Evolution cannot be given. It has to be achieved...

[JamesStone]

(Note: This discussion is about Mass Effect 3. If your only intervention here is to call the people who hated the ending entitled brats, or the people who liked it blind morons, then begone)

And here we are, almost one year after the ending discussion first started. One year has gone past and the flames of anger still burn deep into people's hearts. The consequences are there to see: DLC sales bombed compared to previous ones, BSN Mass Effect page suffered a massive withdrawl from members, and even though most people who disliked the endings left, many still remain, discussing it, in a battle impossible to win or lose, to even end. We have to ask ourselves why, and how, can a simple ending(s) do so much?

The obvious factors have been all set: horrendus writing pre-EC (and only subpar after), rushed Deus Ex Machina, complete inversion of all messages... we've all been there. But, in the last one, we have been forgeting an essencial piece, forgotten even by Bioware itself, it seems.

You see, part of the brilliancy of introducing indocrination into our heads was that we didn't realize when we were being indocrinated ourselves. Wait! I see you going for the close button, but I'm not talking about the endings. No, I'm talking about something much more primal, starting in Mass Effect 1. Evolution.

Many declare the main theme of Mass Effect hope, fight against all odds, survival and even syntho-organic war. But these people have been missing the most important of all themes.
Think back to Mass Effect. The Geth Heretics worship the Reapers, because they considered them the apex of evolution, the ultimate gods of the universe. As brilliantly said by Legion: "Geth build their own future. Heretics asked the old machines to build them a future". Putting it in layman's terms, the Heretics took the easy way out. They handled all decisions about their future to the Reapers, giving them the right to choose what they should do, how they should act, and how they should think, therefore defining the potential cultural growth of the next "generations". At first, this seems like quid pro quo. Machines always strive to improve themselves, right? Nothing strange there. But let's take a look foward.

We learn that everything apparently given to us by the universe/Protheans (Mass Relays, the Citadel, faster-than-light travel, FTL drives...) where all given to us by the Reapers, falling right into their trap. You see, we might have accepted the darkness, but they quite literally where born in it. We cannot expect to beat someone with a technique they master. By accepting their gifts, by letting them define our path, we walked right into the belly of the beast.

Can you see a similarity here? The galaxy time and time again met their demise by choosing to walk the layed road, instead of trying to construct theirs. By doing so, using the infrastructure given to them, they locked all other paths they could have taken, they were uplifted, they didn't evolve.

Uplifting, hey? What a familiar word. Isn't that what the salarians tried to do to the Krogan in the Rachni Wars? And why exactly didn't that work out? Mordin explains it quite well: They didn't work towards any of the advances they were given, their society didn't have the time to change to the technology they were presented. They were cavemen who where given detailed instructions how to manufacture and launch atomic bombs, but no lessons of the aftermath. And what is the only way to save the Krogan? To cure the genophage, to allow them to not be dependant on outside trade to survive, allowed them to shape their own destiny. Before, they were limited, only had one path. The genophage limited all their evolution to circle around it. Without it, all the doors locked before opened, and their fate will be determined by your actions.

We can also see the consequences of toying with technology we are not ready to handle. How could we be, if we weren't the ones who created it? The Illusive Man, whose story is as dark as it is tragic, thought he could control the technology the Reapers presented him, knowing full well it's effects. Kai Leng believed this technology would help him achieve perfection. They too were cavemen, and the effects left explained came in the form of indocrination.

This has always been the message of Mass Effect. Only we can make our path. Only we can say what we will do. We cannot expect to evolve if we let others build the roads we wil walk in. Evolution is not a gift. It's a reward, a goal, one that has no boundaries, and no endings. Because that's the problem when we let others build our path. Not only do they not know where we need to go, it eventually comes to a stop.

The endings, taken at face value, spit on these concepts. The fact that we all admit this shackled AI is flawed in its previous assesment and logic, but still use its solution spits on this concept. You know why we, devoted fans of the Mass Effect Universe, are still, all this time gone by, talking and complaining about the ending, asking for a new one, directions?

Because we were told we couldn't build our own path, that it was all a lie, that in the end, a greater being will have to decide what we can choose, what roads we can take. Destroy, Control, Synthesis, all the "successful" endings consist in taking the path the AI created, in following its logic, its reasoning, its perspectives in our evolution. And so, the idea that Bioware have been indocrinating us all this time came to an unlogical conclusion: You cannot make our own destiny. So we wait, for the path that will never come, the divine intervention that will never arrive, for the end which will never be. We wait, Bioware, we talk, we protest against the notion that our paths have to be set by others. Aren't we the co-creators of this beautiful game? Isn't that what you have said time and time again? Then why should I let someone else, my enemy, my nemesis, my executor tell me which way to go? I resist the indocrination, intentional or not, that I should let someone else set my path.

I create my own evolution, and I will keep discussing until either my Shepard can do the same, or I become so numb with this franchise that it doesn't matter anymore (There's always the option I have taken and headcanon things, but shut up, I'm making a epic final speech here).

 

[ShinyCharizard]

This series could have been the greatest thing to ever grace our medium. Unfortunately the developers lacked both time and ambition.

Ahh to think what could have been.....

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

That was an incredibly well written post, and I'm gonna leave it at that.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

And right from the second paragraph, you've demonstrated a complete lack of apathy for reality.

...somehow I doubt apathy is the word you intended to use there, unless you were pointing out the amount that the OP cares about reality. On a seperate note, I agree with the OP, although I thought individual character arcs were pretty good, the overarching story was badly written.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

And right from the second paragraph, you've demonstrated a complete lack of apathy for reality.

...somehow I doubt apathy is the word you intended to use there, unless you were pointing out the amount that the OP cares about reality.

Which was exactly what I meant.

It would be just great if it was possible to have a conversation about Mass Effect 3 online without inevitably running into people making claims that take less than a minute on Google to disprove, if not knowledge you'd have from one single playthrough of the game.

Oh...ok. So they're expecting the game to be too realistic...?

Many people who didn't like the way the story was handled have played the game, but since I'm not sure exactly the claims you're referring to, I can't really comment.

 

[Hargrimm]

Snip

I originally wanted to blast you for dredging up this discussion again, but since you brought some points I haven't seen covered by someone else, I won't.
Good job. I'll add it to the pile.

Spoiler

[http://imgur.com/89KRvPQ]

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know what pissed me off the most? How can a team of talented sci-fi writers NOT know what evolution is? How can they say that there is such a thing as "final evolution of life" like evolution is some kind of linear process towards perfection. And that someone can give it to you? Oh, right. Writers didn't say that. Casey Hudson did. Fuckin' idiot ruined everything.

I actually like what they did with the Leviathans, though. It's terrifying. We now have this race of arrogant godlike creatures that are responsible for the horror that plagued the the galaxy for millions of years. Which only makes the ending so much worse because it becomes clear that the only proper way to end Mass Effect 3 is by ending that threat and freeing the galaxy of that horror once and for all. We shouldn't be forced to even listen to a fuckin' A.I. and his flawed logic, and we definitely shouldn't accept what it says as absolute truth.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

So basically, your argument consists of "A character has an opinion. HOW DARE THE WRITERS HAVE THAT OPINION, because obviously if a character has an opinion, the writers share that opinion?!" You desperately want to believe that the writers share the opinion merely so you can scream your head off about it.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you just said.

Addendum: And as I've just remembered, in the Extended Cut epilogue for Synthesis, EDI muses about how life could continue to advance after Synthesis. So much for your belief that the writers think the way you wish they thought simply so you could complain about it.

Right. But first you have to accept what the stupid A.I. says about synthesis being the final evolution of life. Did you just conveniently forget that? The Catalyst's entire argument in favor of synthesis rests on ignorance about what evolution is. What EDI says is something Bioware tacked on later in the DLC. Which only makes the whole thing worse because they forgot to fix the dialogue for The Catalyst. As long as he's able to pronounce that dumb line it doesn't matter what EDI says.

And really, repeating the ignorant Retaker rhetoric that one person wrote the ending doesn't make it any more accurate, it only makes you look more delusional and disrespectful.

Right. That would be fine if Patrick Weekes didn't confirm on Penny Arcade that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters did it without any input from the rest of the team. And guess which one of them is in charge. Or do you think that Mac Walters said "hey, Casey, let's write the ending together, just you and me. Fuck other writers". Which one is more likely to be in charge, lead writer or executive producer?

Anti-ending ignorance at its finest.

Sure thing. Because an A.I. who's had millions of years to learn what evolution is and failed makes a lot of sense.

Yes, the uplifting of the krogan turned out badly. But let's look to another race that had been uplifted. This race turned out for the better due to their uplifting; in fact, they became one of the largest and most powerful races in the galaxy. As you learn on Thessia, the asari were uplifted by the Protheans. Worked out well for them, wouldn't you say?

Sure, if you limit the word "uplifting" to a single interpretation that suits your argument.

The asari were guided over a long period of time. The krogan were basically given the technology before they were ready. They were given guns and told to go and kill rachni. Those are two very different ways of uplifting.

 

[Ranorak]

So basically, your argument consists of "A character has an opinion. HOW DARE THE WRITERS HAVE THAT OPINION, because obviously if a character has an opinion, the writers share that opinion?!" You desperately want to believe that the writers share the opinion merely so you can scream your head off about it.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you just said.

I believe it's the following:
"If a character in a story believes something to be true, does not mean that the writer holds the same believe."

Or, the character might be wrong.

 

[WanderingFool]

Oh, a thread about Evolution, how scandoulous...

*opens thread and sees its about ME3*

Ill give you points for a nice write-up, but thats about it.

 

[JamesStone]

To hell with it, I'm just going to rip this apart to make it clear just how flawed the OP's line of thought it.

DLC sales bombed compared to previous ones

Which is why Leviathan was one of the top downloads the week it was released?

BSN Mass Effect page suffered a massive withdrawl from members

The reason Mass Effect fans decided to leave the BSN was because ending-bashers decided that the BSN belonged to them and that every thread should be derailed into the topic they wanted to whine about. All of my experience with ending-bashers (heck, BioWare-bashers in general) make it obvious that they try to make an environment as hostile to actual fans as they can, simply so they can drive away everyone who disagrees with them and then proclaim that their opinion is the only opinion.

rushed Deus Ex Machina

Beginning of game: "Shepard, you need this in order to resolve the conflict." End of game: "Shepard, you can use this to resolve the conflict."

The galaxy time and time again met their demise by choosing to walk the layed road, instead of trying to construct theirs. By doing so, using the infrastructure given to them, they locked all other paths they could have taken, they were uplifted, they didn't evolve.
...
We can also see the consequences of toying with technology we are not ready to handle. How could we be, if we weren't the ones who created it?

And how convenient that you overlook all of the benefits from the technology that galatic civilization inherited. Numerous valuable assets are gained from Reaper tech: Thanix cannons, the Reaper IFF, and EDI. Without the advanced technology gained from the previous cycles and the Reapers, galatic civilization would have had little chance against the Reapers.

Uplifting, hey? What a familiar word.

Yes, the uplifting of the krogan turned out badly. But let's look to another race that had been uplifted. This race turned out for the better due to their uplifting; in fact, they became one of the largest and most powerful races in the galaxy. As you learn on Thessia, the asari were uplifted by the Protheans. Worked out well for them, wouldn't you say?

The fact that we all admit this shackled AI is flawed in its previous assesment and logic, but still use its solution spits on this concept.
...
Because we were told we couldn't build our own path, that it was all a lie, that in the end, a greater being will have to decide what we can choose, what roads we can take. Destroy, Control, Synthesis, all the "successful" endings consist in taking the path the AI created, in following its logic, its reasoning, its perspectives in our evolution.

And here is the part where you demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of Mass Effect 3.

Destroy and Control are not the Catalyst's options. Destroy is the option that the rest of the galaxy took; Control is what the Illusive Man sought. The Catalyst's option is Synthesis - this is the only option it introduces, the only option where it doesn't refer to the people who have sought this option. In fact, the Catalyst explicitly tells you that Destroy is not a solution to its problem - nothing will prevent future generations from creating new synthetics. When you actually acknowledge its logic, its reasoning, and its perspectives, it becomes obvious that the option it provides to you - the option it wishes you to take - is the one option that provides a guaranteed solution to its problem. Synthesis.

Then why should I let someone else, my enemy, my nemesis, my executor tell me which way to go?

Because a character who wants to help you, is willing to help you choose an option that it condemns, is your "nemesis".

You choose your own path all throughout Mass Effect. But you are never in a clearing where you can walk in whatever direction you choose. You are always presented with a set of doors you can choose to go through, and which doors you go through is up to you. Those doors are the options available to you, and whining and wishing there were more doors is not reason for more doors to appear.

Lack of victory with absolute freedom - the ability to make whatever choice you wish and still win the war, regardless of everything you'd been told previously - is not a total lack of freedom. You decide Shepard's path in the end. Merely because you do not have the option to walk through a wall does not change that fact.

So, you don't deny the BSN suffered a withdrawl from its members? That's my first point.
Second, compare Leviathan with the previous story driven DLC, Lair of the Shadow Broker. You'll be enlighted.
The asari's uplifition was ultimately their doom. Even when the Reapers attacked, they refused to give the beacon to other races/letting them study it, and thanks to that Thessia fell. Yeah, ended up pretty well.
Are those advantages really worth the price we payed? These technologies only exist because the Reapers allowed it, and only for the purpose of being a trap. You are simply thinking on the short run.
You are delusioned if you think Control and Destroy aren't the Reapers' options. Control is only possible because the Reapers decided it would be possible. Destroy is only possible because the Catalyst decided you could blow up that energy lock. They are literally controlling your path.

And no, you cannot walk through a wall, but you can jump over it. What the endings represented were a reality where no one decided to even try to jump over it, and instead went around it, only to fall into a mousetrap. Also, you were exactly the type of person I tried to keep away from this discussion. Arrogant, dogmatic, and unable to see any other point. Go away please.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

So basically, your argument consists of "A character has an opinion. HOW DARE THE WRITERS HAVE THAT OPINION, because obviously if a character has an opinion, the writers share that opinion?!" You desperately want to believe that the writers share the opinion merely so you can scream your head off about it.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you just said.

I believe it's the following:
"If a character in a story believes something to be true, does not mean that the writer holds the same believe."

Or, the character might be wrong.

I know that. I just don't know why he said it. It didn't serve any point whatsoever. Of course the Catalyst is wrong. And it wouldn't matter if the Catalyst wasn't this super advanced and logical A.I. Such an "opinion" contradicts the very nature of what the Catalyst is supposed to be. It should be impossible for an ancient A.I. with a single purpose of preserving organic life to not know what evolution is and how it works. He designed the Reapers to harvest advanced civilizations. He must know what evolution is in order to do that. And yet he clearly doesn't. Are we supposed to believe that out of all the information the Catalyst collected for millions of years about organics, it just slipped his mind to learn a thing or two about evolution. That's an example of terrible writing. You can't even try to deny it without looking like an idiot.

That would be fine if Patrick Weekes didn't confirm on Penny Arcade that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters did it without any input from the rest of the team.

You mean a delusional troll trying to impersonate Patrick Weekes, because not only has Weekes repeatedly denied that he made that post and everyone at BioWare has stated that they know it wasn't Weekes, the post attributed to "him" is completely inaccurate and claims that there is no different in the damage throughout the galaxy based on EMS when in fact there are clear distinctions between low-EMS and high-EMS endings.

That post by "Patrick Weekes" was really just a delusional, pathetic troll who knew that their stance had absolutely no basis in reality, so they decided to try to shove deceitful and false words into a BioWare writer's mouth in an attempt to validate their movement. Which, considering the usual antics of the anti-ending movement, isn't surprising at all - they're more concerned with trying to rewrite reality than acknowledging reality.

It was his account. I guess you could try to make an argument that his account was hacked but there's no evidence for that. You've already shown us your inability to think logically and now you're demonstrating how naive you are. Keep up the good work.

 

[TreuloseTomate]

Wait. I don't care who actually wrote that ending. It's still terrible.

 

[evilneko]

Sir Isaac "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" Newton would like a word with you. It is precisely by building on the work of our predecessors that we advance. To put it another way, by you it would've been a mistake to re-use Roman roads rather than tear them up and build our own. You'd have us reinvent the wheel every time we wanted a new car. How silly is that?

 

[Apollo45]

Can I just say that I love it when the other side can't be bothered to try to provide a counterargument and instead squeals "GTFO troll"?

My dear, from your very first post you've been needlessly hostile, something the OP mentioned at the very beginning that he didn't want in this thread. Of course, this is a free forum and you're entitled to do what you want with your posts, but the fact remains that he was looking for a decent discussion on the endings, and to try and add something to the conversations with his own thoughts. You, on the other hand, took three posts to even address his thoughts and instead just called him a liar from the start. That's not something that will ever get people to discuss things calmly with you. Furthermore, you continue to insist on being relatively hostile towards people who disagree even slightly with your opinion. It's not the worst I've seen, but it's pretty bad. You generalize those that think the ending was poor as idiots, and you've done the very thing that you've said you hated (making claims that take less than a minute to disprove). Your arguments have some validity to them, and I'll go through them and make my own claims in a minute, but I wanted to preface this with an attempt to let you know that you're being a tool, and if you want people to discuss things with you in a friendly manner you should treat them more kindly than you did. Anyway, on to the topic.

To hell with it, I'm just going to rip this apart to make it clear just how flawed the OP's line of thought it.

DLC sales bombed compared to previous ones

Which is why Leviathan was one of the top downloads the week it was released?

Second, compare Leviathan with the previous story driven DLC, Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Don't you mean Arrival?

It took me less than a minute to confirm that. You really couldn't spare the time?

Being one of the top downloads in the week it was released isn't difficult. I personally can't find any sales numbers, and maybe that's just me being shitty at using Google, so would you mind dropping me a reference link to where you got your numbers?

BSN Mass Effect page suffered a massive withdrawl from members

The reason Mass Effect fans decided to leave the BSN was because ending-bashers decided that the BSN belonged to them and that every thread should be derailed into the topic they wanted to whine about. All of my experience with ending-bashers (heck, BioWare-bashers in general) make it obvious that they try to make an environment as hostile to actual fans as they can, simply so they can drive away everyone who disagrees with them and then proclaim that their opinion is the only opinion.

Just because your experience with ending-bashers is negative doesn't mean you've met everyone who dislikes the ending, or even most of them. My experience with ending-bashers has been generally positive. Sure, you get the group that will make things hostile, but you also get the group on the other side that makes everything hostile by doing things like calling people liars without adding any context, or using the words "Entitled" and "Artistic Integrity" and whatnot liberally with little to no actual meaning. Frankly, my experience with the ending-defenders has been worse than with the bashers, simply because the majority of those I've talked to don't want to discuss is rationally, ignoring comments about the writing quality as "opinion" despite generous evidence to it being shitty and pulling stuff as ridiculous as the Indoctrination Theory out of their asses. I'm not by any means saying that you're like that, or that all of the Defenders are like that, but I am saying that those people are on both sides and neither one covers the entire group.

As an ending-basher myself, I left the BSN because the ending was horrible and nothing meaningful was going to be changed about it. There was no point in arguing for the series that I had loved any more; those who made the game didn't care, and there was nothing left to discuss. The place is as toxic as it is right now because those who were arguing rationally left a long time ago when there were no results, leaving only those on both sides who are simply toxic people. Either way, however, they lost a ton of their most dedicated fans in the debacle.

rushed Deus Ex Machina

Beginning of game: "Shepard, you need this in order to resolve the conflict." End of game: "Shepard, you can use this to resolve the conflict."

The Cricuble isn't what we're talking about, or at least it's not what I consider to be a Deus Ex Machina in the course of the game (although if you take it in the course of the series then it could most certainly be seen that way). The Crucible is a MacGuffin, an item that drives the plot forward more than anything else. Those aren't bad things, although this could've been done so much better. MacGuffins are part of many excellent narratives, and when used right they add to the story instead of detracting from it. The Deus Ex Machina lies in the Catalyst himself, and it's clearly a poorly thought out one. This kid, who has never been seen before in the game, never been referred to, lives in the Citadel and apparently is the mastermind behind everything. He controls the Reapoers, he can stop them whenever he wants to. He is, essentially, a God as far as the Reapers are concerned, and he can apparently control everything in the galaxy by waving his hand. Sure, the Crucible opened up some additional options for him, but that's a sketchy reason at best to refuse to call him a Deus Ex Machina. It's essentially like finding a Genie in a bottle at the very last second of a story and wishing for your problems to go away. If you want another excellent example of a Deus Ex Machina in a science fiction universe, look at Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy. It's a similar situation, with a god character that is literally coming from a machine being introduced at the last minute to solve all the problems, which is exactly what happens in both situations.

There are many problems with the Catalyst as a character though. For one, he is essentially the Citadel, and is able to observe everything going on in the Citadel. So, knowing that, when Sovreign showed up in the first game why didn't he just open up the Citadel Relay himself to bring the rest of the Reapers in? Why did he even need Sovreign in the first place when he could observe the development of the Galaxy by himself? There are plenty more reasons that the Catalyst is both a Deus Ex Machina and an idiot, but most of those have been said already and I'm guessing you're tired of them.

The galaxy time and time again met their demise by choosing to walk the layed road, instead of trying to construct theirs. By doing so, using the infrastructure given to them, they locked all other paths they could have taken, they were uplifted, they didn't evolve.
...
We can also see the consequences of toying with technology we are not ready to handle. How could we be, if we weren't the ones who created it?

And how convenient that you overlook all of the benefits from the technology that galatic civilization inherited. Numerous valuable assets are gained from Reaper tech: Thanix cannons, the Reaper IFF, and EDI. Without the advanced technology gained from the previous cycles and the Reapers, galatic civilization would have had little chance against the Reapers.

True, but contrast that with other Reaper/Prothean tech that was left around. Beacons that ended up nearly scrambling Shepard's brain, derelict Reapers that managed to indoctrinate entire crews of people that were trying to control it, even EDI herself who posed the risk of turning against her creators and, in the end, did exactly that when she betrayed the Illusive Man. Hell, look at the Relay system and the Citadel, both of which were created with the express purpose of guiding civilization to make it as easy to destroy as possible. There are plenty of situations where technology left behind helped the galaxy, but in most if not all of those situations the users had a working understanding of the tech before they used it. Thanix cannons weren't super-highly advanced. The characters knew what they were and how they worked. The Reaper IFF was gained after knowing what it was and fighting through the Reaper itself to get to it. EDI was a huge risk that managed to pay off because Shepard took the time to earn her loyalty one way or another. The message here is more that technology acquired through no work of your own - and therefore having little understanding of it - is not a good thing. But when it's acquired through hard work, even if part of that work is "standing on the shoulders of giants", since you understand it you can use it.

Uplifting, hey? What a familiar word.

Yes, the uplifting of the krogan turned out badly. But let's look to another race that had been uplifted. This race turned out for the better due to their uplifting; in fact, they became one of the largest and most powerful races in the galaxy. As you learn on Thessia, the asari were uplifted by the Protheans. Worked out well for them, wouldn't you say?

The asari's uplifition was ultimately their doom. Even when the Reapers attacked, they refused to give the beacon to other races/letting them study it, and thanks to that Thessia fell. Yeah, ended up pretty well.

So in other words, it wasn't because they were uplifted, it was because they were stupid.

Again, it's a matter of teaching versus gifting. The Krogan were handed all the weapons in the world and allowed to run free. The Asari were taught about those things and developed them themselves. They figured things out and understood the consequences of what they were being given because they were patiently taught about the technology, allowed to develop much of it themselves, where the Krogan were handed the keys to a car without any lessons on how to drive. That's where the uplifting, and not walking your own path, seems to doom a civilization.

The fact that we all admit this shackled AI is flawed in its previous assesment and logic, but still use its solution spits on this concept.
...
Because we were told we couldn't build our own path, that it was all a lie, that in the end, a greater being will have to decide what we can choose, what roads we can take. Destroy, Control, Synthesis, all the "successful" endings consist in taking the path the AI created, in following its logic, its reasoning, its perspectives in our evolution.

And here is the part where you demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of Mass Effect 3.

Destroy and Control are not the Catalyst's options. Destroy is the option that the rest of the galaxy took; Control is what the Illusive Man sought. The Catalyst's option is Synthesis - this is the only option it introduces, the only option where it doesn't refer to the people who have sought this option. In fact, the Catalyst explicitly tells you that Destroy is not a solution to its problem - nothing will prevent future generations from creating new synthetics. When you actually acknowledge its logic, its reasoning, and its perspectives, it becomes obvious that the option it provides to you - the option it wishes you to take - is the one option that provides a guaranteed solution to its problem. Synthesis.

You are delusioned if you think Control and Destroy aren't the Reapers' options. Control is only possible because the Reapers decided it would be possible. Destroy is only possible because the Catalyst decided you could blow up that energy lock. They are literally controlling your path.

Explain how the Reapers decide that Control would be possible. Explain how the Catalyst gives you the ability to shoot something. The Catalyst is telling you how you can carry out the options that you were told by others could be possible through the Crucible. The Catalyst does not decide "yes, you can do that"; the Catalyst tells you "yes, you can do that".

The Catalyst decides everything in this situation. He lets you up on the platform, he decides what your options are. The Catalyst is the Citadel, and the RBG stations are a part of the Citadel. They might have only formed after the Crucible connected, but they are nevertheless a part of what the Catalyst decides you can do. They are, in the end, what he allows you to accomplish, since he could allow you to do anything at that moment. If he chose to he could stop the Reapers from attacking without you blowing up a glowing-red glass tube. He could hand over control of them to you without you being electrocuted. The only one he can't do without you is Synthesis, so really that's the only one that is partially your choice. I personally have problems with forced "evolution" like that, but that's just me. In every case, however, you're only allowed to choose those because he lets you, which is further proved by him decided to get all pissy when you put a bullet through his holographic face in the EC ending. If he doesn't want you to do something, you won't do it. You, in fact, were never told by others that something would be possible through the Crucible. Throughout the entire game, right up until the point where the Catalyst appears, you and the rest of the galaxy including the Reapers have no clue what the Crucible is going to do.

Then why should I let someone else, my enemy, my nemesis, my executor tell me which way to go?

Because a character who wants to help you, is willing to help you choose an option that it condemns, is your "nemesis".

You choose your own path all throughout Mass Effect. But you are never in a clearing where you can walk in whatever direction you choose. You are always presented with a set of doors you can choose to go through, and which doors you go through is up to you. Those doors are the options available to you, and whining and wishing there were more doors is not reason for more doors to appear.

Lack of victory with absolute freedom - the ability to make whatever choice you wish and still win the war, regardless of everything you'd been told previously - is not a total lack of freedom. You decide Shepard's path in the end. Merely because you do not have the option to walk through a wall does not change that fact.

What the endings represented were a reality where no one decided to even try to jump over it, and instead went around it, only to fall into a mousetrap.

Where's the mousetrap, then? A not-perfectly-happy ending? All of the options bring an end to the Reaper cycles, the entire point of the Crucible and the main goal of the series. There's no "jumping over walls" because there's no reason to assume there's anything on the other side of the walls, that there's no reason to believe that there are other options for the Crucible to bring an end to the cycles.

While your points here are true to an extent, they end up boiling down to shitty writing on the part of the writers. They throw out all of the themes and options you were given throughout the series in order to have you walk through one of three doors. That's where the difference between this choice and all of the other choices in the games lie. Regardless of what happens after you choose Red, Blue or Green, during the scene you're only given three choices that don't change no matter what you did in any of the previous games. The highlights of all three games have come when you're given a few choices, but if you did things right you were given that extra choice to do something awesome. That presents itself in the first game when you can use your influence to save Wrex in what is the highlight of that game for many people. In the second one it comes in many places, but the highlight is the Suicide Mission, where if you've earned your squadmate's loyalty and make the right choices you can choose to save everyone. In the third game it comes during Mordin's sacrifice, where you're given more and more options based on what you've done in all the previous games. You can stop him or you can let him go. Or you can inform him of the danger, or you can hide what you did, and so on. All of those things come in to play, and all of those things are based on what you did beforehand. The ending gives you exactly three choices (four technically, if you could shooting the kid) every time, no matter what you did or how you acted. Three choices. If the choices were decent ones that felt earned then it wouldn't be bad, but they're not so they end up being an example of some really poor writing and not much more.

Choice in Mass Effect was centered around the choices you made before. The aftereffects were all well and good, but when you were given a choice that you wouldn't have been otherwise had you done different things, that's what made the series feel great. The ending laughed in the face of that, and was worse off for it. The writer's made a whole bunch of poor decisions, and they all came back to bite them in the ass at the end of the series. The writing was demonstrably not good by generally accepted standards, with extraordinarily poor pacing, glaring plot holes, and what is both literally and figuratively a Deus Ex Machina popping out of nowhere at the end. OP managed to present another very well-written point - one that I had never heard before - to the argument, further strengthening that side.

At any rate, I'd love to discuss this further with you, but I'd like to do it rationally and calmly. I've got more I'd like to add, but this post is long enough as is and I'm damned hungry. Hopefully this is a decent addressing of your points, and if you see anything I got wrong please point it out. I wrote this fairly quickly, so I may have missed a few things.

 

[ThriKreen]

And here is the part where you demonstrate your complete and utter ignorance of Mass Effect 3.

Destroy and Control are not the Catalyst's options. Destroy is the option that the rest of the galaxy took; Control is what the Illusive Man sought. The Catalyst's option is Synthesis - this is the only option it introduces, the only option where it doesn't refer to the people who have sought this option. In fact, the Catalyst explicitly tells you that Destroy is not a solution to its problem - nothing will prevent future generations from creating new synthetics. When you actually acknowledge its logic, its reasoning, and its perspectives, it becomes obvious that the option it provides to you - the option it wishes you to take - is the one option that provides a guaranteed solution to its problem. Synthesis.

Ding. Someone gets it.

People seem to have missed the part where the Reapers themselves admitted they hit a dead end and could not advance anymore and solve their problem - even if you take the various alternate problems and endings: synthetics, dark energy, whatever - thus the cycle to maintain the status quo. Until something was found.

Until humanity. Until Shepard.

 

[ThriKreen]

They throw out all of the themes and options you were given throughout the series in order to have you walk through one of three doors.

Why must the choices be resolved at the end in some dénouement? They came full circle during ME3 - the genophage, the geth, the rachni. And they still influenced the ending slightly via the EMS value for their completion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

(Note: This discussion is about Mass Effect 3...)

And with that, this discussion has already lost all merit and value.
Not solely on the account of the subject matter, but on account of what I've seen the Escapist community's response to ME3.

A shame, because the initial premise of the topic title seemed genuinely interesting.

"Abandon all Hope Ye Who Enter Here"

 

[Nieroshai]

You miss another point then. You have never had more choice than you had at the end. There was three in the beginning. There was three throughout. And there was three in the end. You took three steps to get here, had three choices at every stop, and only three of you ever forged the path at any one time.

In the end what you fail to see is that there were only ever three choices on the table. The Reapers must be destroyed somehow, or else disabled... but where's that final corner of the sacred triangle? Oh right, your third choice: take initiative and level the playing field.

You honestly don't know what Deus Ex Machina is. It is when a plot gets so out of control and hopelessly tangled that the writer steps in at the very end and makes everything resolve itself or else, without explaining why. The Crucible wasn't just some last minute revelation. It was the focus of the entire game, and the Protheans and prior civilizations gave their lives to contribute to it. Not only wasn't it a last minute miracle, it existed before the story even started.

 

[LetalisK]

To this day I like to cling to Indoctrination Theory. I know it's not canon and it never will be, but it makes the story and ending so much more interesting to me. That and its grimness seems appropriate.

Not that I had a huge problem with the endings besides that it felt really rushed.