental part of influencing the plot, and has been doing so, visibly, since before you could obtain a gun. In Half Life 2, he unleashes you knowing you'll help rebel against the Combine. He obviously has some sort of beef with the Shu'ulathoi, but as the HL series has yet to culminate, much of this motivation is left unsaid thus far. In the end he tries to retrieve you to influence events in a certain way. This originally caused a major section of fans to be upset at the abrupt ending. In Episode 1, he is shown to not be omnipotent at ALL. His teleportation/time freeze powers are disrupted by a bunch of random vortigaunts invoking their life-energy powers. The G-man is cunning and manipulative, but he manipulates instead of using direct intervention for a reason. His nature is thus far unrevealed, but we do know how he operates and how he's affected events. Gurren Lagann Majora's Mask I think they were supposed to be the tribe that created the Majora's mask, Majora being an evil entity from the moon people sealed in it, but this is up for debate. In the end, the moonchildren are there more for just poetic, philosophical, self-study (done better than by the starchild to boot), and have barely any affect on the plot at all. They can be skipped altogether and you don't really lose anything from the narrative. Additionally, they serve to intentionally unnerve the player. Majora is an entity of completely alien destructive malice. It's an eldrich abomination; insane, sadistic. It wanted to blind you with innocence, in a sense. And that's my 2 cents. | |
After replaying Majora's Mask recently I have to say that the moon children seemed to serve absolutely no purpose, in fact I would say that their only purpose is to add to the surreality of the moon. They really just exist to question why they exist. I've heard people question why they wear the four fiends masks or why they appear to be younger versions of the happy mask salesman but it doesn't amount to anything. They really don't seem to be intentionally symbolic but rather weird for the sake of weird and similar to other entities prior just to instil and add to the confusion of | |
Oh yes, definitely. But they don't TAKE anything from the narrative either. The one kid is implied to somehow be majora, or a representation of Majora, or a moonchild possessed by Majora, but it doesn't really matter since she loses the form as soon as you speak with her, and the children are never mentioned again. They served no purpose beyond surreality, which is far better than serving the purpose of violently wrenching the plot away from the hero/destroying established canon. | |
Cause that just leaves a bunch of confused organics with the ability to screw things up again. By their logic, cleansing organics and synths every 50k years solves both problems. | |
I always assumed the catalyst thing wasn't supposed to make sense since it's part of a dream sequence... | |
I think that the ending for HL2, without considering that there's an Episode 1, is even worse than Mass Effect 3. The difference is that ME3 is the ending of a trilogy. It deserved better! | |
But they still leave organics... it's not like they're eliminating the source of the problem, in fact, they allow the source of the problem to remain! Why not just use the allegedly invincible reapers to, like, police the galaxy for AIs? Not saying it'd be morally right, but it just makes more sense. I mean, the organics ALREADY had laws against it. Then, giant invincible war machines offer to enforce it. Ba-zing, problem solved. | |
Not if the franchise is still profitable | |
That's right. G-Man was expected. The Mass Effect 3 ending wasn't. It looked more like a quick fix than anything else. I mean, 14 lines of dialogue? Also, the G-man in in place. The Catalyst is out of place and doesn't make sense in the ME lore. | |
But the purpose of the cycle is to leave organics around to inevitably screw things up again. The big question is what do they do for 50,000 years? | |
The Reapers don't want to destroy organics. Their entire purpose is to "protect" organics by keeping them from destroying themselves. If the Reapers do the culling, they can leave enough Organics to repopulate the galaxy in a few thousand years, rather than a robot apocalypse killing everything. Its like tending a garden. You grow up the bushes, then trim them back when they get too big so they don't strangle themselves and other plants. | |
As others have said a complete and utter lack of foreshadowing, making him very much a deus ex machina. Also bear in mind from what I've heard about HL, part of the point of that game is that you are a pawn being moved on a chess board that you can't see but are ware of it's presence, feeling hopeless is part of what the game is trying to do. I would also raise the point about ME 3 ending in that it actually complete reverse an important them of the series, that of determining one's own place. A huge part of ME 1's plot was about what position humanity would have in the galaxy, the tragedy of the Krogan was how they weren't given the chance to develop but instead used as a brunt instrument of war, the real atrocity of the Quarians to the Geth was how they decided they wouldn't even give them the chance and part of the horror of the Reapers is how they pervert this developmental process to suit their own needs. Hell you even have Drell/Hanar and a huge variety of other stuff like the Thorian or Prothean uplifts in the background. Determination matters in Mass Effect. And the ending says "No we won't let the specesis do it their way but we will do it according to what this enemy AI says" | |
well others have said because he comes out of nowhere and is not essential to the ending itself. but i also think he changes the entire purpose of ALL the me games. in me1 you were trying to stop saren and then to stop the reapers also some other problems with the starchild were that i could not really question it, and it gave no justification for why my character that i spent three games building would trust it | |
I think that Mass effect would have benefited from Surreality in this scenario. The catalyst is obviously meant to be some kind of higher thinking bullshit rather than to be plain old crazy. In fact I sometimes wonder if the catalyst despite ruining any tension, canon and ending all conflict without player input was intended to be surreal. Maybe I'm projecting because I really want more surreality in the games I play, especially because I feel that there are a lot of games (well most media really) that have their small amounts of strangeness ruined because people are looking too hard for a deeper meaning. | |
A) I believe the Star Child because he's a several hundred thousand year old AI with no reason to lie to you. That's like asking why did you believe Vigil on Ilos in ME1? The Reapers have no reason to try and trick Shepard: the fight is at a stalemate. The Reapers have "won", but Shepard has them by the balls and will ultimately decide their fate. No reason not to lay it all on the line. B) Yes, they are contradictions. Thats the whole point of the game, is proving the Reapers wrong. It's a moral victory. However, being factually correct doesn't change anything when you can't stop your enemy from killing you anyway. The Reapers were on the move, and could not be stopped. Maybe that's the only reason the SC gave you a choice at all: He saw the potential of this cycle, and decided to throw the dice by offering synthesis. By killing the Reapers, you are only proving his point: Organics, when facing Synthetics, will not attempt coexistence. Nothing about Synthesis implies immortality, simply that organic and synthetic life have merged. We don't even know what that means, but given the tone of the ending its certainly not doom and gloom. If anything, it implies that the inherent differences that kept Organics and Synths from understanding one another have finally been removed, and now true coexistence is possible. Destruction is you basically telling the Reapers to fuck off and that you'll take your fate into your own hands. Admirable, but what if they are right? That is why its Renegade. Remember, its only an "inevitable crisis" because the Reapers say so. To their credit, they have perspective and experience, but if you think this galaxy can prove them wrong then by all means, blow the shit out of the Reapers. C)Again, I trust the Star Child because he is a near omniscient AI that is hundreds of thousands of years old. He's seen countless cycles rise and fall, and according to him, the impending danger of the rise of synthetic life is cause to take drastic action. Take him at his word or not; he's a computer, not the Illusive Man. He's got no reason to lie to you. Heck, the evidence is stacked in his favor. The Protheans themselves were locked in bitter war with their synths before the Reapers arrived, and the Quarians nearly exterminated themselves trying to kill the Geth. And that is two cycles, back to back. Who knows how many other times this situation has played out, especially without a Shepard to unite the galaxy. You have to understand, this ending is what you make it. You are looking for literal, factual closure where there is none. It's open-ended. I choose to believe Shepard gave his life to send the Reapers away, with the parting message "come back in 50k years, we'll have proved you wrong" because, in the end, it was just as wrong to exterminate the Reapers as it was for them to exterminate us. You may believe the Reapers are lying and Shepard should destroy them all and be the hero the galaxy needs etc. etc. That's the beauty of it. The game series, the entire experience, has been personalized to ourselves, including the ending. | |
I really can't handle all this tl;dr right now, so I just have a short question for the TC. In your own words, what did the Catalyst say at the end of Mass Effect? When you actually write it out and see why he makes NO sense, you'll understand what people mean. EDIT: I think all these arguments are going to make a lot of people look really stupid when they finally come out with the extended cut. I'd bet my whole bank account Shepard was indoctrinated for the end of the game. | |
I'm not quite sure if you realize this or not, but you come off as extraordinarily condescending in most of your posts in this thread. You start off by asking people to discuss and debate an aspect of the ME3 story, but then berate and insult anyone who doesn't say exactly what you want to hear. That's not only tasteless, it's rude. For example, in one post you quote someone who was talking about the ending. In that persons post, they mentioned that most of their knowledge was second-hand. You proceeded to imply that they have no right to judge the ending because they didn't actually play it themselves. Later, after someone points out to you your tendency to be dismissive with people who offered a differing opinion, you mention that you didn't actually read any of their posts. It's then that you say you'll go back and read them. The very next post you submit, even though you said you'd go back and read them, you say you didn't actually read them in their entirety. Just part of them. You then feel compelled to pass judgement on those posts by calling them "stupid" and "ignorant". So you can pass judgement on the validity of things without actually familiarizing yourself with them but others can't? Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? Seriously? Regardless, it's become abundantly clear that you had no intention on actually having a discussion on the topic. Your only goal was to have someone stroke your ego and validate your stance. Most likely because you were unable to prove it to yourself. So maybe next time, instead of being so insulting to everyone who offers a different opinion (and, unlike you, offers it up in a tempered manner), you should perhaps reanalyze your own views. Especially before you decide to shoot down everyone elses opinions.
I actually have to disagree. Now, had you said this when I first played the game, I'd have agreed whole-heartedly. I would've been saying, "Dear God what a bad ending to such a fantastic game." However, in subsequent years after having played the game a few more times and really thinking about it and thinking about the context of the story leading up to it, I honestly think it's a rather brilliant ending. Even in the absence of the Episodes. I could spend the next few paragraphs detailing why, but I quite literally already discussed this in another thread on this forum not long ago. As such, I'm just going to link that previous post. Feel free to read it if you want. - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.373160-That-Was-Half-Life-2?page=2#14434142 | |
It makes me very sad to see all of this energy and effort, from so many posters, being poured into what is essentially a vacuum. :(
You have the Reapers by the balls and are about to decide their fate....... .......and the guy who represents them has no reason to lie to you. That is what you just said. You just said that. Let's think about this for a second. Hypothetically speaking, now. Let's say the Reapers are... evil. You're the Star Child. Shepard is in the war room. What do you say? "We're evil, please put us out of our misery"? Or the first bullshit you can come up with off the top of your head, no matter how obviously nonsensical it is? | |
My biggest problem with the ending is that, by going along with what the little dumbshit kid said were his/her only options, Commander Shepard loses what I always saw as the biggest part of the character. Shepard was always about doing what he/she (no matter how you preferred to play them) thought was right. Shepard found many ways of going against what everyone told them was "the only way". Hell, fighting the collectors was supposed to be a suicide mission. At the end of the entire series, Shepard just gives up because of what one little hologram says. That, to me, was such a huge betrayal of character and goes against what I thought the entire series was about. | |
The Reapers don't think like Organics. No Synths do. The Geth were completely honest with the Quarians when the Quarians would listen, even when it meant their destruction was inbound. There is nothing in the ME-verse that shows AI are capable of, or interested in, boldfaced lying. Add in that the Reapers are all pretty damn arrogant to boot. If they were really smart, why didn't Sovereign just go "BEEP BOOP I AM A SILLY VI" instead of spilling the beans about the whole Reaper invasion? Trickery just isn't their style. Added to the fact that the Star Child, at least, seems to genuinely care for organics and wants to "save" them any way it can. The Cycle was their way, because they thought there was no other, but here comes Space Jesus all raring to wipe them out so they might as well appeal to his nice side. Remember, the Reapers do not see themselves as evil. They liken themselves more to a force of nature, an inevitability that is no more guided by a moral compass than the turning of the planets. | |
Uh... yeah. Did I say they did?? | |
Let's rewrite your argument and see where it goes so horribly, horribly askew. P1: Geth, EDI, and Reapers are all synthetics. P1: Already wrong. It has been hammered into our heads throughout ME2 that the Reapers are organic-synthetic hybrids. They are not pure synthetics like the Geth of ME1/ME2/some of ME3. There are bound to be differences, otherwise the point would not have merited making. P2: Also wrong. EDI, a true synthetic, is not always honest, as ME2 and ME3 have demonstrated. She constantly makes jokes in the form of deceptions and manipulations, and in ME3 she was able to steal the Normandy by lying about Joker's role aboard the ship. Your premises are false. Without P2 you cannot have C1. You couldn't have it anyway, because it's a hasty generalization and an inavlid form of reasoning... but I digress. Without P1 and C1 you cannot have C2. Never mind that even if the Reapers were synthetic and not synthetic-organic hybrids, the Star Child is not a Reaper. We have no idea who or what he is and how he operates, other than the fact that he was created, which could mean a thousand different things, among them that he is yet another synthetic-organic hybrid which does not operate under standard synthetic rules (which don't exist anyway because EDI has broken them). | |
The Reapers routinely indoctrinate in order to infiltrate and deceive. Legion also starts lying to you after he takes on the Reaper code. Hell, the Catalyst even appears to you in a HIGHLY manipulative form. If anything, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that not only do the Reapers lie, but that trickery and deception is integral to their nature. | |
Trickery isn't their style? Dude. They indoctrinate members of the organic races to sabotage resistance from the inside. Trickery is very much their style. edit: ninja'd dammit. | |
Again, you assume the Star Child is lying. Why, exactly, would he lie? He doesn't see himself as wrong in his actions. He is just giving Shepard the facts. You are right about EDI, but EDI is a special case due to her experiences with organics, Joker, and Shepard. The Reapers do not have this experience. Their whole experience, as far as we know, has been "Get rid of Organics every so often". But it really all boils down to whether you assume the Star Child is lying. You clearly do. I do not. This changes the nature of the ending both ways, but neither interpretation is wrong. Just pick what makes you happy, and if you are incapable of enjoying it then simply move on. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
You already written what most people hate about the catalyst. Basically, he just appears out of nowhere.
You have to be almost blind to not notice the G-Man in Half-Life, he is always in front of you, he doesn't seem to be armed and still he doesn't have any problem with all the aliens. It's quite clear that he isn't a normal human.
Don't know what you mean in Deus Ex. Yes, you choose your ending at the last minute, but there is not a single new character introduced.
It's been a while since I played Majora's Mask, but the moon children don't have much text, it's not much plot they give you.
It seems the thread also started a discussion about synthetics vs. organics in ME3.
First, thats more or less resolved after ranoch and during the ranoch missions it's made clear that, with the exception of the heretics, the geth never attacked first. So catalyst tells us completely the opposite of what they tell us during the ranoch missions.
Second I have always wondered. If the reaper come to prevent the organics from being killed by synthetics, why do they wait 300 years after the creation of the geth. It would be easy for the reapers or the catalyst himself to check what happens in the universe, so I doubt they couldn't know of them.