User Avatar Image

Mass Effect Thread

posted by WARP10CK on - last edited - Viewed by 2.8K users

WARNING SPOILERS FOR MASS EFFECT 3

Just finished Mass Effect 3 and was having a great time until the last 5 minutes of the game.

The ending you get is probably the most depressing ending and since this is mass effect that´s probably the bad ending right ?

Nope all the endings are almost identical no matter what you do and the outrage on biowares forums are huge.

I would not mind a sad ending but there is no explanation to what happened this is the gaming equivalent to the sopranos ending.

Nothing is really resolved and there is not even an epilogue.

Oh well just look at biowares forums then you know

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/category/355/index

359 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • User Avatar Image
    Vainamoinen Moderator

    @Rather Dashing said: I'm not sure where they got this information. The child acts just like the Protean "personality Imprint" VI at the end of the first Mass Effect.

    Dashing, I think you have an interesting angle in arguing that by building the Crucible, Shepard's active Heros role is preserved. I am very willing to discuss the idea, but I don't think it's really necessary for you to openly deny the information the actual game gives you. Please note in the following original final conversation:

    [LIST]
    [*]How the AI describes its own actions and competences ("I");
    [*]how the AI refers to its own power over the Reapers;
    [*]how the AI in fact identifies with the Reapers ("we" or "us");
    [*]how the described AI power refers to past, present and also the future.
    [*]how the AI heavily advocates the last option (not available to all players and thought of as the "good ending" in some forums).
    [/LIST]


    C "Wake up."
    S "What? Where am I?"
    C "The Citadel. It's my home."
    S "Who are you?"
    C "I am the Catalyst."
    S "I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst."
    C "No, the Citadel is part of me."
    S "I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?"
    C "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
    S "Solution? To what?"
    C "The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."
    S "By wiping out organic life?"
    C "No. We harvest advanced civilisations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive the last time we were here."
    S "But you killed the rest."
    C "We helped them ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."
    S "I think we'd rather keep our own form."
    C "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created this cycle so that never happens. That's the solution."
    S "But you're taking away our future, we have no hope. Without hope, we might as well be machines, programmed to do what we're told."
    C "You have hope. More than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. But it also proves that my solution won't work anymore."
    S "So now what?"
    C "We find a new solution."
    S "Yeah, but how?"
    C "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen. I know you've thought about destroying us. You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth. Even you are partly synthetic...
    S "But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
    C "Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the Chaos will come back."
    S "Maybe..."
    C "Or do you think you can control us?"
    S "Huh. So the Illusive Man was right after all."
    C "Yes, but he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."
    S "But I can..."
    C "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."
    S "But the Reapers will obey me?"
    C "Yes. There is another solution."
    S "Yeah?"
    C "Synthesis."
    S "And that is?"
    C "Add your energy to the Crucible's. Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out. The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new... DNA."
    S "I don't know."
    C "Why not? Synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?"
    S "And there will be peace?"
    C "The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen. You have a difficult decision. Releasing the energy of the Crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays. The paths are open. But you have to chose."


    .

  • Based on everything I've read about the ending (which isn't a lot, seeing as I don't really give much about Mass Effect in general), I have come up with a better ending overall.

    Let's say the previous three endings still uphold, but add a new added dialog depending on what you did in the previous games. Let's say this added dialog option is something along the lines of "Go screw yourself."

    Now, we'll skip the long and hard battle that comes afterwards. If you get killed at that point, it doesn't trigger a game over, but some ending I can't come up with.

    Okay, so Shephard somehow finds himself in his own ship again, for some reason. Depending on how loyal you are to your crew, you can then order your crew to return and do an all-out suicide assault. The ending is pretty much still the same, but at least you got the choice to decide upon the fate of your crew. The universe is still boned, but at least people can't say you didn't try. At least part of the problem solved, as your previous actions, showing loyalty to your crew, is being taken into account. Perhaps as a joke ending, if you acted like a douchebag towards your crew, they launch you out of a torpedo bay instead. Your face will splatter against the side of something, and the universe is still boned, but at least you got a good laugh out of it or something. Sure it's a shitty ending, but at least it's better than to just have no choice in the game at all.

  • @Vainamoinen said: Dashing, I think you have an interesting angle in arguing that by building the Crucible, Shepard's active Heros role is preserved. I am very willing to discuss the idea, but I don't think it's really necessary for you to openly deny the information the actual game gives you. Please note in the following original final conversation:


    Thanks for providing the conversation. I couldn't find a video of it, and I didn't want to transcribe the entire thing, so this makes the structure of the conversation a lot easier to go through.

    However, you are dealing with only half of the equation. For comparison, we must go back to the original virtual being infodump ending: Vigil in Mass Effect 1..

    Vigil describes his own actions and competences("I" began to shut down life support) , and identifies with his creators(This is why "we" sent "our" warning through the beacons).
    Vigil refers to the past, present, and future within his experience. "This is what happened to the Protheans, this is what I think the Reapers do, if you get to the Conduit you can stop the one you call Saren, etc").
    Vigil showed control over pieces of technology.
    Vigil advocated certain actions, as though he had an opinion on the matter.
    Vigil had his own independent thoughts and theories.

    The child seems to be a better-maintained VI, an expression of the will of the Reapers' creators, much the same way Vigil was an expression of the Prothean's will. The child doesn't identify with the Reapers in the sense that you say.


    C "I am the Catalyst."

    C "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."

    Every use of "we" can be interpreted as being said from the perspective of Reapers' creators. "This is why [the VI that follows the will of the Reaper Creator species; 'we'] continue to do this thing through our plan and instruments(the Reapers)." On the other hand, the references to the Reapers as separate entities cannot be so interpreted, nor does that view have the in-universe precedent(Vigil). The idea that the child "is" the Reapers simply isn't supportable.

    C "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen.

    The Child VI doesn't grant Shepard power, Shepard grants the VI power.

    Before the child shows up, we expect that Shepard will build a machine that can destroy or control the Reapers.

    This is what we build.

    In ME1, we spend the whole game assuming that the Conduit is a weapon(or at least, the in-game characters assume as much). Instead, it is a miniature Mass Relay that can send people to the Citadel's main control room.

    In ME3, we spend the whole game assuming the Crucible is a weapon. The Illusive Man believes he can use it to control the Reapers. It is, and is not, these things. The Crucible is a means of "reprogramming" the Catalyst, adding options to its programming. The Crucible isn't a gun, it's a means of changing the mental core of the Reaper cycle.

    Just like the Conduit in Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 3 ends on an important device that has been the center of the narrative up to that point, and that both is and isn't what was expected. There's a really nice parallel there.

    @Vainamoinen said: This still doesn't address how what the reapers do is in any way different from what synthetics would do otherwise. They wipe out all organic life advanced enough to potentially be capable of wiping themselves out. Low-tech civilizations would be spared either way, and the cycle would continue in the same way regardless of whether the reapers were there or not.


    Synthetics would not preserve organic DNA.

    Synthetics wouldn't create a cycle. Instead, they'd represent an endpoint. Wipe out life before they create synthetic intelligence, and you can allow new life to grow in the same place.

    Synthetic apocalypse has a lot of unknown factors. The synthetics CAN roam the galaxy, wiping out organic life and replacing them entirely. They don't need to breathe, they don't have lifespans. It would take them a LONG TIME to travel the galaxy, but the Reapers and their creators work on very large timescales anyway. It has been thousands of years since they last showed up. Even with sublight travel, roaming synthetics from various start points could overwhelm a galaxy.

  • @Rather Dashing said:

    Synthetics would not preserve organic DNA.

    Synthetics wouldn't create a cycle. Instead, they'd represent an endpoint. Wipe out life before they create synthetic intelligence, and you can allow new life to grow in the same place.

    Synthetic apocalypse has a lot of unknown factors. The synthetics CAN roam the galaxy, wiping out organic life and replacing them entirely. They don't need to breathe, they don't have lifespans. It would take them a LONG TIME to travel the galaxy, but the Reapers and their creators work on very large timescales anyway. It has been thousands of years since they last showed up. Even with sublight travel, roaming synthetics from various start points could overwhelm a galaxy.

    I guess, though it still strikes me as an incredibly weak plot point. Minus the magic wand of science fiction FTL stuff, travel at much greater than (if I recall my astrophysics lessons correctly) .2 light-speed is impossible for reasons of inertia. That's still really damn fast, but it would take any being (realistically) travelling at that speed millions and millions of years to spread across the galaxy.

    And it relies on the silly sci-fi trope of AI inevitably rebelling against their creators.

    Anyway, I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere, and I just realized I'm arguing about b-movie science fiction logic on the internet, so I think I shall bow out of the conversation.

  • @KuroShiro said: And it relies on the silly sci-fi trope of AI inevitably rebelling against their creators.

    Honestly, I don't see this as a trope. It's actually starting to look like it might be a real concern in the future. I mean, nearly everyone has computers now, and the computers are getting smarter. What happens when we get a computer smart enough to program a computer to be even smarter than it is? I really don't want to find out.

    We should stop coming up with zombie plans and start coming up with "my computer is trying to kill me" plans.

  • @Vainamoinen said: I just finished the game, and I agree: This is bad, bad writing.

    Although you get to "choose" between two three endings, the choice comes through a stupid deus ex machina (quite literally, actually) at the very end of the game.

    Also, they employ a reality which was completely absent in the three games to shoehorn this "choice" in. This is not about a "sad" or a "happy" ending, this is about an ending that has zero to do with the series. There can not be a feeling of accomplishment for the players. Bioware is now taking a beating because fans demand a "happier" ending. I think what they REALLY want is one that actually makes sense.

    Lastly, who survives and who doesn't depends on a certain score which seems to be massively raised through the stupid Origin multiplayer mode. I did whatever I could to raise this without the multiplayer, and I thought I did things pretty perfectly. To no avail.

    A failure for the ages, unfortunately. :mad:

    This issue has shown me what a great developer telltale is a studio that cares about it´s fans .

    You are nr 1 in my book don´t ever change telltale.

  • @Alcoremortis said: Honestly, I don't see this as a trope. It's actually starting to look like it might be a real concern in the future. I mean, nearly everyone has computers now, and the computers are getting smarter. What happens when we get a computer smart enough to program a computer to be even smarter than it is? I really don't want to find out.

    We should stop coming up with zombie plans and start coming up with "my computer is trying to kill me" plans.

    Cracked had an article in which one of the points stated was that an AI revolution would be unlikely, as it would need to be programmed to do things it wasn't programmed to do. Seeing as we as humans are too stupid to actually come up with a good AI that could surpass us, it will be unlikely there would be a robot uprising ever.

  • cracked is a valid source of information

    humans sure are stupid

  • @GaryCXJk said: Cracked had an article in which one of the points stated was that an AI revolution would be unlikely, as it would need to be programmed to do things it wasn't programmed to do. Seeing as we as humans are too stupid to actually come up with a good AI that could surpass us, it will be unlikely there would be a robot uprising ever.

    Oh we wouldn't need to do that. We'd only have to come up with an AI smart enough to build a slightly smarter AI. Then it's a rollercoaster to destruction from there.

  • This article explains why I personally am not a fan of the ending.

    When I play through RPGs, contrary to what people thing, I always seem to play the nice guy. I really need to try playing as an asshole once in a while, but there you go. When I finally do get round to playing the ME trilogy, I'll probably be the world's nicest saviour ever. The ending to ME3 won't let me do that. Sad face.

    EDIT: Reading the comments, I gather that's not necessarily the way the Illusive Man shooting thing has to take place, which is kind of important. But the rest of the article does seem fairly accurate.

Add Comment