Mass Effect Thread

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by GaryCXJk

I mean, they advertise Mass Effect as a series where everything you do has direct consequences to the rest of the game. Which should have included the final ending. Instead it sounds like a cop-out where every action you previously did in all of the three games were for naught. Or at least made as if whatever you did didn't matter.

Bioware has made a lot of promises for ME3 it could not keep (the "revolutionary battle system" being one of them). I am really disappointed with the ending, but I never thought that it could do that, take every choice of previous games into account and have different endings for each combination.

I have no doubt that the series Mass Effect is, from the viewpoint of interactive storytelling, a huge achievement that will stay unrivaled for quite some time. But the limitations Bioware's "story algorithms" underlie were always visible since Knights of the Old Republic; I expected to see these limitations most obviously in Mass Effect's finale - and for sure I did.

I'm in the process of writing a longer article about it, but I might actually start a blog with that.

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

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:

• 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).

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."




.

[GaryCXJk]

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.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

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.

Originally Posted by KuroShiro

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.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

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.

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by KuroShiro

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.

[WARP10CK]

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

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.

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.

[GaryCXJk]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

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.

[Giant Tope]

cracked is a valid source of information

humans sure are stupid

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by GaryCXJk

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.

[Darth Marsden]

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.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Vigil in Mass Effect 1..

I really liked that scvene and tried to get every bit of knownledge out of the conversation I could. Too bad this all is largely ignored in ME2.
What I really wanted to say though: Who in his or her right mind would coose to not safe Ashley?

[dahoughtonuk]

Multiplayer, I wouldn't have minded so much if it had just been introduced to try and force me to register for origin


The endings don't seem to make sense in how they link.

I'd have made synthesis if we were going to do that, linked to quarian/geth peace. (Makes a lot of sense)

Control if the geth are in the fleet? Kroqan cured of genophage?

Destruction is the one that should always be open.

Link the endings logically to what happened and their would be less of an outcry.

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

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.

Some good points, and I'd like to evaluate them in more detail later on (I'm at work now ). What strikes me as a flaw in the Vigil comparison is his origin. Vigil - as a VI - is an echo of a Prothean that lived some thousands of years ago. Two significant differences to the Crucible: first, the Protheans were (almost) extinct by the time of Shep's talk with the VI; and second, the Protheans always were an organic life form.

The Child/Crucible is a a synthetic life form. All details in the conversation aside for now, there is no need for an "artificial", hence immortal life form to put this cycle into the hands of a downgraded, "virtual" intelligence.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Darth Marsden

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.

This description of the ending seems...ill-informed would be the really nice way to put it, which makes sense because it's an opinion piece written by Luke Plunkett. Also it's on Kotaku.

As you said, the Illusive Man scene? Bullshit. The Illusive Man scene mirrors the Saren scene in ME1, where you can convince Saren that he's indoctrinated if you have fully leveled up your Persuade or Intimidate skills. In ME3, your ability to persuade is based on your Reputation score. The requirement to convince him is high because he's under Reaper control, just like with Saren, but it's certainly entirely possible.

The rest of the article continues to be stupid. Tough decisions do show up, now and then, in the series. People PRAISED the Geth decision, which didn't fit in line with "Hey guys, let's all sing a campfire song/Hey guys, I'm going to rip out your intestines and shoot you in the fucking face" The decisions fall in line with the characters of Paragon/Renegade Shepard. It's obvious that Control fits with Paragon(doesn't sacrifice the Geth), Destruction fits with Renegade(We need these things DESTROYED, at ANY COST), and the "middle way" is the "good" ending. In all three, Shepard sacrifices his/her life for the good of the galaxy, and I have no idea what could be more of a nice guy action than that.

Originally Posted by der_ketzer

I really liked that scvene and tried to get every bit of knownledge out of the conversation I could. Too bad this all is largely ignored in ME2.
What I really wanted to say though: Who in his or her right mind would coose to not safe Ashley?

I saved Ashley, but pretty much only because I was walking the tightrope of romantic interest options in ME1 until the last second. Honestly I don't really like her. Her poetry is stuffy, her military obsession is obnoxious, her family garbage is boring and trite, and her down-home brand of racism is unsettling. Kaiden is actually a far more interesting character to me.

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

Some good points, and I'd like to evaluate them in more detail later on (I'm at work now ).

I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

What strikes me as a flaw in the Vigil comparison is his origin. Vigil - as a VI - is an echo of a Prothean that lived some thousands of years ago. Two significant differences to the Crucible: first, the Protheans were (almost) extinct by the time of Shep's talk with the VI; and second, the Protheans always were an organic life form.

And that's what I think the child is. Computers don't build themselves. I assumed the whole time through that I was talking to a VI created by the Reapers' creators, an echo of their will. That the child controls the Reapers is no less a proof against that than the fact that Vigil controlled life support systems.

The Child/Crucible is a a synthetic life form. All details in the conversation aside for now, there is no need for an "artificial", hence immortal life form to put this cycle into the hands of a downgraded, "virtual" intelligence.

The Crucible? Do you mean the Catalyst?

Again, I think it's silly to think a synthetic form could come into existence without an organic creator. The Reapers, the Catalyst, I believe it's strongly hinted that they were all fabricated. A Catalyst is something that affects change without being changed itself, and it seems obvious to me that the Catalyst and/or the Reapers were built during or in the wake of a synthetic apocalypse, in an attempt to keep it from ever happening again.

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by der_ketzer

What I really wanted to say though: Who in his or her right mind would coose to not safe Ashley?

I didn't. Partly because I was playing a FemShep and partly because I wanted to see if Kaiden would snap and start killing everyone later on.

Also, Kaiden was voiced by the same guy who voiced Carth... so yeah. You can't even kill Carth in an evil playthrough of KOTOR, I don't think.

[der_ketzer]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...-3-The-Process
Wonderful. spoiler free!

[Rather Dashing]

Tycho of Penny Arcade weighs in on the ending, as does Gabe.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

Tycho of Penny Arcade weighs in on the ending, as does Gabe.

Ok, I said I wouldn't get drawn back into this but the idea that the whole game was the ending is just patently ridiculous. For someone who seems to pride himself on his literary chops, Tycho very fundamentally misunderstands the distinctions between climax, denouement, and conclusion. I don't totally disagree with some of their individual points about the complaints RE the endings, but that central point of theirs is just wrong.

[WARP10CK]

A new ipad app released by Gametrailers that shows the development process has apperantly deleted scenes that shows that the ending the originally planned was even more depressing.

A thread jumped from 1 to 50 pages in less than a half-hour forcing the moderator Chris Priestly to shut down the forums.

All hell has broken loose at this point what a mess for Bioware just a total disaster.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to...dex/9999272/50