(Spoilers) Mass Effect 3 Ending is Evil

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I'm in the "That was pathetic" camp but I got over it. I've played games where the devs never even bothered to put an ending in so I consider not trying worse than being horrid so it put things in perspective. Bioware has very much gone out of the trusted circle now though (It survived DA2 funnily enough) so I'll just be less impulsive when they release their next game

Right, hands up everyone who's seen The World's End.

I think the ending of ME3 should have been like the ending of that film. Would have been perfect, in my opinion. Any chance to ask the Star Child who the hell put him in charge would be nice.

Estelindis:

elvor0:
I think Synthesis is the right thing to do(and happiest ending), because to me, considering the Geth have gained true Sentience, as has EDI, which when you see how the Geth "uprising" came about, you have to wonder at which point they actually gained that sentience, and to me, they deserve to live. It also allows them to understand what it truly means to be /alive/, to have a soul, and us to understand them in turn.

I would very much disagree that a good (let alone the best) way to show how much we appreciate the geth and EDI is to give them the "honour" of becoming more similar to organic life. That's implying that they're somehow deficient without whatever it is that makes humans (and krogan, and asari, etc) "alive." I think that's exactly the opposite of what the games showed until almost the very end. EDI and the geth were admirable even though they were different and their differences were worth appreciating and preserving.

Exactly. What's the solution to racism? Make everyone white! That sort of conflicts with the message of Mass Effect that diversity is something worth preserving.

Of course, synthesis is a two-way thing: it's not just EDI and the geth becoming part-organic, it's also humans (and salarians, and quarians, etc) becoming part-synthetic. But what if some people don't want to, not because they hate synthetics but because they like being the way they are themselves and also like synthetics whether they change or not? Aren't people entitled to stay as "plain" synthetic or organic without changing, if that's what they want?

This is a point that many people who champion the Synthesis ending without hesitation seem to miss. Synthesis is an extremely severe infringement on the right of bodily autonomy of every single individual in the galaxy. Now what Synthesis exactly does is unknown, but how would people react if you, say, sedate them in their sleep and irreversibly replace or enhance a number of their body parts with machinery without asking?

I think that the endings of Dragon Age: Origins are great examples of this. People still have heated discussions about them, and no one can be 100% sure what the right choice was (since the outcome of the choice Morrigan asks you to make towards the end hasn't become clear yet), but in my view the drawbacks of the choices accentuated the themes and character of the setting rather than diminishing them. I wish that ME3 had gone for something in a similar vein, not 100% identical since the world and its themes are different, but having a similar form and achieving the same kind of dramatic effect. The ending of DA:O gutted me emotionally and felt very much like a tragic victory. The ending of ME3 didn't move me, just gave me a flat "What." (Of course some people like ME3's ending and their entitled to do so; I'm just presenting my view. And for those who are tired of the discussion, there is no need to read the topic, of course.)

Since no one knows what Synthesis or Control actually mean, in the long run, there's a big deal of uncertainty about the Mass Effect endings as well. And, as I attempted to explain earlier, the endings of Mass Effect fit well to big themes of the overarching story as well.

Now Dragon Age: Origins is a game I didn't like at all. But can see why people like it... but it still felt so very generic, so devoid of soul to me.

CharrHearted:

Can we get over this topic already?

I was about to come in here and ask "If your dog and a stranger were drowning who would you save?" But then I realised that unecessarily inflammatory "hot topics" that have come and gone should stay gone for a reason. _

Geo Da Sponge:
Right, hands up everyone who's seen The World's End.

I think the ending of ME3 should have been like the ending of that film. Would have been perfect, in my opinion. Any chance to ask the Star Child who the hell put him in charge would be nice.

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

kklawm:
Snip.

You're a year and a few months late to the conversation my friend. :P

All the points you brought up have already been brought to the table by others, but let me go ahead and engage in debate with you since you took the time to write out that opinion of yours. And that's the thing to keep in mind: it's your opinion and it's perfectly valid, I'm not trying to argue that. I'm just presenting a new perspective for you to consider.

1: Renegade Red ending: In this ending, Shepard decides to use the power of the Crucible as it was "intended" to be used: as a weapon of mass destruction. Seeing as how the Reapers intend to kill all sufficiently advanced species in the galaxy, it's literally a "kill or be killed" situation. You wipe them out, or they most assuredly will wipe you out. It's not committing genocide on an innocent race of space squid, it's doing what must be done to ensure that life as you know it can continue existing. Now as with all WMD's, there's bound to be collateral damage...i.e. the Geth. However, since this is the "renegade" ending, Shepard obviously feels that sacrificing the Geth is worth saving the rest of the galaxy. There's nothing racist about Shepard's motives for going with this option. He's told "Doing this will completely wipe out the enemy with whom you're at war." He knows his enemy will not stop until it's mission - the extinction of all advanced life in the galaxy - is complete. As I said, the situation is kill or be killed.

2: Paragon Blue: I don't know if you got the Extended Cut ending or the standard cut ending, but either way it should have been clear that the Reapers DON'T have free will. Not necessarily, in the way that we understand it. They're free to fulfill their purpose - harvesting all advanced life - in whatever way they believe is the most efficient and practical. However, their reasons for harvesting advanced life aren't their own. They're guided by "Star Child", the Catalyst, or whatever you wanna call little Space Timmy at the end there. He's the overmind, the one who controls the Reapers, gives them guidance, and is the one who forces them to continue the cycle every 50K years. The Reapers are, in fact, his creation. He was tasked with ensuring that organic life never gets completely wiped out by synthetic life. He determined the best way to do this was ensure that organic life never gets too advanced and creates synthetic life...that is to say, by harvesting said organic life. That's why the patterns of evolution and technological advancement are all part of the cycle. The end of each cycle is right around the time that synthetic life is created. As such, with the Geth being made 200 years ago, it was time for the Reapers to become active and start working to usher in the next invasion. Anyways, the Reapers were made by Star Child so he could implement the solution to the problem he was tasked with. And as such, the Reapers do not have true free will to speak of.

Which means that when you go with the blue option, all you're really doing is trading out the consciousness of the Star Child for your own. You replace the puppet master and in doing so create a galactic defense force that can ensure that the peace that Shepard formed throughout the game (by making the alliances forged in battle) will last.

3: Synthesis Green: You do have a fair point with this one, and it's really why I personally never liked the choice myself. For me, the blue option was always my preference. But here's the reasoning behind Green: it is the "proper" solution to the question "How do you ensure that organic life never gets wiped out by synthetic life?" By making all organic and synthetic life a hybrid form of existences - part synthetic, part organic - the synthetics would be granted full comprehension of organic reasoning and emotions while organics would be granted all the technological efficiency and adeptness of synthetics. With the synthetics now understanding emotions and morals, the would no longer be prone to wipe out organics because "Organics are just an inefficient waste of resources, they must be purged." As such, the green ending is designed to usher in a utopian age of peace and tranquility. By removing most of the differences between species, you also remove most of the reasons for one species to hate another. It all becomes a bland, boring homogenization of life...as Star Child describes it: the pinnacle of evolution.

---------

So like I said, I'm not trying to argue with you, but rather give you a new perspective you might not have considered, as your interpretation of the endings is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

Dendio:
The game really isn't nearly as bad as this thread would lead one to believe. There is a reason the escapist community voted mass effect 3 as game of the year 2012.

I don't think you can claim that 13,8% of the votes are the whole community.

Kalezian:
If you have ME3 for the PS, look up Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod.

removes the three choices so that Destroy is the only ending, but keeps all other synthetic life alive sans the Reapers.

Don't forget it exorcises the Catalyst from the game, which is pretty much the point where the narrative collapses in on itself and forms a pure black hole of contradictions. I would call that the most important feature of the mod

EDIT:

CloudAtlas:

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

And does a pretty bad job of it. The DLC is literally the writers blatantly retconning in a race of almighty morons to give in-universe excuse for their bad writing.

Blachman201:

Dendio:
The game really isn't nearly as bad as this thread would lead one to believe. There is a reason the escapist community voted mass effect 3 as game of the year 2012.

I don't think you can claim that 13,8% of the votes are the whole community.

What kind of critique is that? Obama was elected by only about 30% of all Americans, so is it wrong to say that the US voted for Obama as president?
Like it or not, it still got the most votes of any game.

It's been a year and a half, and a thread complaining about Mass Effect 3 can still make it to the top five. I just want you to remember this the next time somebody complains about sexism in gaming and you want to tell them to get over it, it's not a big deal.

CharrHearted:
image

Can we get over this topic already? I know I'm still furious about what happened but for the love of money IT'S BEEN A YEAR AND A HALF.

Sweet jesus, lets just drop that stain of a terrible end of a trilogy...

I mentally added that bonking sound they use on the 3 Stooges and an evil chipmunk laugh. Made my day.

I agree with you entirely. The house has been burned down, the earth is salted, all is long dead. Crying about it any further doesn't unsalt the earth and unburn the house. Doesn't help that EA is still working out ways to further milk this and any fans the franchise has left, but still.

RJ 17:

As such, with the Geth being made 200 years ago, it was time for the Reapers to become active and start working to usher in the next invasion. Anyways, the Reapers were made by Star Child so he could implement the solution to the problem he was tasked with. And as such, the Reapers do not have true free will to speak of.

Just a minor point but it is heavily implied that Sovereign had been trying to start the invasion for quite a bit longer than that (the Rachni imply that they were controlled and forced to attack the other races, and that war happened a long time ago). SO if the Reaper's plan hadn't been messed with by the Protheans, everything would have been taken care of long before a synthetic race emerged.

I took it as a reflection of the imperfect reality we exist in. When someone comes baring down on you, intent to slay and consume you, there's likely to be no good ending.

TheGrandTatunkanite:

RJ 17:

As such, with the Geth being made 200 years ago, it was time for the Reapers to become active and start working to usher in the next invasion. Anyways, the Reapers were made by Star Child so he could implement the solution to the problem he was tasked with. And as such, the Reapers do not have true free will to speak of.

Just a minor point but it is heavily implied that Sovereign had been trying to start the invasion for quite a bit longer than that (the Rachni imply that they were controlled and forced to attack the other races, and that war happened a long time ago). SO if the Reaper's plan hadn't been messed with by the Protheans, everything would have been taken care of long before a synthetic race emerged.

That is true, but as I said: the objective is to prevent organic life from getting wiped out by synthetics. This means that ideally the Harvest begins BEFORE the creation of synthetic life. I was pointing to the fact that the Geth being around was a signal itself that the end was nigh. I didn't mean to imply that the Reapers specifically wait for the creation of synthetics before they begin their work.

(edited for spelling errors)

It's really frustrating how people these days take fandom to the level of ownership. That's not a comment on "author/creative vision" so much as a comment on people recently feeling that they deserve an outcome in a story/art/whatever that fits their built up expectation. Just because something didn't fit what you wanted a game to be, doesn't make it bad and it didn't ruin your childhood. Hell, the very idea that it ruins your enjoyment of prior games is absurd. I think the Matrix 2 and 3 are two of the worst abortions of writing I've seen, yet, I still enjoy the Matrix immensely.

And that's the problem with Mass Effect. Mass Effect 1, to me, was competent and fun. Two was the best game I had played to date (I'm in my mid 30s and have been gaming heavily since the Atari 2600). Three is now my best game ever. I admit that ME3 was far from flawless, especially in it's base release. I agree with everyone that day one DLC for a character who was utterly essential to the understanding and tone of the third game is a violation of gamer trust. I agree that the original ending was rushed and lackluster, creating questions and opening cans of worms that left people wondering about the fate of their characters (destruction of the relays was a real blow, especially with two dextro-amino fleets trapped in the Sol system). However, the ending, to me, wasn't bad, it just wasn't Mass Effect 2's. The gameplay of 3, though, in my opinion, and the story, were superior. Two was fairly slow while you built your team, with the exception of Horizon and the derelict ship mission(s). It picked up in it's last third immensely and the final mission was brilliant. Three, however, was strong from the get go. Yes, three is more linear, but personally, it felt natural to me. There's no time in this game for putzing around as much as you would in 1 or 2.

In the end though, they fixed my concerns with the game. Yes, it was DLC and that is a very bad thing. I won't even pretend to argue that. However, playing the game through with Javik, Leviathan, and the extended ending, for me, felt like the definitive experience and the game really clicked for me, with 3 now edging past 2. Maybe I'm an abomination, I thought, but one of my close gaming companions felt the same way. I also married a gamer. Our primarily love is RPGs, though I play nearly every genre and she plays quite a few. Still, RPG's are our favorites and I never thought she'd like a game nearly as much as her long time leader, KOTOR (I really tried to get her into Planescape, but she has a thing against being forced into male characters). So, when she finally sat down to knock out her ME2 playthrough (she was waiting for 3 to come out) and then ME3 back to back, I hung around a lot during important portions of the game. When she finished ME3 and the first thing she said at the end was "best game ever," I knew I wasn't some random Bioware fanboy, but that the story, for me and her, was actually good, in the end, and the ending was certainly good enough.

Does this forgive some of the mistakes made, that I mentioned before about a rushed first ending and the DLC issues? Nah. That needs to be a lesson to developers and their overlords. Will it? Probably not.

Still, the game was fantastic. Yes, people can gripe about the gameplay, but if you're playing an RPG for the action, then, meh. I saw someone here call the game worse than GOW. Valid opinion from a gameplay perspective. I would disagree, as I find GOW's gameplay rather bland as well, but story wise, I found the GOW games to be horrifically un-engaging with a generic protagonist and the worst sidekick in a while

Story wise, I would edge Mass Effect overall above pretty much every RPG/series I've played yet, though Planescape: Torment and Final Fantasy VI and VII are both up there. I was engaged by the characters first, and the story through them. I was actually emotionally effected when characters died here. That's good enough for me to rate on my list of memorable games.

However, that was a derailing rant. Sorry.

Is the ending evil? That depends on your perspective.

I would argue that if you played a primarily paragon game, trying to do the best thing most of the time (my character was usually about 80% up the paragon line/40% up the renegade line (considering you can get to practially 80/80 100/100 if you do things just right ), then the only evil ending is Destroy, which becomes utterly evil.

If you played renegade most of the way through, then there's a good chance you've wiped out the geth and EDI can't stand you so, in that case, destroy becomes much less evil and more "practical." You're sacrificing a single Council-worlds illegal AI to save organic life. That's acceptable. In this case, if you're a renegade, control becomes a lot more evil, due to your questionable priorities.

Why is destroy evil for a paragon playthrough? Assuming that you've done pretty much everything as well as it could be done, then you're given a way three perfectly valid ways to defeat the reapers. One of these requires you to commit utter genocide of a nascent race of now individual sentient AI's (and EDI :/ ). One requires you sacrifice your individual physical form to become the ruling mind of the reapers. Finally, one requires you to sacrifice yourself as the catalyst for the space magic that will blend organic and non-organic into a new form of life, that will be instantly spread to the benefit of all life in the galaxy.

So... three choices where the end result is achieved and only one that requires the destruction of an entire race. Yes, if you take that option, I would argue that that is downright evil.

What about the other two? Well, control is valid, but it has one catch, and this is why I couldn't choose it. The future of control depends on the continuing perspective of the Shepard consciousness. Who is to say that a Shepard mind that has been infused with all the knowledge of the reapers and their collective understanding of every sentient, advanced race (countless entire species) would not eventually decide that the the reapers had made the correct decision? That leaves this one up in the air for me. It's too uncertain and relies too much on a single mind to decide in the future.

Synthesis? Ok, this one depends on your own personal perspective. The most common argument I've seen is that synthesis is a violation of inherent individual rights (self-determination, life, etc). If you truly believe that all individuals have these inherent rights, then synthesis would be evil... to you. Personally, I don't believe in the concept of inherent/natural rights. Being very grounded in practical reality, to me, rights are something that exist only where they can be enforced or given vengeance for infringement. In the Mass Effect world, the very existence or the reapers counter-indicates the right to life and self-determination. The reapers will annihilate and absorb you. Your rights are meaningless. Synthesis creates an alternate where life is protected, but altered. The argument of rights aside, would continued and potentially infinitely improved/immortal life not be a valid option? It seems not only reasonable to me, but given the story's insistence in its mythos that the cycle of technological creation, ascension, and destruction between organic and synthetic is a proven inevitability (tens of millions of years, potentially hundreds), it appears to be the demanded option. I always choose synthesis.

And to derail again about some of the other rants about the game, the ending was inevitable. It was always going to end up being a "choice machine." People who wanted to see Shepard fight a winning war against a race of aeons old, infinitely superior machine-things that have ending countless prior and more advanced civilizations are delusional. It was never going to make sense without some form of space magic ending and choice. It would have cheapened the universe to think that the Protheans failed because they just weren't as badass as Shepard. This ending is the culmination of not only Shepard et al.'s journey, but that of every race that had ever fought against the reapers.

The choice machine? It was always going to be some sort of doomsday tech and the choice to use it. If the outcome was decided by your prior renegade/paragon choices and you only watched as Shepard chose, people would have cried foul. Mass Effect always let you make your decision, regardless of the decisions that came before. Taking your choice out of the ending would have been just another cry of betrayal by the fans. There was no win/win scenario here, so the choice being left in makes sense.

My choices didn't matter? Mine certainly did. In my game Wrex lived, became the Krogan leader and the genophage was cured. The Quarians and Geth both lived, and now are working together to build a society where they co-exist. The rachni are part of the galactic community in my game. The entire galaxy came to the last battle, minus some Salarians, and many are left after. All my choices lead up to what happened around the choice machine, and what happened after. My decisions most certainly mattered. Again, if the ending of the game had simply taken everything you'd done and decided for you how it would end, would that be ok? To me, it depends on how they would have played it, but to many gamers, it would have, again, been a betrayal, because it chose for them.

Space magic? We accept lightsabers, matter beaming regularly, and in Mass Effect we accept mass relays, element zero, dark energy and biotics and we call the ending, the combined technology of countless millions of minds across millions of years, paired with the power of the ancient mass relays, "space magic?" That's where we suspend disbelief? Really?

Let's not forget Arthur C. Clark "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

In the end, Mass Effect 3 was tremendously enjoyable. No, it was not faultless early on and there are some horrible mistakes made by Bioware/Electronic Arts in regards to rushing and DLC, but the final product, viewed away from that context was, for me, a definitive modern RPG experience.

And, frankly, if you can hear the words "had to be me, someone else might have gotten it wrong" and you aren't affected by that, you have no soul. (Personally, I never got the next comment validly (had to watch it), but when Mordin screams "I made a mistake!" it was one of the hardest things I've seen in a game, realizing how conflicted his character really was.)

CloudAtlas:

Geo Da Sponge:
Right, hands up everyone who's seen The World's End.

I think the ending of ME3 should have been like the ending of that film. Would have been perfect, in my opinion. Any chance to ask the Star Child who the hell put him in charge would be nice.

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

I thought it would, but the only ME3 DLC I've bought is Citadel. I'm not condemning whatever answer the DLC does give since I don't actually know what it tells you, but really, I wasn't about to pay for plot integral information (for a second time in fact, if you count the Javik DLC as being plot integral).

EDIT: Just to clarify, I do have the Javik DLC too.

Geo Da Sponge:

CloudAtlas:

Geo Da Sponge:
Right, hands up everyone who's seen The World's End.

I think the ending of ME3 should have been like the ending of that film. Would have been perfect, in my opinion. Any chance to ask the Star Child who the hell put him in charge would be nice.

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

I thought it would, but the only ME3 DLC I've bought is Citadel. I'm not condemning whatever answer the DLC does give since I don't actually know what it tells you, but really, I wasn't about to pay for plot integral information (for a second time in fact, if you count the Javik DLC as being plot integral).

Well since you don't intend to get it, I'll go ahead and spoil it for you.

I wouldn't call it "plot-integral" seeing as how you already know all you really need to know about Star Child and The Cycle with the conversation you have with Star Child to begin with...it's more "Supplemental/back story" information, answering the question of "Who created Star Child and why". Well obviously the "why" is what Star Child says in the regular conversation: to keep organics from killing themselves with synthetics. And when Shepard does specifically ask "Who made you?" SC has a perfectly good point in pointing out that who made him is long, LONG dead...you'd have absolutely no idea who or what he was talking about even if he did tell you, so it really doesn't matter.

So like I said: not plot integral, but just some nifty information for those that are/were really curious about the backstory of Star Child.

I despise the Mass Effect 3 endings as much as anybody, but I think "Evil" is a word too heavy to describe an enidng to a video game.

Further more, Mass Effect makes a point of the fact that Shepard could be described as a war criminal. The game regularly has you make choices with no right answer, that's why they're choices and not calculations.

The whole point of these choices is that there is no simple, easy and moral answer. The Destroy option is meant to be horrific; it's the price you pay for changing the nature of existence. Humanity wants to determine it's own fate? well you (Shepard, and by extension, the human race) need to grow up and stop thinking in black and white; you have to accept the responsibility of free will.

"Uneasy rests the head that holds the crown"

The ending isn't awful because it presents a difficult moral issue, it's awful because it fails to present that issue in a sensible way; because it's contrived it has no application to reality, and because it has no application to a realistic situation, it has no weight, no meaning.

It's sad, but only because of what happens to the characters, it isn't tragic in a profound way, it just chalks up to contrived misfortune punctuated by it's ignorance of it's own disturbing nature; it's sad because it casually slaughters the majority of the cast, but fails to realize it and fades away to upbeat techno and a shot of the sunrise, like it expects you to be happy and content.

But the Mass Effect series is full of awful catch 22's, and that's a good thing. Mass Effect illustrates the all to often forgotten burden that comes with freedom and awareness; you can't dismiss or turn away from the truth, no matter how awful it is.

There are no less than FOUR separate occasions throughout the series in which you can commit genocide.

Is it any more moral to surrender the entire galaxy to the Reapers cycle of extinction than it is to sacrifice synthetic life to end it?

Being a shinning paragon of goodness is purposely denied to Shepard, because it's a luxury not afforded to someone in his/her position.

blalien:
It's been a year and a half, and a thread complaining about Mass Effect 3 can still make it to the top five. I just want you to remember this the next time somebody complains about sexism in gaming and you want to tell them to get over it, it's not a big deal.

I'm a fan of Mass Effect and a "gaming feminist". Imagine the fun I'm having! ;)

Geo Da Sponge:

CloudAtlas:

Geo Da Sponge:
Right, hands up everyone who's seen The World's End.

I think the ending of ME3 should have been like the ending of that film. Would have been perfect, in my opinion. Any chance to ask the Star Child who the hell put him in charge would be nice.

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

I thought it would, but the only ME3 DLC I've bought is Citadel. I'm not condemning whatever answer the DLC does give since I don't actually know what it tells you, but really, I wasn't about to pay for plot integral information (for a second time in fact, if you count the Javik DLC as being plot integral).

EDIT: Just to clarify, I do have the Javik DLC too.

Relegating important parts of the plot to DLC is not cool, and certainly not a business practice I condone myself. And if someone's missing out on some information because she didn't buy this or that DLC, and has a different, and perhaps lesser, experience for that, I can't really blame her. Now I wouldn't say that Leviation is that integral to the plot, and in fact I would have liked it if more of what you learn there would have been kept shrouded in mystery, but in any case, it foreshadows the Catalyst VI, so you'd be less surprised in the end.
It's just, when you're discussing about the meaning of the plot and such, on what content, you have to decide on what content, what information you base your statements on. Well, I don't know, if someone (not you) is making all sorts of wild claims, I like to respond with everything I got.

My problem with the ending was simply a lack of closure, which I've always felt important in a game/story that asks you to care about the characters as much as one like Mass Effect does. It's this same reason that Final Fantasy 9 is my favorite of that series.

As folks have said, I don't think the ending was ever intended as `good or bad`, and considering that even if had we saved the day and got a birthday cake from the Krogan (blatant popular web comic rip-off ),I can't think of a single story off the top of my head that would arguably top Mass Effect's off-camera body count, the ending's definitely not asking us what's right. It's asking us `Which is the lesser evil?`

For me it was Control as well. I fought that final battle fully expecting to go through with the plan and blow them up or whatever similar option presented itself, but then the Geth happened. Having united them and the Quarians, it felt like throwing them to the wolves just so the rest of the galaxy could live in relative peace, and I couldn't do it. Not after their origin story, or the resolution to their war.

I was going to save everyone if I could possibly help it, and I quite frankly didn't trust synthesis. It just seemed suspicious to me, like Starchild was saying 'You COULD Mind control our race, sure, sure, or destroy us like both of my enemies wanted too...but why not take this THIRD OPTION that none of your people have ever considered. I promise you this isn't some Reaper trick to take your race over without bloodshed.`

Blachman201:

CloudAtlas:

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

And does a pretty bad job of it. The DLC is literally the writers blatantly retconning in a race of almighty morons to give in-universe excuse for their bad writing.

Not really, the problem wasn't the writing, the problem was that most people didn't understand the writing. To be fair, that lack of understanding is partly their fault, but it's partly the audience's fault too.

It's the same about any form of writing: there's bound to be people who just don't understand it. Star Child was an AI created with a purpose: prevent synthetics from destroying all organic life. Insert rapper-based memes about "Yo Dawgs" and "Using Synthetics so you don't get destroy by Synthetics". That right there shows the lack of understanding that I'm talking about.

Star Child's "corruption" (for lack of a better term) wasn't that he betrayed his creators, is that he did EXACTLY what his creators wanted him to do no matter what the cost might be. One solution to the question "how do you keep synthetics from destroying all organic life?" is to kill off all advanced organic life before they can create synthetics that would in term destroy them. Alright, so how should he go about doing this? Well synthetics are both powerful and immortal, so they could be a permanent solution. Thus the Reapers were born. He still holds true to his original task of preserving organic life, that's why he doesn't harvest non-advanced species. We just see it as hypocritical that he says he's wanting to save us from synthetics while at the same time killing us with synthetics. However as the blue ending shows: the Reapers themselves are nothing but tools that Star Child is using in order to enact his solution.

All the Leviathan DLC does is answer the question "Who made Star Child in the first place?" The answer SC gives to this question is perfectly fair: they died off a long time ago, there'd be no point in telling seeing as how Shepard would have absolutely no idea who or what SC was talking about, so why bother? The Leviathan DLC provides supplementary information that actually DOES give that answer.

FoxKitsune:
My problem with the ending was simply a lack of closure, which I've always felt important in a game/story that asks you to care about the characters as much as one like Mass Effect does. It's this same reason that Final Fantasy 9 is my favorite of that series.

You get plenty of closure, a lot of it just happens before the end, not afterwards. On Earth, you have the chance to talk (and say goodbye) to each of your squadmates of Mass Effect 2 and 3 who is still alive, in person or "on the phone". The Extended Cut provides additional closure for the two mates who accompany on your very last mission, and it also provides additional closure after the end. You have plenty of closure with Anderson as well. Not to mention large parts of the Citadel DLC, should you have that.
I really don't get this complaint. Doesn't the whole game of Mass Effect 3 kinda gives the feeling that this journey is ending now, right from the very first minute?

For me it was Control as well. I fought that final battle fully expecting to go through with the plan and blow them up or whatever similar option presented itself, but then the Geth happened. Having united them and the Quarians, it felt like throwing them to the wolves just so the rest of the galaxy could live in relative peace, and I couldn't do it. Not after their origin story, or the resolution to their war.

I was going to save everyone if I could possibly help it, and I quite frankly didn't trust synthesis. It just seemed suspicious to me, like Starchild was saying 'You COULD Mind control our race, sure, sure, or destroy us like both of my enemies wanted too...but why not take this THIRD OPTION that none of your people have ever considered. I promise you this isn't some Reaper trick to take your race over without bloodshed.`

Doesn't Control remind you an awful lot at the Illusive Man's ideas about controlling the reapers? And Saren? And the Protheans? Everytime someone dabbled with controlling the Reapers, it didn't end well. And that doesn't make you suspicious at all?
And shouldn't you be suspicious of yourself as well? After all, you (=Shepard, or what's left of her) is gaining almost god-like powers here. And how can you be sure that you will be more "benign" to the beings over which you hold such power than your predecessor, in the long run? Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately, or so the saying goes. Let's not forget that the Catalyst VI does not have evil intentions - in fact, it has a very similar goal to your own: preserve organic life. It's just its very extreme methods of achieving that we object.

Not saying that choosing Control is inherently wrong, but it's not without serious issues.

It amazes me in a way that Bioware got it so right with the ending of Dragon Age Origins, using just a handful of text screens. Yet Mass Effect 3 forgot pretty much everything about why people loved the trilogy...the characters.

Now I could even have put up with hologram kid if the characters had actually played a part in the ending, beyond the teleporting team-mates

As to the hologram kid it was his logic that turned me against him. He said he was doing the harvest because otherwise synthetic life-forms would wipe out all organic life, not just the advanced civilisations that it did.

Yet isn't hologram kid a synthetic life-form? If it has never wanted to wipe out all organic life then why assume that others would? It's logic was found faulty because it existed.

Even then I could have put up with him had I been able to argue that point but I couldn't. Shepard had to meekly accept everything hologram kid said and choose either electrocution, disintegration or would I like to blow myself up instead.

The Extended Cut did 'fix' the ending to some degree but I still wanted to be able to argue with the hologram kid. I still had to accept the word of the thing that just told me that it created and controls the Reapers, I had to accept its word that killing myself in one of three ways would stop it and the Reapers.

As the the whole game. I was a little disappointed. I again felt that the characters were taking a back seat to all the pew-pew action. There were a handful of moments that made me think "yeah, now this is Mass Effect" but overall I was not too pleased.

However then Citadel was released and despite the rather, lets be charitable, odd main storyline it was obvious that Bioware had remembered why people had fallen in love with the series and they had brought the characters back to the forefront.

With The Citadel DLC, Mass Effect 3 ended on the high note it should have done when it first shipped.

The MEHEM I was sceptical to be honest when I first tried it but I was wrong to be. Sure it is rough around the edges but it just feels right, the characters feel important to the ending and not just a side note to it. Best of all, I can uninstall it and play the real endings should I want to.

votemarvel:
As to the hologram kid it was his logic that turned me against him. He said he was doing the harvest because otherwise synthetic life-forms would wipe out all organic life, not just the advanced civilisations that it did.

Yet isn't hologram kid a synthetic life-form? If it has never wanted to wipe out all organic life then why assume that others would? It's logic was found faulty because it existed.

It is not a synthetic life form, it is an artificial intelligence. It assumed that synthetic life always wants to wipe out organic life because it has seen it happen many times before. That's why it arrived atthis extreme solution in the first place. All this is explicitly stated at some time or at least strongly suggested.

CloudAtlas:

FoxKitsune:
My problem with the ending was simply a lack of closure, which I've always felt important in a game/story that asks you to care about the characters as much as one like Mass Effect does. It's this same reason that Final Fantasy 9 is my favorite of that series.

You get plenty of closure, a lot of it just happens before the end, not afterwards. On Earth, you have the chance to talk (and say goodbye) to each of your squadmates of Mass Effect 2 and 3 who is still alive, in person or "on the phone". The Extended Cut provides additional closure for the two mates who accompany on your very last mission, and it also provides additional closure after the end. You have plenty of closure with Anderson as well. Not to mention large parts of the Citadel DLC, should you have that.
I really don't get this complaint. Doesn't the whole game of Mass Effect 3 kinda gives the feeling that this journey is ending now, right from the very first minute?

For me it was Control as well. I fought that final battle fully expecting to go through with the plan and blow them up or whatever similar option presented itself, but then the Geth happened. Having united them and the Quarians, it felt like throwing them to the wolves just so the rest of the galaxy could live in relative peace, and I couldn't do it. Not after their origin story, or the resolution to their war.

I was going to save everyone if I could possibly help it, and I quite frankly didn't trust synthesis. It just seemed suspicious to me, like Starchild was saying 'You COULD Mind control our race, sure, sure, or destroy us like both of my enemies wanted too...but why not take this THIRD OPTION that none of your people have ever considered. I promise you this isn't some Reaper trick to take your race over without bloodshed.`

Doesn't Control remind you an awful lot at the Illusive Man's ideas about controlling the reapers? And Saren? And the Protheans? Everytime someone dabbled with controlling the Reapers, it didn't end well. And that doesn't make you suspicious at all?
And shouldn't you be suspicious of yourself as well? After all, you (=Shepard, or what's left of her) is gaining almost god-like powers here. And how can you be sure that you will be more "benign" to the beings over which you hold such power than your predecessor, in the long run? Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately, or so the saying goes. Let's not forget that the Catalyst VI does not have evil intentions - in fact, it has a very similar goal to your own: preserve organic life. It's just its very extreme methods of achieving that we object.

Not saying that choosing Control is inherently wrong, but it's not without serious issues.

Eeep, in my haste to reply I forgot to add that I felt that 'lack of closure thing' was fixed thanks to the extended cut, and since that I don't feel bad at all about putting Mass Effect as a trilogy at the top of my stories in video games list!

The sad fact is that you're entirely right. From the second Shep `assumes control` s/he's at risk of becoming everything you've been fighting, sure, but with that said I still couldn't bring myself to take the other courses. it felt like control was doing what could or could not be the WRONG thing, but for the right reasons, and I wasn't able to take the safer option if that option cut out some section of the galaxy. Again, it's the Geth. It would have been the same if the Star child had offered humanity safety for the lives of say, the Asari or the Turians.

By the end I had to finish the story in the way that seemed `right`, which sadly means that if Shep loses control in that eventuality or becomes corrupt (a la Saren or the Illusive man)I screwed up and the Universe will feel the consequences. Even so, I had to go out trying to save everyone rather than saving some.

Blachman201:

CloudAtlas:

The Leviathan DLC answered that question.

And does a pretty bad job of it. The DLC is literally the writers blatantly retconning in a race of almighty morons to give in-universe excuse for their bad writing.

It is hard to imagine that the writers forgot to think about something as essential as who created the most ubiquitous life in their universe. Not necessarily in the game itself, but as idea, as script somewhere.

Of course the fact that the Reapers seem to be modeled after some organic squid-like life form which, surprise, is exactly what their creators do look like, does not exactly support your argument.

RJ 17:

Not really, the problem wasn't the writing, the problem was that most people didn't understand the writing. To be fair, that lack of understanding is partly their fault, but it's partly the audience's fault too.

It's the same about any form of writing: there's bound to be people who just don't understand it.

Don't give me the old "You just don't get it, man!" cop-out. Any talentless hack can use that excuse and they always do.

-"lore" snip-

Knowing what the Catalyst is doesn't prevent it from being a square peg forced into a round hole. It doesn't prevent it from clashing against what we know about the Reapers (Sovereign outright scuffed at the idea of a creator and his lines about organic life dripped with disdain), and it doesn't prevent it breaking the narrative (it is a very undisguised Deus ex machina that reduces Shepard from main character to an obedient chump).

The Leviathan DLC is at is core really just Bioware bringing out a bigger hammer to force the square peg in.

Blachman201:

RJ 17:

Not really, the problem wasn't the writing, the problem was that most people didn't understand the writing. To be fair, that lack of understanding is partly their fault, but it's partly the audience's fault too.

It's the same about any form of writing: there's bound to be people who just don't understand it.

Don't give me the old "You just don't get it, man!" cop-out. Any talentless hack can use that excuse and they always do.

-"lore" snip-

Knowing what the Catalyst is doesn't prevent it from being a square peg forced into a round hole. It doesn't prevent it from clashing against what we know about the Reapers (Sovereign outright scuffed at the idea of a creator and his lines about organic life dripped with disdain), and it doesn't prevent it breaking the narrative (it is a very undisguised Deus ex machina that reduces Shepard from main character to an obedient chump).

The Leviathan DLC is at is core really just Bioware bringing out a bigger hammer to force the square peg in.

Yeah, I hate using the "you don't get it" defense as it's extremely contrived, but unfortunately that's truly how I see it in this case. I just got done explaining in another topic the reason I can use the "you don't get it" argument. Long story short: seeing as how I was able to "get it", I was able to accurately "predict" the EC endings 6 days after the game came out...long before the EC was even being considered.

As part of your lore snip, you glossed over the part where I say that the Reapers have free will to act within their roles as Harvesters, but that they're being controlled by The Catalyst to complete the Harvest as it wills. Is it so hard to assume that some (possibly many) of the Reapers actually enjoy their "job"? To the Reapers, organics are silly little insects racing towards their self destruction, just stupid, mindless lemmings charging straight towards the cliff. It's no wonder he speaks with such disdain towards organics, he believes he is an ultimate life form and organics are not just dust, but suicidal dust. I don't recall if it was Harbinger or Sovereign who first dropped the line "We are your salvation through destruction." But regardless, in ME1 or 2, it was dropped that the Reapers believe they're doing organics a favor by harvesting them. So obviously what Star Child says at the end wasn't something Bioware just pulled out of their ass in the third game.

RJ 17:

As part of your lore snip, you glossed over the part where I say that the Reapers have free will to act within their roles as Harvesters, but that they're being controlled by The Catalyst to complete the Harvest as it wills. Is it so hard to assume that some (possibly many) of the Reapers actually enjoy their "job"? To the Reapers, organics are silly little insects racing towards their self destruction, just stupid, mindless lemmings charging straight towards the cliff. It's no wonder he speaks with such disdain towards organics, he believes he is an ultimate life form and organics are not just dust, but suicidal dust. I don't recall if it was Harbinger or Sovereign who first dropped the line "We are your salvation through destruction." But regardless, in ME1 or 2, it was dropped that the Reapers believe they're doing organics a favor by harvesting them. So obviously what Star Child says at the end wasn't something Bioware just pulled out of their ass in the third game.

Sorry, but that is basically just pure fanwanking. And it conflicts with the Catalyst whole "the created will always rebel against its creator" song-and-dance routine. It has, according to itself, no reason to give the Reapers any kind of autonomy.

RJ 17:

kklawm:
Snip.

You're a year and a few months late to the conversation my friend. :P

All the points you brought up have already been brought to the table by others, but let me go ahead and engage in debate with you since you took the time to write out that opinion of yours. And that's the thing to keep in mind: it's your opinion and it's perfectly valid, I'm not trying to argue that. I'm just presenting a new perspective for you to consider.

1: Renegade Red ending: In this ending, Shepard decides to use the power of the Crucible as it was "intended" to be used: as a weapon of mass destruction. Seeing as how the Reapers intend to kill all sufficiently advanced species in the galaxy, it's literally a "kill or be killed" situation. You wipe them out, or they most assuredly will wipe you out. It's not committing genocide on an innocent race of space squid, it's doing what must be done to ensure that life as you know it can continue existing. Now as with all WMD's, there's bound to be collateral damage...i.e. the Geth. However, since this is the "renegade" ending, Shepard obviously feels that sacrificing the Geth is worth saving the rest of the galaxy. There's nothing racist about Shepard's motives for going with this option. He's told "Doing this will completely wipe out the enemy with whom you're at war." He knows his enemy will not stop until it's mission - the extinction of all advanced life in the galaxy - is complete. As I said, the situation is kill or be killed.

2: Paragon Blue: I don't know if you got the Extended Cut ending or the standard cut ending, but either way it should have been clear that the Reapers DON'T have free will. Not necessarily, in the way that we understand it. They're free to fulfill their purpose - harvesting all advanced life - in whatever way they believe is the most efficient and practical. However, their reasons for harvesting advanced life aren't their own. They're guided by "Star Child", the Catalyst, or whatever you wanna call little Space Timmy at the end there. He's the overmind, the one who controls the Reapers, gives them guidance, and is the one who forces them to continue the cycle every 50K years. The Reapers are, in fact, his creation. He was tasked with ensuring that organic life never gets completely wiped out by synthetic life. He determined the best way to do this was ensure that organic life never gets too advanced and creates synthetic life...that is to say, by harvesting said organic life. That's why the patterns of evolution and technological advancement are all part of the cycle. The end of each cycle is right around the time that synthetic life is created. As such, with the Geth being made 200 years ago, it was time for the Reapers to become active and start working to usher in the next invasion. Anyways, the Reapers were made by Star Child so he could implement the solution to the problem he was tasked with. And as such, the Reapers do not have true free will to speak of.

Which means that when you go with the blue option, all you're really doing is trading out the consciousness of the Star Child for your own. You replace the puppet master and in doing so create a galactic defense force that can ensure that the peace that Shepard formed throughout the game (by making the alliances forged in battle) will last.

3: Synthesis Green: You do have a fair point with this one, and it's really why I personally never liked the choice myself. For me, the blue option was always my preference. But here's the reasoning behind Green: it is the "proper" solution to the question "How do you ensure that organic life never gets wiped out by synthetic life?" By making all organic and synthetic life a hybrid form of existences - part synthetic, part organic - the synthetics would be granted full comprehension of organic reasoning and emotions while organics would be granted all the technological efficiency and adeptness of synthetics. With the synthetics now understanding emotions and morals, the would no longer be prone to wipe out organics because "Organics are just an inefficient waste of resources, they must be purged." As such, the green ending is designed to usher in a utopian age of peace and tranquility. By removing most of the differences between species, you also remove most of the reasons for one species to hate another. It all becomes a bland, boring homogenization of life...as Star Child describes it: the pinnacle of evolution.

---------

So like I said, I'm not trying to argue with you, but rather give you a new perspective you might not have considered, as your interpretation of the endings is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

What lies beyond the veil is how I saw Synthesis, the only regret is not being able to live to see the new age. I wanted to finally grasp the ripe fruits of Lazarus and sink my teeth into it, watching the dawn of a new age.

And Shep's been an obedient chump when the final decision is made, I mean the one where you decide wherever or not who would become human councilor, then the base and now the future of galactic life.

Blachman201:

RJ 17:

As part of your lore snip, you glossed over the part where I say that the Reapers have free will to act within their roles as Harvesters, but that they're being controlled by The Catalyst to complete the Harvest as it wills. Is it so hard to assume that some (possibly many) of the Reapers actually enjoy their "job"? To the Reapers, organics are silly little insects racing towards their self destruction, just stupid, mindless lemmings charging straight towards the cliff. It's no wonder he speaks with such disdain towards organics, he believes he is an ultimate life form and organics are not just dust, but suicidal dust. I don't recall if it was Harbinger or Sovereign who first dropped the line "We are your salvation through destruction." But regardless, in ME1 or 2, it was dropped that the Reapers believe they're doing organics a favor by harvesting them. So obviously what Star Child says at the end wasn't something Bioware just pulled out of their ass in the third game.

Sorry, but that is basically just pure fanwanking. And it conflicts with the Catalyst whole "the created will always rebel against its creator" song-and-dance routine. It has, according to itself, no reason to give the Reapers any kind of autonomy.

Actually the Catalyst describes himself as the collective will of the Reapers. That is to say, they are the body, he is the mind. The relationship is similar to EDI and the Normandy. Can EDI exert direct control over the Normandy? Yes, just as the Catalyst can exert direct control over the Reapers (as proven with the Blue ending and when Shepard forces the Reapers to stop attacking). However EDI prefers to let Joker fly the ship. In the same way, the Catalyst prefers to let the Reapers move as they see fit, so long as they remain on course with the over-all goal. Were they to go against that goal, the Catalyst could just exert himself over them and force them to anyways. But they wouldn't rebel against him since they are a part of him to begin with.

Besides, "The Created Will Always Rebel Against The Creator" applies to synthetics rebelling against the organics that created them, not synthetics rebelling against the synthetic that made them.

Can someone explain to me how Control is evil because it takes away the will of merciless genocidal abominations?

The real reason I thought it was a stupid choice was because we were literally shown five minutes ago what happens when you try to combine your own mentality with Reaper tech.

Last I checked,
image
It Doesn't Turn Out Well.

The star-child clearly stated that the fact that The Illusive Man was indoctrinated prior to his attempt to assert control meant that he would be unable to assert the will required for control to work. Shepard and the Illusive Man are in different situations.

However, as I indicated earlier, I still tend towards agreement in that, given the context of the vast perspective of the reapers, who knows that Shepard wouldn't simply go down the same road, in time? Control is just too much trust for omnipotence in one hand for eternity.

Mikejames:
However, as I indicated earlier, I still tend towards agreement in that, given the context of the vast perspective of the reapers, who knows that Shepard wouldn't simply go down the same road, in time? Control is just too much trust for omnipotence in one hand for eternity.

Keep in mind that Star Child had a purpose: prevent organic life from being wiped out by synthetic life. It's will and purpose became the will and purpose of the Reapers. By picking Control, Paragon Shep (presumably Paragon, at least, which is why it's the Blue option) replaces SC's will and purpose with his/her own will and purpose. This is actually narrated in the Extended Cut's version of that ending, something along the lines of "Shepard's memories, morals, and will give me guidance and purposes."

Long story short: Shepard becomes the new Star Child, and just how Star Child had the purpose of keeping synthetics from wiping out all organics, Shepard now has the purpose of preserving all forms of life in the galaxy.

I think you created a bit of a contradiction here. By replacing the Star Child's will and purpose with his own, Shepard doesn't necessarily become the new "Star Child" with the mandate of preserving organic/synthetic life in the galaxy. He is the "new solution" that the star child indicates that they must find, as the existing "star child" solution can "no longer work." Again, Shepard is not an AI, so he is not necessarily going to be confined by the mandate given to the star child AI by the Leviathans. However, that does not mean that he won't find the same solution to be the appropriate one, given time.

I still think synthesis is far preferable to blue control, however, blue control is still acceptable.

My personal preferences are: Green > Blue Control > Red Destroy > Red Control

Just my personal ethical evaluation of the end choices.

I too finished the game a couple of days ago for the first time. First i would say its a great game.People who have not played it due to all the criticism should play it NOW!!
As for the ending i hate the original one.It provided no resolution or closure at all and felt empty and a cop out. I was angry.However then i played the extended ending and i must say i am satisfied. The extended ending was miles better than the original one and and i can say now that i am quite satisfied with that ending.
As for the specific ending i went for the destroy ending which i believe is the best ending to the game.Eradicating the reaper threat was Shepherds goal from the beginning and why should she do anything less than destroying them?
In short i loved ME3 with the extended ending and best ending is the destroy ending. I must say i became teary eyed at the end when Shepherds nameplate was being put up on the wall after her sacrifice. Damn i will always miss her...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked