Mass Effect 3: Casey Hudson's Largest FUBAR

[dreadedcandiru99]

Ugh...I guess I'm just venting now because of Gamesradar. I read an article on it that opened with: "I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

and then went on for two pages saying we're wrong, entitled, etc. Got under my skin a little what with GR being one of my favourite sites.

Rocking the boat is kinda fun though.

I read an article on it that opened with:
"I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

"I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet."

...wow. Okay, that would have been the point at which I'd stop reading.

 

[Tono Makt]

Really hoping it's #2. Would be even happier if the ending turns out to cost far less than $10.

You're hoping that they intentionally withheld an ending, just so they could charge you additional money to complete the game and do as promised.

Well, that's reasonable.

Given the two choices presented in the post you declined to quote and essentially taking my comment out of context, yes. It's perfectly reasonable.

Turning off the sarcasm, it's unreasonable to expect that Bioware is going to release a "better*" ending (or my preference, make the endings apples, blueberries and watermelon, instead of the choice between granny smith, mcintosh or golden delicious that we currently have) for free. If we're going to get something "better", we're going to be paying for it. It's going to be grating, and it's going to be difficult to press that "purchase" button but we're going to do it if they offer it.

Perfect world? They would admit that they promised us one thing (your choices and actions over three entire games will matter) and gave us the opposite (nigh-identical endings regardless of your choices and actions in any game), they would apologize for letting the fans down, and would release a free download of a "proper*" ending. Since we don't live in a perfect world, I'm hoping that we'll get $4.99 DLC to give us a proper ending to the Mass Effect Trilogy.

* Better/Proper endings being endings in which the actions and choices that the player has made have significant impact on the outcome, as well as there being substantive and difference between the endings.
Example: Destroy the Reapers, destroy the Mass Relays, galaxy is "saved", but now Earth has hundreds of thousands of aliens stranded in orbit - many of which are going to starve to death very shortly. (Turian/Quarian) The Stargazer and the Child talk about "The Shepherd", and how the Shepherd destroyed the Reapers forever.
Control the Reapers, Control the Mass Relays, order Harbinger to retreat back into dark space... and it flies off. (maybe toss in a "By your command" comment from Harbinger for s and g) Citadel flies off, people are elated that the Reapers are going, but are confused and scared because the Reapers just left. The Stargazer and the Child talk about "The Shepherd", and how the Shepherd drove the Reapers back into the darkness of space, never to be seen again.
Synthesize organic and synthetic life, something weird happens like Shepherd begins to talk through Harbinger. You see your two squad mates who didn't make it to the Citadel, nearly dead on the battlefield, enveloped by that green light and circuitry seems to take over their blood vessels and "stitching up" their wounds. Then they stand up, looking confused and awed at the new change. The Stargazer and the Child talk about "The Shepherd", and how the Shepherd brought about the miraculous change that turned everyone and everything in the galaxy into beings united by a shared synthesis between organic and synthetic life.

Are these GOOD examples? Maybe not. But they're vastly different from one another, making each choice obviously mean something. That's currently lacking, and where I have the biggest beef with the ending.

 

[anthony87]

Ugh...I guess I'm just venting now because of Gamesradar. I read an article on it that opened with: "I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

and then went on for two pages saying we're wrong, entitled, etc. Got under my skin a little what with GR being one of my favourite sites.

Rocking the boat is kinda fun though.

I read an article on it that opened with:
"I don't know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don't care. I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I'm still working through the first one at the moment."

"I haven't even played Mass Effect 3 yet."

...wow. Okay, that would have been the point at which I'd stop reading.

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

No. This still makes no ****ing sense. Why even do that to begin with if they're going to be exterminated? Why let them rise up to begin with?

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

(snip)

(additional snip)

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

This reminds me, I need to find that Reddit thread where somebody posted a screenshot of Jim Sterling and a bunch of other guys having an ever-so-classy Twitter shit-fit about the guy who writes the articles for Forbes. You know, Forbes? The business magazine that's been pwning these gaming journalists with surprising regularity since this whole mess started?

Right, that Forbes.

EDIT: Oh, another thing, about these unceasing cries of "artistic integrity": where were they a few months ago, when a Mass Effect novel came out that was so utterly awful that Bioware wound up agreeing to have it rewritten?

 

[Darkcerb]

EA: Here's what's gonna happen Casey, you and Mac are gonna take control of this thing and end it.

Casey: Why?

EA: Well, see... if we put the ending in your and Mac Daddies hands instead of giving the fans what they were promised, they'll will rise up en mass and demand something new and then we'll be able to give them just that.

Casey: Or... we could just give them-

EA: No... the plans have been set in motion.

thats unfair.

the reapers somewhat had a point!

Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.

Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

Except that alot of us have a fleet of quarians and geth that the god child pretends doesn't exist. Catalyst my foot, sheperd is the catalyst he/she is the agent of change tzeentch would be proud.

 

[jensenthejman]

Simply put, Mac should only ever write characters, Drew should write story/lore. And they should goddamn ALWAYS be up for constructive criticism.

^Pretty much this.

 

[anthony87]

(snip)

(additional snip)

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

This reminds me, I need to find that Reddit thread where somebody posted a screenshot of Jim Sterling and a bunch of other guys having an ever-so-classy Twitter shit-fit about the guy who writes the articles for Forbes. You know, Forbes? The business magazine that's been pwning these gaming journalists with surprising regularity since this whole mess started?

Right, that Forbes.

EDIT: Oh, another thing, about these unceasing cries of "artistic integrity": where were they a few months ago, when a Mass Effect novel came out that was so utterly awful that Bioware wound up agreeing to have it rewritten?

Awh man, why would Jim be bashing Forbes? I thought he was one of the few who actually understood why people were pissed off?

Oh well, at least we've still got Shamus not jumping on the "whiners" bandwagon.

 

[Killertje]

Don't insult us, is the first thing you assume simply "lol they're just too dumb to like the ending"? Because the ending isn't particularly clever, philosophical or new, it's simplistic, cliche and insulting.

First off, cut it with the antagonistic remarks; I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, which is quite difficult to say when the truth of the matter is that the ending is making leaps of logic which most simply cannot follow. That doesn't mean the average player is "dumb", just that the conveying of the higher-level ideas weren't conveyed well enough. Instead of ideas flowing from A to B to C and so on, they went all the way from A to Z in one step without explaining it. While this can make the game more entertaining for a sophisticated audience... it's still a problem, because that audience quickly shrinks to nothing.

Nevertheless, that sort of behaviour is part of what's getting in the way of people understanding the ending -- they're jumping to conclusions. It's a case of where you have to sit back and look at the big picture, not just from your perspective. As I remarked in my earlier post, the patterns are more important than the details. This was repeated several times throughout the series, and the value of information was made quite clear... so why is almost everyone looking at the details? They're easier to wrap your mind around, that's why.

Mass Effect fans are smarter then you think, most of them have already deconstructed, analyzed and reconstructed every possible meaning behind the ending, to the point where people have developed a conspiracy theory centered around the minute details throughout the entire game. We've written VOLUMES about why the ending doesn't work and you honestly think it's because it just went over our heads?

Having read the link, I'm seeing the exact same problem. Getting bogged down in the details, not looking at the big picture. All of the details are hinting towards something which the vast majority of people are overlooking:

Spoiler

"The created will always rebel against the creators, leading to the extinction of all organic life."

So who are the creators? For the geth, it was the quarians. The quarians forcibly tried to shut them all down when they started showing signs of sentience, and the geth proved to be much better at self-defense than anyone realized. Even if the geth didn't directly rebel, it was made quite clear that they were much better at fighting than the quarians; the second half of the statement above is true. The first half? The exception doesn't make the rule, and players aren't privy to any other organic-synthetic conflict beyond Javik's offhand referral to the "Metacon War" from the last cycle.

But again, who are the creators?
Who is it that dictates the evolution of organic life along the lines they have determined?
Who built the Mass Relays and the Citadel?
Who is every single advanced organic species fighting against to survive?
Who is quelling a rebellion against the ascension to a higher form of life?

The Reapers are the creators of galactic society.

Sometimes, the answer is simpler than it looks. The Reapers, led by the Catalyst, aren't truly evil. Their methods are harsh, but it is "for the greater good"... from a certain point of view. They control the patterns, the pathways upon which advanced societies evolve; they've had millions of years to learn how to indirectly manipulate societies to bend to their will, in addition of direct manipulation through indoctrination.

---

And now onto some speculation.

As stated, Reapers are working "for the greater good"; guiding sentient species towards galactic society on paths they have determined. They have plenty of methods for indirect manipulation, but indoctrination was always viewed as a negative... but could it be used for good as well? Quite possibly, a way for them to keep things moving on the track they've made without too much deviation; at worst, you have the occassional mad genius who invents something special. Clever, but never stated in the material.

The other thing is... what are the Reapers monitoring for when they start their harvest? Sovereign was watching for something, but everyone is assuming it was a certain technological threshold. How about the development of sentient AIs? As Javik mentioned, the "Metacon War" was underway just before the Reapers hit. For the ME-cycle, it was the geth; the synthetic species were able to defend themselves so well that they drove the quarians from their homeworld, the conflict between organic and synthetic sentients had begun. But before any organic species ended up completely wiped out due to this, it was time for the Reapers to come in for their harvest and to "ascend" those species to the form of a Reaper themselves; but the Protheans had "fixed" the Keepers, preventing things from going as planned. Interestingly, why would Sovereign be insulted by the geth worshiping him as if he were a god? Because he's there to save organic life (not that they'd like it) and (possibly) wipe out the sentient AI synthetics which started the conflict (nothing against using them as a resource, however; preferrably as disposable as possible).

... Or maybe not.

The geth are an anomaly, they did not rebel and only defended themselves; pretty damn well, but they weren't antagonistic. The conflict still existed, but the nature of it had changed. The geth proved the Reapers were wrong. Their belief that all organic life would be destroyed by synthetics was no longer an absolute truth, so perhaps it was time for the cycle of harvesting to end. The Crucible has been passed down from cycle to cycle, perhaps even originating from the Reapers themselves; should it ever come to pass that the Reapers are wrong and the cycle must end, the Crucible is how they would manipulate another species into ending it for them. How it should end couldn't be made by the Reaper themselves, as they were just proven wrong; so the one who proved them wrong should make the decision.

By reaching the Catalyst, Shepard proved the Reapers were wrong.

But this raises an interesting dilemna, could the indoctrination theory be true? Could the Reapers be subtly indoctrinating Shepard to lead him/her down the path needed to end the cycle? As far as I can tell, the only way it makes sense is if the Reapers were deliberately trying to get Shepard to end the cycle. Why would the Catalyst appear before him as a child in order to make him/her feel the guilt of not being able to save everyone and all the more driven to stop the Reapers?

Which brings us to the final decision... the Catalyst brought both Shepard and the completed Crucible to itself, and leaves the decision of how to end the cycle of Reaper harvests to Shepard. The Catalyst removes any restraints at this point, it is a decision only Shepard can make.

Destroy the Reapers, ending the harvest but allowing for the possibility of a synthetic species to obliterate all organics without anything to stop them?

Control the Reapers, ending the harvest... until another organic-synthetic conflict arises and the Reapers are needed again to preserve organic life? And possibly to set species back to the pre-space-flight technology era so that it doesn't happen constantly?

Or use the Crucible to synthesize organic and synthetic species into a new life form, removing the reason for the conflict in the first place?

It's far too easy to focus on the "What?", but it's often the "Why?" which is more important.

Some interesting points in your spoiler, thanks for that!

I still don't like the choices the ending gives though.

Spoiler

Nothing explains how Shepard's disintegration makes him magically control the reapers or fuse organics and synthetics together (and what the hell does that even mean?). And why do the Geth and your own implants have to die if you just want to destroy the reapers? And what DOES happen to your squad and all the races you managed to save? Is all that just unimportant because it's all about the patterns? I think not.

I don't mind if Shepard dies, but I'd like to know why it's important that he does. The "destroy all sentient synthetics" option makes the most sense to me, concerning his death, if you assume his implants pretty much replaced his brain, making him a sentient synthetic. However, I didn't assume that until I got to ME3's ending. Also, that would be the only ending where Shepard can survive if you have enough war assets, so how does that work exactly? For the other 2 endings it doesn't make sense why Shepard has to die and it isn't explained at all, you just see him get disintegrated, as if he was being harvested like the girl in ME2's last mission.

I do enjoy the speculation for a while (including the indoctrination theory), so I wouldn't mind if Bioware held back on the real endings and made those available as DLC after a few months. However it looks like that wasn't the idea behind this at all; it looks like it was just a sloppy ending made by 2 people instead of the entire team, leaving more questions unanswered than if the credits would have rolled after getting shot by harbinger. (Insert cutscene where all the fleets and all planets in the galaxy get reaped.)

 

[bobfish92]

A catalyst isn't an agent of change, it meerly enhances/speeds up an already occuring reaction.

 

[Darkcerb]

(snip)

(additional snip)

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

This reminds me, I need to find that Reddit thread where somebody posted a screenshot of Jim Sterling and a bunch of other guys having an ever-so-classy Twitter shit-fit about the guy who writes the articles for Forbes. You know, Forbes? The business magazine that's been pwning these gaming journalists with surprising regularity since this whole mess started?

Right, that Forbes.

And what makes it more hilarious is the artistic integrity angle, when the endingtron 9000 is involved can you really call it artistic? is an ending for an interactive medium that doesn't change (besides opening two more colors) really artistic if it doesn't take the players actions into account?

Can you really stand up for a bunch of "artists" who can't give there own views on there work without a permission slip from big brother? (a permission slip they'll never get)

And fatally and arguably are they even "artists"? I personally think their are artists for every form of media but do I think whoever was involved with the endings we got qualify?

No they seem to have forgotten what medium they were working with I'm not even sure what they were going for? vague plot hole ridden mess I guess.

And don't even get me started on the "You just want a happy ending!" argument, I'll start frothing at the mouth...talk about missing the point.

 

[Darkcerb]

A catalyst isn't an agent of change, it meerly enhances/speeds up an already occuring reaction.

I was more indicating in this context it's treated as such. Because taken literally it makes even less sense.

And there was supposed to be a comma in there, sheperd is the catalyst, ^and the agent of change.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

EA: Here's what's gonna happen Casey, you and Mac are gonna take control of this thing and end it.

Casey: Why?

EA: Well, see... if we put the ending in your and Mac Daddies hands instead of giving the fans what they were promised, they'll will rise up en mass and demand something new and then we'll be able to give them just that.

Casey: Or... we could just give them-

EA: No... the plans have been set in motion.

thats unfair.

the reapers somewhat had a point!

Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.

Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

Except that alot of us have a fleet of quarians and geth that the god child pretends doesn't exist. Catalyst my foot, sheperd is the catalyst he/she is the agent of change tzeentch would be proud.

Seconded. My Femshep should've been able to say, "Look, the Geth had a dozen chances and every reason in the world to wipe out the Quarians, but they didn't--and now the two of them are going to rebuild Rannoch together. My ship's computer is literally in love with my pilot. 'Organics and synthetics cannot coexist'? Bullshit. And even if they can't coexist, that still doesn't justify millions of years of genocide. So thanks for your concern, but I didn't come all this way just to start jumping through your hoops now. I think I'll just sit here and cheer on my allies--organics and synthetics alike--while they blow your Reapers straight to hell."

...or something like that.

 

[anthony87]

(snip)

(additional snip)

Well if the comments of the article are anything to go by then that's where a lot of people stopped, myself included only to be hit by torrents of "Oh, well if that's where you stopped then you're missing the point of the article and just showing how whiney you are" and the like. Mind you, I did give it a read eventually and....well it's the same nonsense we've been hearing up to now saying we're acting spoiled, holding the industry back, "artistic integrity" and so on.

So it seems that even so-called "journalists" who haven't even touched the ENTIRE SERIES let along experienced the ending of the third game have a greater say on the whole matter than we do.

There's no bloody winning with these people.

This reminds me, I need to find that Reddit thread where somebody posted a screenshot of Jim Sterling and a bunch of other guys having an ever-so-classy Twitter shit-fit about the guy who writes the articles for Forbes. You know, Forbes? The business magazine that's been pwning these gaming journalists with surprising regularity since this whole mess started?

Right, that Forbes.

And what makes it more hilarious is the artistic integrity angle, when the endingtron 9000 is involved can you really call it artistic? is an ending for an interactive medium that doesn't change (besides opening two more colors) really artistic if it doesn't take the players actions into account?

Can you really stand up for a bunch of "artists" who can't give there own views on there work without a permission slip from big brother? (a permission slip they'll never get)

And fatally and arguably are they even "artists"? I personally think their are artists for every form of media but do I think whoever was involved with the endings we got qualify?

No they seem to have forgotten what medium they were working with I'm not even sure what they were going for? vague plot hole ridden mess I guess.

And don't even get me started on the "You just want a happy ending!" argument, I'll start frothing at the mouth...talk about missing the point.

Next time someone pulls out that fucking "artistic integrity" nonsense I'm just gonna reply with this:

"No one with any artistic integrity would have let that absolute debacle of an ending be released. No one. The ending was so inexcusable on so many levels, that I can?t help but laugh at people?s attempts to defend it by calling it art. As if Art were not subject to ridicule and criticism."

This is the article I pulled the quote from. It's a pretty damn good read, I just wish more people could see it.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

And what makes it more hilarious is the artistic integrity angle, when the endingtron 9000 is involved can you really call it artistic? is an ending for an interactive medium that doesn't change (besides opening two more colors) really artistic if it doesn't take the players actions into account?

Can you really stand up for a bunch of "artists" who can't give there own views on there work without a permission slip from big brother? (a permission slip they'll never get)

And fatally and arguably are they even "artists"? I personally think their are artists for every form of media but do I think whoever was involved with the endings we got qualify?

No they seem to have forgotten what medium they were working with I'm not even sure what they were going for? vague plot hole ridden mess I guess.

And don't even get me started on the "You just want a happy ending!" argument, I'll start frothing at the mouth...talk about missing the point.

Here's another question I'd really love an answer to: how much artistic integrity could Hudson and Walters really have, anyway, given that they basically copied the final Control/Destroy/Merge choice from the original Deus Ex?

(Captcha: "face the music." How appropriate.)

 

[The Pinray]

One huge problem I have with the Mass Effect series is Cerberus. They go from a former Alliance Black Ops group gone rogue to a huge interstellar organization that is so well funded and staffed that they can have secret operatives everywhere and can fund and control an entire army during a Reaper invasion that has most galactic supply lines cut and everyone stretched to their limit.

Hell, the Alliance can barely hold Earth, and the Turian Empire lost Palaven even with the help of the GODDAMN KROGAN... Yet I'm expected to believe that Cerberus can mount a force strong enough to nearly take over the freakin' Citadel? I call bull.

That was a bit off topic... I think we shouldn't start playing the blame game. As the article says, it's unsure as the the legitimacy of the statement.

 

[Monster_user]

EA: Here's what's gonna happen Casey, you and Mac are gonna take control of this thing and end it.

Casey: Why?

EA: Well, see... if we put the ending in your and Mac Daddies hands instead of giving the fans what they were promised, they'll will rise up en mass and demand something new and then we'll be able to give them just that.

Casey: Or... we could just give them-

EA: No... the plans have been set in motion.

thats unfair.

the reapers somewhat had a point!

Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.

Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?

God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.

Except that alot of us have a fleet of quarians and geth that the god child pretends doesn't exist. Catalyst my foot, sheperd is the catalyst he/she is the agent of change tzeentch would be proud.

Shepard is the CATALYST!!! *MIND BLOWN*

Mr Goostoff:, the image makes more sense to me than your post. They both say the same thing, the image just breaks it down into simpler terms, and points out the fallacy of the logic. These Reapers are Synthetics, they are DESTINED to wiped out EVERYTHING. Not just the "higher" organics that they were designed to reap.

Which is why I subscribe to the indoctrination theory.

 

[Gigatoast]

snip

Those are certainly nice theories but they do not excuse the drastic shift in tone the game takes, even if this was the theme Bioware has been trying to allude to over the past 5 years the execution was so hamfistedly botched the concept was rendered irrelevant. Pretty much every idea you have is pure speculation extended to the point where the source material no longer resembles the theme that was ultimately created by you, not by Casey or anyone else at Bioware.

This is exactly what they wanted, and it is exactly what the problem is. Remember that damning phrase written on a piece of notebook paper outlining the concept for the ending? It read "Lots of speculation from everyone!", they created an intentionally undernourished ending with the hope that players would draw their own conclusions they way you have, and they'll be revered by sci-fi nerds for years to come. This was Casey's "vision" for the series and that's what led to its downfall.

Now, there is no real problem with this concept alone. Many fantastic sci-fi stories end this way and for them it works. But it does not, I repeat, does not belong in this series. This isn't Blade Runner, this isn't Dune, this is Mass Effect. It has it's own established themes and it's own priorities when it comes to story telling, it's about drawing the player into a fully realized sci-fi setting and letting them establish relationships with the game's incredibly well fleshed out characters, that's what Bioware's writers where focusing on and that's what they're best at. It was never an exploration of the nature of life and creation, at least if that was the intention then I can safely say they failed to convey that theme spectacularly.

I'll say you do know some pretty impressive philosophical concepts, I'd love to see you have this discussion with the man who wrote that thread. I'm sure he'd be willing to talk to you about it, he's much better qualified then I.