I'm sorry it's just that when I first read it I thought you were taking a shot at people who complained about the ending (Thinking that they have divine right to answers, that kind of thing). If you weren't trying to hurt, provoke or trick then it's fine and I apologize.knight steel said:
A question about Mass Effect 3's ending (spoiler alert)
- Thread starter Austin Manning
- Start date
Recommended Videos
fair enough, i should have used better word choice, as not EVERY interpretation has been come across, but in video game history i don't think endings/narrative has been this examined/discussed before, so I was merely trying to state that the view you might think/believe has in fact been thought up or discussed before, probably in a video that has also been broken down and discussed boggling amounts of times. and yes, you're probably right in that most people don't want it to be true, which with how much backlash there is all things considered, I think it's okay that people happily make up their own endings/interpretations to the plot/narrative.viranimus said:
Thanks that means alot ^-^ [not many people of these forms/internet apologize so the fact that you did is really good] also your fairly new so WELCOME TO THE ESCAPIST don't go into the basementAustin Manning said:
.Hmm I see what you mean by the god comment, I can't believe I overlooked that........what should I change the god lyrics too?
You'll never understand the endings on a narrative level within the context of the game universe, but if we take it out of the game universe and break the fourth wall so we can see what's going on in the minds of the writers that's where not only will you get closure you might get a new introspective understanding.
This is why I talk about Evangelion, because we went through the same thing with Eva and subsequent Animes; so much so that the Assimilation Plot was originally called Instrumentality. Within the context of Evangelion an assimilation plot worked with the narrative as Eva was all about Alienation. In Mass Effect the Assimilation Plot; Synthesis is presented as the best option, a new paradigm of understanding, the barriers come tumbling down tumbling down tumbling down. You have control and destroy too (personally I picked destroy) but they aren't relevant at this stage as I think that Synthesis was conceptualised first.
So, in Third Impact, I mean synthesis, we all share understanding and consensus. Isn't this what Shepard wanted all along? He/she spent an entire game trying to get everyone to work together; if you played renegade you openly vented in frustration, if you played paragon you kept your frustration inside. Shepard understands the grievances everyone has with each other, but what he/she can't understand is why everyone doesn't understand.
I'm not saying that this is your experience with your shepard, but I think this was the perspective the writers had in mind when they wrote him/her.
It comes down to "I don't think people are going to work together while they are separated; so I'm going to force them understand each other, through fear, through love or by removing the problem"
Control is fear; the galaxy now has an omnipotent guardian that, considering the amount of shit that just got fucked up by his/her new toys, are feared. You could very easily see the Reapers now playing galactic police. See Death Note for the anime equivalent.
Synthesis is love through the dissolution of individuality; Third Impact.
Destroy is selected genocide and is quite interesting ; from the perspective of Star Child the problem with the galaxy is synthetic life; so the option to destroy them is given. Now Blue and Green camps would see this from the perspective "well, no, not exactly. The Nazis blamed the Jews and believed that the Aryans were the inheritors of the earth, I'll go pick one of the other ones." So us red campers are Nazis to the Green and Blues.
But we're not; we're black and white dichotomists. We are Black, Destroy is a Black option, whereas Control and Synthesis are White options. What this means is that there is uncertainty, there is pain, there is conflict, but these things make life interesting; that we never fully understand other people, that they can surprise us, that we are free. That's what it means to be Black, to live in uncertainty with everything it brings. To be white is to see everything, the end of your journey, absolutely boring.
So, destroy is the "third option".
The problem is it's not. Black personalities would shoot the Star Child in the head and what's interesting is this is game over.
The third option in anime was reactionary to the post modernist tone of every anime that came after it. The best one that did this was Eureka Seven. Despite fierce opposition Holland Novak forced his way to the Scub Coral central dogma, but it was too late. His brother had already destroyed it and in doing so had triggered the Limit of Questions or the Omega Point. Eureka entered the Scub and became the new central dogma, but she would never see Renton again.
And Renton said FUCK THAT SHIT.
And so did we; Control, loss of induviduality, murder of a specific life form. Black's Picked the fourth; but ending (Which didn't originally exist) in an anti climatic way we were unsatisfied, so we resolved to pick the blackest option there was.
And what I'm saying is that the writing staff were so white that they reject the possibility of a black world being harmonious.
And thus after Komm Susser Todd finshed playing and we talked to Rei in the Sea of Elise we rejected Instrumentality and woke up on the sea's shores, the face of Lilith mutilated before us; our only companion being Asuka we begin to throttle her. We don't know what's going on, we don't understand anything, but we wouldn't have it any other way.
The writers reject the Black mentality, which is what the Mass Effect endings were missing; on top of the fact that they were poorly written and broke too far away from the narrative structure of the rest of the series. So, although I picked Red, I've head canoned green as to that I can sing Komm Susser Todd, tears of laughter streaming down my face as I do so.
But my point is that such a post modernist world view is rejected by black personalities, and because of the nature of Mass Effect, to leave out a Black veiw point is negligent and undermines you're thesis. That's why Anime started trying to turn the themes in NGE on its head, and that's why you guys are going through the same things that we did.
TLDR
Is that the kind of discussion that you wanted OP?
This is why I talk about Evangelion, because we went through the same thing with Eva and subsequent Animes; so much so that the Assimilation Plot was originally called Instrumentality. Within the context of Evangelion an assimilation plot worked with the narrative as Eva was all about Alienation. In Mass Effect the Assimilation Plot; Synthesis is presented as the best option, a new paradigm of understanding, the barriers come tumbling down tumbling down tumbling down. You have control and destroy too (personally I picked destroy) but they aren't relevant at this stage as I think that Synthesis was conceptualised first.
So, in Third Impact, I mean synthesis, we all share understanding and consensus. Isn't this what Shepard wanted all along? He/she spent an entire game trying to get everyone to work together; if you played renegade you openly vented in frustration, if you played paragon you kept your frustration inside. Shepard understands the grievances everyone has with each other, but what he/she can't understand is why everyone doesn't understand.
I'm not saying that this is your experience with your shepard, but I think this was the perspective the writers had in mind when they wrote him/her.
It comes down to "I don't think people are going to work together while they are separated; so I'm going to force them understand each other, through fear, through love or by removing the problem"
Control is fear; the galaxy now has an omnipotent guardian that, considering the amount of shit that just got fucked up by his/her new toys, are feared. You could very easily see the Reapers now playing galactic police. See Death Note for the anime equivalent.
Synthesis is love through the dissolution of individuality; Third Impact.
Destroy is selected genocide and is quite interesting ; from the perspective of Star Child the problem with the galaxy is synthetic life; so the option to destroy them is given. Now Blue and Green camps would see this from the perspective "well, no, not exactly. The Nazis blamed the Jews and believed that the Aryans were the inheritors of the earth, I'll go pick one of the other ones." So us red campers are Nazis to the Green and Blues.
But we're not; we're black and white dichotomists. We are Black, Destroy is a Black option, whereas Control and Synthesis are White options. What this means is that there is uncertainty, there is pain, there is conflict, but these things make life interesting; that we never fully understand other people, that they can surprise us, that we are free. That's what it means to be Black, to live in uncertainty with everything it brings. To be white is to see everything, the end of your journey, absolutely boring.
So, destroy is the "third option".
The problem is it's not. Black personalities would shoot the Star Child in the head and what's interesting is this is game over.
The third option in anime was reactionary to the post modernist tone of every anime that came after it. The best one that did this was Eureka Seven. Despite fierce opposition Holland Novak forced his way to the Scub Coral central dogma, but it was too late. His brother had already destroyed it and in doing so had triggered the Limit of Questions or the Omega Point. Eureka entered the Scub and became the new central dogma, but she would never see Renton again.
And Renton said FUCK THAT SHIT.
And so did we; Control, loss of induviduality, murder of a specific life form. Black's Picked the fourth; but ending (Which didn't originally exist) in an anti climatic way we were unsatisfied, so we resolved to pick the blackest option there was.
And what I'm saying is that the writing staff were so white that they reject the possibility of a black world being harmonious.
And thus after Komm Susser Todd finshed playing and we talked to Rei in the Sea of Elise we rejected Instrumentality and woke up on the sea's shores, the face of Lilith mutilated before us; our only companion being Asuka we begin to throttle her. We don't know what's going on, we don't understand anything, but we wouldn't have it any other way.
The writers reject the Black mentality, which is what the Mass Effect endings were missing; on top of the fact that they were poorly written and broke too far away from the narrative structure of the rest of the series. So, although I picked Red, I've head canoned green as to that I can sing Komm Susser Todd, tears of laughter streaming down my face as I do so.
But my point is that such a post modernist world view is rejected by black personalities, and because of the nature of Mass Effect, to leave out a Black veiw point is negligent and undermines you're thesis. That's why Anime started trying to turn the themes in NGE on its head, and that's why you guys are going through the same things that we did.
TLDR
Is that the kind of discussion that you wanted OP?
"Walk up to the Control Terminal and Shepard pulls out an Omni-tool and uploads Vigil?s data file. Which gives control of all the Citadel?s systems." [http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Race_Against_Time:_Final_Battle#The_Big_Decision]TopazFusion said:
Sounds like that program might have some extra benefits. It could also be that in the aftermath, steps were taken to prevent that from happening again by locking out the mass relay controls. Obviously they still require the Citadel arms to be capable of closing - whoops.
Or the Reapers were trolling people.
Ultimately the only thing we can do is just handwave it away and forget about it as a plot hole, because the real reason for it is if the mass relays were locked down, we wouldn't have much of a game.
I mean, why didn't Shepard use some medigel to stop the bleeding after jumping through the conduit to the Citadel, assuming you had some left over? And do the same to Anderson to save his life? Oh, that's right, it's part of the game design for the drama and cinematics in that section.
the only problem i have with this, is there are multiple times across the games where you can save people (during cutscene via paragon instances) doing as such, the batarian in me2 comes to mind.ThriKreen said:
If they didn't make it an option for the player previously, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal and could be a slightly easier jump to make for the sake of the story. hell they could've had shepard applying overdosing amounts of medi gel and just had anderson THAT fucked up that he couldn't be saved, that would've been better.
I think I get what you are getting at... now assuming I had actually mentioned the catalyst or tried to explain for or construct a counter against whatever it said in expository dialog, then there would be a case for a strawman on my part.Lily Venus said:
Unfortunately I didn't actually mention the catalyst. I simply referenced a highly parallel material that the trilogy pulled from, and how that story arc was handled at the end of the 3rd season of a 5 season show.
What I "did" do was explain the bits that one would expect to have been tidied up at the end of the third game. Those bits where not tidied up, and where demonstrably utilized to perform magic tricks within the exposition. The third game is simply loaded with LAPD.
Lazy Ass Plot Devices
As far as "ending-basher", sure no problem... being that you brought it up I will discuss it some.
About 20 percent of the way into the product I started laughing at what I "figured" the ending was going to be. It is telegraphed with the "kid" as a Chekhov's gun, and reinforced with a notion of PTSS and recurring nightmare.
I was bashing on the ending as a form of therapeutic comic relief well before I completed the game. Narrative, like dominoes follows a structural pattern. Especially true with Bioware narrative which is essentially hero's journey 101.
When breaks in pattern occur it is only a matter of time before the "deus ex machina" comes calling.
Let's see... Cerberus and it's proliferation simply exist to give the player something to shoot at, similar to how Aliens: Colonial Marines introduced a man shoot. Now the player has a disjointed villain. Map design was uninspired. Hit box detection was rather clumsy. The Prothean was clearly removed from the product and had to edited back in, but that is typical for Bioware. Recycled assets, reversed textures all smack of rush job. Reduced conversation options. Long exposition that does nothing to drive the plot.
My assertion is that a lack of assets is what gives you repeating fights with space ninja, narrative was reconstituted to explain the discontinuity between modules, Hacket exposition is a good example...
It was all pretty obvious to me.
The Reapers while vulnerable (in cannon) to traditional military force now take on a supernatural ability to simply "not be defeated". Essentially ME3 not only retcons the universe, but it retcons itself during it's own exposition.
Lacking a weakness in the villain can generally only be resolved by supernatural forces.
It was painful to play this thing. Not talking about the narrative, the game just was not that good.
I think "they worked with what they had on hand", the creative process for much in the way of "new" was gobbled up by outsourcing or gimmicks. There was a lot of effort to sort of paper up the cracks. E for effort.
If you need to categorize me then please, by all means, put me in the camp of those who think that ME3 was a rushed POS from beginning to end. I am very comfortable occupying that place.
Then again...
So was Dragon Age 2, So was Star Wars... it's a trend not an exception.
As far as answering the OP question?
The game does not commit, why should I? Only after the fact on the message boards and pax was it even addressed. This is outside of the "context" (contained in the text) of the released product. It is whatever "they" say as a means of damage control, if it is not in the game it is not in the game.
Anything to the contrary is no better than a fan fiction.
My conclusion stands as a perfectly valid answer.
It is whatever you want it to be, because the staff that made it never addressed it within the product.
Now if you like it as it is, that is fine. Not telling you what to like, not telling you what you may or may not explain of the presentation within the game.
1=2 is a perfectly valid logic statement. If 1 = 2 Then 3 Else 4. This corollary statement provides context which justifies the logic.
I am not "ignoring" the catalyst perspective. I am calling into question the basis of it's corollary rationalization within the context of the Mass Effect Universe as it was presented over the course of 30-40 hours of prior experience.
The catalyst logic fails the rationality that was presented within the trilogy, thus it is categorically a "supernal explanation", and takes on a special ontological primacy.
This is sometimes referred to as "The Liar's Paradox", "The incompleteness theorem", or "The Halting Problem".
The burden of proof lies on the Catalyst to justify it's position, it skirts this through it's ontological status as being for all practical purposes "divine".
This is "essentially" the original philosophical exploration "of the first game". Now sitting around and waiting (in the scene) after the content patch "fixes" this by degrees, the cycle repeats with Liara and a cube.
However, the whole setup destroys the agency of the Reapers which are essentially the 'sovereign' made quite figurative, an exception to the internal logic of the series.
Accepting the lazy rationalization of the catalyst we are co-opting and subtlety agreeing with it's premise and conclusions.
There is only "power", "synthesis", "destruction", or reboot da' matrix for another go'round. The circular reasoning of the catalyst is often referred to as the "first serious problem of the neophyte philosopher", that of the "infinite regress".
13 lines of dialog is simply insufficient to have adequately made the case.
If Casey Hudson insist on playing the roll of the matrix architect that's fine. He is certainly within his right to do so. Within his right to end the series however he sees fit, take art from albums toss on a snow effect and call it a day. Loot the ending of Deus Ex... whatever... Dive headlong into philosophical nihilism with "meta" in his pocket.
Great!
I reserve the right to disagree, to ask "why", and to point out "why I think" it went that way. Drawing my own conclusions from my own experiences and perspectives.
I seriously doubt that what they wanted to make and what they made where the same thing. Folks left Bioware as an employment related to this. That is "meta" we can all take to the bank.
Will never know if bioware were smart they'll expand the ending to give clarity to any other characters but i doubt that
Great post!The Ubermensch said:
I actually agree quite a bit with what you have had to say on the topic... though I personally think the "original" "unmolested" ending of the Eva series was "the ending".
Think I will read your post on this and come up with a response you can get into. Sort of out of time tonight. Food for thought though, like I said I agree; but there are some distinct and "I think" demonstrable differences between the IPs.
No doubt, but as I said, my theory is the writers have a White out look but know that the world is Black. EOE managed to pull off both... I think. I could explain why I think this but that's a 497 threads long discussion and we're still at "What the hell just happened"mfeff said:
I like the original 25 and 26 too but they didn't really fit within the grander narritive. Considering what Gainax had to work with though they are amazing; Anno explained the black mindset really well in those two episodes. They were beautiful but personally... that bit where the black moon rose up, a white shadow appeared underneath it and Rei/Lilith rise up. Everyone starts turning into LCL and Gendo (who shares a lot with the Illusive man) has that epic conversation with Rei, Yui and what's his face. I'm so glad that Third Impact exists.
What I'm saying is that the writers intentionally made a Gainax ending BECAUSE we're over 500 threads talking about the meanings of Evanglion. And now what I'm seeing from the ME fandom is the same sort of reaction. Unfortunatuly the ending and the rest of the narritive don't gel together too well.
And that's such a shame.
Before I answer your question, let me make one statement about the bolded part of the text below
God, you have no idea how much I dread seeing that word in ME discussion, almost exclusively because it gets used incorrectly. You sir have just saved my right cheek from twitching uncontrollably for the next hour and a half, and my hat is off to you.
Now that I've got that over and done with, on to your question
1) There are definitely people who would have easy access to a ship (ambassadors, admirals etc.), so if they were warned in advance is it plausible that they could have escaped. However, the Reapers are not known for telegraphing their attacks. Sure, they're not exactly subtle but they're not going to send you an RSVP in advance either. Coupled with their high speed and overwhelming firepower, the Reapers would most likely make quick time form entry to takeover, so ships would have to a. be prepared in advance to leave, and b. rush
Resulting assumption: select few individuals could get off the Citadel, but would require advanced warning. Major percentage of populace most likely captured by Reapers and subsequently killed off.
2)The only way to get a safe distance from any Reaper fleet is through the Relays. Since the Citadel is no longer operating as a relay due to the Prothean team on Ilos, the Reapers must go through the Relay point in the Serpent Nebula to reach the Citadel's corresponding sector, ergo any attempt to escape via that egress you run smack dab into the Reapers, who would more likely than not simply blow up anyone trying to get by them. While it is feasible that any ships that left the Citadel could simply make a short jump via onboard drives to a closely neighbouring system, there is no guarantee that those locations are safe or that they won't simply be followed, and no ship has an FTL engine with enough fuel to make the massive number of jumps needed to make it to safety without a Relay to send them there (else the Relays would be entirely redundant and therefore a useless tool for the Reapers to use in their harvests).
Resulting assumption: Short term escape possible, but getting anywhere beyond out of immediate harm's way unlikely to impossible.
So yeah, under best possible circumstances ie having a picket at the Relay looking for trouble and having fully prepared for the eventuality in advance and being ready to leave at the drop of a hat, it is possible for some of the more important characters to not end up as rotting corpses in the Citadel floor, but considering the Citadel's state of preparedness during Shepard's time on it, it didn't look ready to do anything particularly quickly, so I'd consider it a long shot that anyone got off the Citadel in time to avoid the grisly fate we saw with so many at the end of ME3
Well I hope that this helps answer your question. Remember though it just an assumption based upon available evidence though, so no real guarantee that it's legit.
THANK YOU!Austin Manning said:
God, you have no idea how much I dread seeing that word in ME discussion, almost exclusively because it gets used incorrectly. You sir have just saved my right cheek from twitching uncontrollably for the next hour and a half, and my hat is off to you.
Now that I've got that over and done with, on to your question
Now I'm not sure as to the ultimate answer to this, as to my knowledge at least, there was no indication as to what their specific fate was, so deduction will have to do until a more concrete source can be found.Austin Manning said:
1) There are definitely people who would have easy access to a ship (ambassadors, admirals etc.), so if they were warned in advance is it plausible that they could have escaped. However, the Reapers are not known for telegraphing their attacks. Sure, they're not exactly subtle but they're not going to send you an RSVP in advance either. Coupled with their high speed and overwhelming firepower, the Reapers would most likely make quick time form entry to takeover, so ships would have to a. be prepared in advance to leave, and b. rush
Resulting assumption: select few individuals could get off the Citadel, but would require advanced warning. Major percentage of populace most likely captured by Reapers and subsequently killed off.
2)The only way to get a safe distance from any Reaper fleet is through the Relays. Since the Citadel is no longer operating as a relay due to the Prothean team on Ilos, the Reapers must go through the Relay point in the Serpent Nebula to reach the Citadel's corresponding sector, ergo any attempt to escape via that egress you run smack dab into the Reapers, who would more likely than not simply blow up anyone trying to get by them. While it is feasible that any ships that left the Citadel could simply make a short jump via onboard drives to a closely neighbouring system, there is no guarantee that those locations are safe or that they won't simply be followed, and no ship has an FTL engine with enough fuel to make the massive number of jumps needed to make it to safety without a Relay to send them there (else the Relays would be entirely redundant and therefore a useless tool for the Reapers to use in their harvests).
Resulting assumption: Short term escape possible, but getting anywhere beyond out of immediate harm's way unlikely to impossible.
So yeah, under best possible circumstances ie having a picket at the Relay looking for trouble and having fully prepared for the eventuality in advance and being ready to leave at the drop of a hat, it is possible for some of the more important characters to not end up as rotting corpses in the Citadel floor, but considering the Citadel's state of preparedness during Shepard's time on it, it didn't look ready to do anything particularly quickly, so I'd consider it a long shot that anyone got off the Citadel in time to avoid the grisly fate we saw with so many at the end of ME3
Well I hope that this helps answer your question. Remember though it just an assumption based upon available evidence though, so no real guarantee that it's legit.
Wow that had almost nothing to do with my question. But let's pursue it anyway because it honestly sounds quite interesting. Though I am afraid we will need to view at least some of it in the context of the game's universe.The Ubermensch said:
Synthesis: This is easily the worst of the four endings as it is literally the thing we have been trying to prevent for the past 3 games. The Reapers goal isn't to kill everything in the galaxy, their goal is to turn all of the advanced races (organic and synthetic) into reapers buy melding their organic bodies with machines. This is why in ME2 human colonies were disappearing, the Collectors were harvesting humans to turn them into Reapers. The husks, cannibals, ravangers, harvesters, marauders, banshees, brutes and collectors are the results of synthesis.
Mordin and Shepard on the Collectors:
S: Can we help them?
M: No. No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul, replaced by tech.
If Shepard played his/her cards right, then they will have united a galaxy of organics and synthetics without the need to turn everyone into a Galaxia style hive mind, or compromise his/her integrity. The fact that Synthesis was offered so straight-facedly as an unironic "happy ending" is insulting to the franchise and counter to everything in it. It's like if Frodo failed to destroy the one ring and Sauren conquered Middle Earth, and when he did everyone lived happily ever after. Synthesis is love through dissolution of individuality in the same sense as peace is stopping war by exterminating both sides.
Destroy: While I can respect people who choose this option I will always disagree with it. For four reasons:
1. It proves the Star child right. By picking destroy you show that organics and synthetics can't coexist peacefully, obliterating the Geth and Edi to save the organic races.
2. It's a slap in the face to Legion. Legion is one of my favourite characters in the entire franchise, and it just seems like a betrayal that after his sacrifice, the support the Geth have given me, that I would wipe out his entire race. (Anyone who says he would have been okay with the sacrifice should look up what he does if you side with the Quarians in the Geth/Quarian war)
3. Edi and Joker. If anything existed in the series that proves the Star child wrong it's their relationship. (Also Joker lost his entire family in the war, it would be cruel to take away the one other creature he loves)
4. It means I am a reaper. One of Shepard's (paragon) lines is "if we let this war reduce us to arithmetic, then we are no better than the Reapers". I wasn't going to sacrifice an entire race to save the the rest of them. That's the kind of thinking that lead to the Genophage. That's the logic the Reapers use.
Ultimately, Destroy is a true renegade option as it is the most brutal and straightforward way of accomplishing a task, with no regard for consequences or sacrifices.
Refuse: Similar to destroy, this is another one that I can respect people for choosing but can never take myself. Simply put, I could not let all of those people/creatures/robots/whatever to die when I had the power to stop it, even if the Reapers were destroyed in the next cycle because of my actions.
Control: I like your Death Note comparison and if a renegade Shepard picks this option then something similar happens. I play a paragon though, one whose goal is to save as many living beings as possible, thus this is the only option I can take. To extrapolate what would happen with my Shepard: the Reapers would withdraw from the Galaxy after repairing the Citadel and Relays, only ever intervening in extreme cases such as the Krogan attempting to wipe out the other races as revenge for the Genophage. The difference between the two is the difference between Light Yagami and a UN Peace keeping force.
This is my view of the endings. Out curiosity, what do you think I am? Black? White? Maybe gray?
I'm not sure of the best way to change the lyrics, even if you change god to internet my original interpretation is still possible. This requires further thought.knight steel said:Thanks that means alot ^-^ [not many people of these forms/internet apologize so the fact that you did is really good] also your fairly new so WELCOME TO THE ESCAPIST don't go into the basement
Hmm I see what you mean by the god comment, I can't believe I overlooked that........what should I change the god lyrics too?
Black, but I don't think you're right about synthesis.Austin Manning said:
We can talk about what they said and what happened for eons, but you have to look at the ending as a separate beast. Besides which, star child said "We've tried synthesis but it always failed". Take it at face value, what is he asking?
I think he's asking for the singularity; not just the technological singularity but the Omega Point. "To remove the barriers to understanding so that peace and reign eternal". But the instant you completely understand someone else, I'm not going to say that individuality is gone; but questions are answered. A lot of questions... Picard, help us out here
http://youtu.be/Xh_t2fFF3B0?t=7m8s
Also, I stand by my Light Yagami comparision, reason being in both Death Note and the Control ending the protagonists are the sole authority. Shepard now has direct command over the most powerful death fleet in the universe and answers to no one, Light can determine the fate of everyone on the planet and answers to no one. The UN is a council in theory and everyone on that council is supposed to hold everyone else accountable.
The only difference between Shepard and Light is behaviour, but they are basically in the same position.
Disregarding the way Synthesis was awkwardly shoe-horned into the plot I see the situation as thus:The Ubermensch said:
The Star child wants peace between organics and synthetics this is true (depending on your interpretation of his character it is arguable that he is simply rationalizing his own betrayal so that it is in line with his programming) and something that both Shepard and I want. The problem is his methods, rather than his goals. To quote Picard "No being is so important that it may usurp the rights of another" which is exactly what the Star child is doing. Who is he to dictate that his idea of a utopia is correct, much less the pinnacle of evolution? He is simply trying to force his utopian ideals on the galaxy through violence, an evil act regardless of the outcome.
I stand by my previous statement: his actions are the equivalent of ensuring peace by eliminating anyone capable of war.
There are also problems with how he claims synthesis works as apparently it was only just as the Crucible docked that it became a possible outcome. How is it that organics were not ready earlier? Why were previous cycles unready and why did the Star child not give them time to become so instead of pureeing them into Reapers?
While I don't disagree with your Light Yagami comparison, he and Control Shepard are in the same position, it is the behaviour that matters, not the position. While Yagami's control only became a reign of terror because he made it so, killing anyone who disagreed with him. A paragon Shepard's control would not end in a reign of terror as they would not abuse the power that they sacrificed themselves for. Paragons only use force as last resort, preferring diplomacy and peaceful interaction. A renegade Shepard would probably end up more like Light.
Out of curiosity, where did you come up with the Black and White labels? I ask as I would like to do more research on them to see who formulated them and how they are applied.
But so what if the console was modified after the fight with Sovereing? The Reapers MADE The Citadel and the Mass Relays, repairing a console is NOTHING compared to those feats. They should have gone to the Citadel ASAP and no one would be able to stop them.ThriKreen said:
Did anyone noticed that the shoots of the fleet in that battle missed the Reapers, and are now heading towards Earth?? meaning that those proyectiles that each Dreadnoughts missed, and that have the more destructive power than an atomic bomb (acording to the Codex), will destroy Earth or at least initiate a nuclear winter.rhizhim said:reapers in mass effect 3
Opss.
Well the Council was most likely aboard the Destiny Ascension. Or even a human ship, after Udina's failed coup. Aria T'Loak perishing in an explosion or suffocating....Nope just don't see it happening. She and the rest of the population on the Citadel most likely died when the Reapers took control of the station(Eliminating everyone on board to fuel the next generation of Reapers and prevent a war from the inside where they knew; thanks to TIM, the Catalyst was) , sealed it and planted it in Earth's orbit. So KIA?Austin Manning said:
They all died.
Or maybe not, I don't know. Sheperd survived somehow, but he's Space-Jesus so that may help you with the impossible odds thing.
All in all, Bioware obviously didn't but that much thought into Mass Effect 3. Which is sad, 'cause I really liked ME1 and 2. Especially ME1. May very well be my favourite game of all time.
Or maybe not, I don't know. Sheperd survived somehow, but he's Space-Jesus so that may help you with the impossible odds thing.
All in all, Bioware obviously didn't but that much thought into Mass Effect 3. Which is sad, 'cause I really liked ME1 and 2. Especially ME1. May very well be my favourite game of all time.