Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[Autumnflame]

With the scene at the end with the grandfather and the child.

he mentions all the details may not be correct. and it was a long time ago.

my question is shepard is the only one. that knows what went on in the last few minutes.
so the last part is just story embellishment or author lies.

and what really happened to shepard will be addressed in a dlc.

or with the small idea that time is cyclical. there will be some sort of ass pull with shepard traveling back in time to change the outcome. and a better ending will ensue

 

[4173]

I think one of the biggest problem with the endings, and why they are so unsatisfying, is because they seriously break the rule of "show, don't tell." You have this Guardian come out of nowhere, and tell you that organic life is (for some reason) destined to kill synthetic life. The issue with this is that we've seen through the game that organic life and synthetic life don't necessarily be at odds. They can even co-exist peacefully. In fact, Shepard can actively broker a peace between a synthetic species (Geth) and organics (the Quorian). This is also disregarding the fact that EDI, an AI, never had any conflict with organics, and always tried to help them and "her crew." So, we've SEEN through the game that organics can get along with synthetics, so being TOLD that they must ALWAYS end in conflict and that synthetics are destined to end organic life...well, that rings as false.

What's even worse is that the only synthetics we've seen trying to destroy organics...are the Reapers, and the Geth who follow the Reapers. So once more, being told, "No wait, those guys you've been fighting the whole time...THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS! They're trying to SAVE organic life!" Well...that's a pretty hard pill to swallow. The series didn't set up synthetics vs. organics. The series set up Reapers vs. ~everyone who isn't a Reaper!~

Also, it makes me a little uncomfortable that the ending of ME3 just seems to take at face value the fact that synthetics vs. organics is always a thing, will always be a thing (as long as they're not all merged into one big magic being), and that synthetics will ALWAYS wipe out organic life form. I find some unfortunate implications with this. Not only is it stupidly Luddite, but the fact is that a big theme in ME2 is, "do synthetic beings 'count' as lifeforms?" And it comes overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that, "yes, yes they DO count." Legion and EDI are shown to be more than just mere machines. They have feelings. They are a part of Shepard's crew. They fight for Shepard. They fight for organic life.

So, to have the game say, "Yes, these do count as a species," and then have the series say, "And they will ALWAYS take this sort of action NO MATTER WHAT," well...that's just dumb.

I don't understand people who seem to take what the catalyst says as the absolute truth. He is obviously some sort of AI or something that has reached its own flawed logic as to why the reapers must be needed. You can choose to take what he says as the word of god, or you can choose to disbelieve that it is inevitable or you can think there is perhaps some merit to what he says (as evidenced by the geth and quarian wars) and attempt to fix it with synthesis.

Yet everyone who posts about hating the ending seems to take everything the catalysts says as the word of god then shouts 'these are flaws and plot holes and it makes no sense' you see the catalyst is speaking from the perspective of himself and presumably he is responsible for the reapers if not a reaper himself. What he says is bias and not something you should take as literal truth. He isn't god people he is just a machine.

If the Catalyst does have its own agenda, it is incredibly galling that I have to choose from choices he offers me. It makes it worse game design while mildly improving the narrative.

 

[Agayek]

A. The Catalyst says Synthetics try to destroy organics, he never makes mention of WHY they do. Be it from Synthetics own desire, to Organics trying to kill them, no specific reason why ever stated. You have made up your own assumptions as to why Synthetics atack that are not suppored by the game itself.

B. Umm no the races DONT die, those races have survived fine for countless ages before finding the Mass Relays, why you assume they would die is beyond me but there is nothing in game that supports that they would. Again you making things up.

Just gotta address this:

Synthetics and organics do not inevitably kill each other. It's proven in the same fucking game that Synthetics and Organics can cooperate and coexist peaceably. You can, relatively easily, convince the Geth and Quarians to agree to peace and they settle on Rannoch together.

That right there is more than enough proof to invalidate the Catalyst's logic.

Beyond that, the Catalyst's argument boils down to "In order to prevent organics from building robots that kill them, I built robots to kill them first". If you cannot see the issue with that logic, I weep for the future of humanity. It's roughly analogous to you going to 1940s Germany and stopping the Nazis from killing the Jews by killing the Jews yourself. It's completely nonsensical and doesn't actually address anything at all.

Also, the ending does not have any real closure. It's never shown what happens to the galaxy at large as a consequence of your influence (for example, if the Geth and Quarian stay peaceful) or even what really happens to your crew. You just get a 45 second cutscene where the relays explode and then the normandy crashes on a jungle planet. That is not closure. That is being too lazy/cheap to do a proper epilogue.

 

[synobal]

In ME1 they were basically Space-Cthulhu, unknowable and unstoppable avatars of death that would kill us for their own inscrutable purpose. In ME2, their reason was explained: they wanted to kill us to create more of themselves. ME3 directly contradicts this. It's fucking stupid and incredibly aggravating that it was actually approved as the final storyline.

I'm sorry but you touch on two important things. First they are space cthulhus their motives and reasoning are inherently alien to us. I think that they don't see the races as important so much as the preservation of all organic life is. What does it matter if you have to remove these infect bits to save a whole after all. (the infected bits being the bits that can make synthetic life). I don't claim to fully understand how their mind works but their actions make sense in a very twisted sort of way but you have to try and step away from your human modes of thought to really see it.

Second I never got that in Mass Effect 2 they said 'we harvest you to make more reapers' no that is just the result of the harvesting. They don't seem to want to make more of themselves of need to, it is just their way of preserving the races that they destroy. They constantly say they are each a nation unto themselves so for all we know everyone who is harvested is consciously still active in these reapers.

Mass effect 3 doesn't contradict anything it just explains stuff in much more plain terms than either of the two games. So stuff seems wrong because you leapt to the wrong conclusions in the first two or made faulty assumptions.

 

[flipthepool]

I don't understand people who seem to take what the catalyst says as the absolute truth.

Okay, I'm going to try this again because it looks like my last reply didn't post. Hm. Hopefully I don't end up with two posts in a row...Anyways! Moving on!

People take what the Catalyst says as the absolute truth because the game presents what he says as the absolute truth. The game doesn't give you the option to argue with it, or decide to not choose any of the "options." The only way you can directly go against what the Guardian says is by doing the "Destroy" ending, and that is generally considered the "bad" ending of the series (what with the genocide of the synthetics and whatnot).

Besides, if the Catalyst isn't telling the absolute truth, then that makes the endings even more stupid. You either keep the Reapers, the Ultimate Bad Guys, alive and ominously under your control for...reasons; or, you merge the synthetics and organics together, without their consent, and without any real reason because the possibility exists that they would be fine without being merged.

And considering you have to work harder to get the "Synthesize" ending than the other two, I think that is considered one of the "optimal" endings.

Basically, you, in game, ~have~ to take what the Catalyst says at face value. Which is probably why most people who played the game did. Saying, "well, maybe he's lying!" is not only doing disservice to the endings as they are (and managing to do disservice to these endings is a feat in and of itself), but it is also not supported within the game.

 

[nightwolf667]

I think one of the biggest problem with the endings, and why they are so unsatisfying, is because they seriously break the rule of "show, don't tell." You have this Guardian come out of nowhere, and tell you that organic life is (for some reason) destined to kill synthetic life. The issue with this is that we've seen through the game that organic life and synthetic life don't necessarily be at odds. They can even co-exist peacefully. In fact, Shepard can actively broker a peace between a synthetic species (Geth) and organics (the Quorian). This is also disregarding the fact that EDI, an AI, never had any conflict with organics, and always tried to help them and "her crew." So, we've SEEN through the game that organics can get along with synthetics, so being TOLD that they must ALWAYS end in conflict and that synthetics are destined to end organic life...well, that rings as false.

What's even worse is that the only synthetics we've seen trying to destroy organics...are the Reapers, and the Geth who follow the Reapers. So once more, being told, "No wait, those guys you've been fighting the whole time...THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS! They're trying to SAVE organic life!" Well...that's a pretty hard pill to swallow. The series didn't set up synthetics vs. organics. The series set up Reapers vs. ~everyone who isn't a Reaper!~

Also, it makes me a little uncomfortable that the ending of ME3 just seems to take at face value the fact that synthetics vs. organics is always a thing, will always be a thing (as long as they're not all merged into one big magic being), and that synthetics will ALWAYS wipe out organic life form. I find some unfortunate implications with this. Not only is it stupidly Luddite, but the fact is that a big theme in ME2 is, "do synthetic beings 'count' as lifeforms?" And it comes overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that, "yes, yes they DO count." Legion and EDI are shown to be more than just mere machines. They have feelings. They are a part of Shepard's crew. They fight for Shepard. They fight for organic life.

So, to have the game say, "Yes, these do count as a species," and then have the series say, "And they will ALWAYS take this sort of action NO MATTER WHAT," well...that's just dumb.

I don't understand people who seem to take what the catalyst says as the absolute truth. He is obviously some sort of AI or something that has reached its own flawed logic as to why the reapers must be needed. You can choose to take what he says as the word of god, or you can choose to disbelieve that it is inevitable or you can think there is perhaps some merit to what he says (as evidenced by the geth and quarian wars) and attempt to fix it with synthesis.

Yet everyone who posts about hating the ending seems to take everything the catalysts says as the word of god then shouts 'these are flaws and plot holes and it makes no sense' you see the catalyst is speaking from the perspective of himself and presumably he is responsible for the reapers if not a reaper himself. What he says is bias and not something you should take as literal truth. He isn't god people he is just a machine.

It's because you're not given the option to argue the point. The Catalyst gives you three (if you have a high enough military rating) options, and unlike with the Illusive Man, unlike Sovereign, and unlike Saren you don't have the ability to say "Screw you and here's why!" You just make a choice on the assumption that he is telling you the truth, whether it's the truth as he knows it or not is irrelevant. These are the choices, to destroy the Reapers you have to say that EDI and the Geth are just as evil and just as worthy of destruction which is bull. If they had given Shepard the ability to argue then it wouldn't have felt like Shepard was accepting what he was saying, but they didn't.

The Prothean makes similar comments about the evils of synthetic life, I took that at face value and disagreed. All synthetic life isn't the same, it's not even that much different from organic life, and the ending should have supported that.

I also disagree with the assertion that synthetic life is effectively immortal and timeless. It's not. Technology breaks down, it becomes obsolete, it ceases to be able to function properly just like an organic body. It's different, but still similar enough. Mass Effect in the past has been about overcoming our differences, beating back the challenges cliche or not by finding that we do have something in common. The reunification of the Geth and Quarians was one of my favorite parts of the game. The ending didn't reflect those choices and Shepard couldn't argue with the Catalyst/Guardian/Star Child that it was wrong.

You have no choice, you have to take what it says at face value, and in a game like Mass Effect silence is the same thing as agreement.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I mostly liked the ending (synthesis), but I hate how it doesn't explain shit about what happens for societies and characters. It's a lot like Deus Ex 3 last year.

 

[Ifrit7th]

I think one of the biggest problem with the endings, and why they are so unsatisfying, is because they seriously break the rule of "show, don't tell." You have this Guardian come out of nowhere, and tell you that organic life is (for some reason) destined to kill synthetic life. The issue with this is that we've seen through the game that organic life and synthetic life don't necessarily be at odds. They can even co-exist peacefully. In fact, Shepard can actively broker a peace between a synthetic species (Geth) and organics (the Quorian). This is also disregarding the fact that EDI, an AI, never had any conflict with organics, and always tried to help them and "her crew." So, we've SEEN through the game that organics can get along with synthetics, so being TOLD that they must ALWAYS end in conflict and that synthetics are destined to end organic life...well, that rings as false.

What's even worse is that the only synthetics we've seen trying to destroy organics...are the Reapers, and the Geth who follow the Reapers. So once more, being told, "No wait, those guys you've been fighting the whole time...THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS! They're trying to SAVE organic life!" Well...that's a pretty hard pill to swallow. The series didn't set up synthetics vs. organics. The series set up Reapers vs. ~everyone who isn't a Reaper!~

Also, it makes me a little uncomfortable that the ending of ME3 just seems to take at face value the fact that synthetics vs. organics is always a thing, will always be a thing (as long as they're not all merged into one big magic being), and that synthetics will ALWAYS wipe out organic life form. I find some unfortunate implications with this. Not only is it stupidly Luddite, but the fact is that a big theme in ME2 is, "do synthetic beings 'count' as lifeforms?" And it comes overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that, "yes, yes they DO count." Legion and EDI are shown to be more than just mere machines. They have feelings. They are a part of Shepard's crew. They fight for Shepard. They fight for organic life.

So, to have the game say, "Yes, these do count as a species," and then have the series say, "And they will ALWAYS take this sort of action NO MATTER WHAT," well...that's just dumb.

I don't understand people who seem to take what the catalyst says as the absolute truth. He is obviously some sort of AI or something that has reached its own flawed logic as to why the reapers must be needed. You can choose to take what he says as the word of god, or you can choose to disbelieve that it is inevitable or you can think there is perhaps some merit to what he says (as evidenced by the geth and quarian wars) and attempt to fix it with synthesis.

Yet everyone who posts about hating the ending seems to take everything the catalysts says as the word of god then shouts 'these are flaws and plot holes and it makes no sense' you see the catalyst is speaking from the perspective of himself and presumably he is responsible for the reapers if not a reaper himself. What he says is bias and not something you should take as literal truth. He isn't god people he is just a machine.

EDIT: I dunno wtf is up this was suppose to be posted earlier in the thread yet some how is way down here. W/E

Weather or not he's telling the truth is irrelevant. People are mostly pissed that you're railroaded into just going with what he says, like it or not.

 

[synobal]

Okay apparently the escapist forums are having a seizure or something because the post order is going crazy in this thread.

 

[The_Lost_King]

A. no it doesn't the geth didn't rise up the quarians attacked them and how does wiping out all advanced life any different than sythetics rising up?
B. They all die because there are no mass relays so no they don't matter
C. Didn't have a problem with this.

A. The Catalyst says Synthetics try to destroy organics, he never makes mention of WHY they do. Be it from Synthetics own desire, to Organics trying to kill them, no specific reason why ever stated. You have made up your own assumptions as to why Synthetics atack that are not suppored by the game itself.

B. Umm no the races DONT die, those races have survived fine for countless ages before finding the Mass Relays, why you assume they would die is beyond me but there is nothing in game that supports that they would. Again you making things up.

A. He says synthetics rise up against the people. I just watched the ending 6-7 hours ago I remember him saying they rise up. Self defenseis not rising up and even then the geth didn't try to kill anyone else. The only ones that did was because the catalyst created the reapers.
B. yes they do because they are all trapped in sol which doesn't have enough resources to for all species.

 

[The_Lost_King]

You are forgetting that for those chains to work, the reapers have to eliminate almost everybody once they decide it's time to do so. The circle of -discovering mass relays / citadel / extermination- only works when the Reapers are there to put us all back to square one. Without them, civilization is left to evolve beyond the mass relays they built.

And you are forgetting that eliminating The Reapers still leaves civilizations stuck and dependent on technology that
-Isn't their own
-That they will never fully understand, because they didn't make it
-and ignorant to possible other, and better path of technology and societal development

You forget that the protheans were able to make one so we could study it and make one. It is possible to study and understand foreign technology. We achieved ftl from the protheans on mars.

 

[flipthepool]

I think one of the biggest problem with the endings, and why they are so unsatisfying, is because they seriously break the rule of "show, don't tell." You have this Guardian come out of nowhere, and tell you that organic life is (for some reason) destined to kill synthetic life. The issue with this is that we've seen through the game that organic life and synthetic life don't necessarily be at odds. They can even co-exist peacefully. In fact, Shepard can actively broker a peace between a synthetic species (Geth) and organics (the Quorian). This is also disregarding the fact that EDI, an AI, never had any conflict with organics, and always tried to help them and "her crew." So, we've SEEN through the game that organics can get along with synthetics, so being TOLD that they must ALWAYS end in conflict and that synthetics are destined to end organic life...well, that rings as false.

What's even worse is that the only synthetics we've seen trying to destroy organics...are the Reapers, and the Geth who follow the Reapers. So once more, being told, "No wait, those guys you've been fighting the whole time...THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS! They're trying to SAVE organic life!" Well...that's a pretty hard pill to swallow. The series didn't set up synthetics vs. organics. The series set up Reapers vs. ~everyone who isn't a Reaper!~

Also, it makes me a little uncomfortable that the ending of ME3 just seems to take at face value the fact that synthetics vs. organics is always a thing, will always be a thing (as long as they're not all merged into one big magic being), and that synthetics will ALWAYS wipe out organic life form. I find some unfortunate implications with this. Not only is it stupidly Luddite, but the fact is that a big theme in ME2 is, "do synthetic beings 'count' as lifeforms?" And it comes overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that, "yes, yes they DO count." Legion and EDI are shown to be more than just mere machines. They have feelings. They are a part of Shepard's crew. They fight for Shepard. They fight for organic life.

So, to have the game say, "Yes, these do count as a species," and then have the series say, "And they will ALWAYS take this sort of action NO MATTER WHAT," well...that's just dumb.

Think if the game came to the conclusion that, "Humans will ALWAYS destroy any other species that they come into contact with, because it is part of their nature." I'm pretty sure people would have a problem with it. Because it is a dumb statement. It would be even worse if we still had Shepard (a human) going around trying to save ALL life on the galaxy. Just like we can have EDI and Legion (synthetics) fighting FOR the organics. We see synthetics fighting for organics, so hearing that they will always be in conflict and ALL synthetics will ALWAYS take a certain destructive coarse of action...well, within the constraints of the series it seems a little...racist? Speciesist? Stupidly closed-minded? I don't know, but whatever it is, it rubs me the wrong way.

Plus, doesn't the Guardian invalidate his own logic by...you know...being a synthetic? If synthetics always try to kill organic life, why would he be trying to save ANY organic life? Wouldn't he just try to end it all?

Also, weren't the Reapers setting everyone up to be culled? It seems like, by keeping around the Mass Relays they are ensuring that technology will always evolve the same way (because, you know, that's how technology work), which ends with organics creating synthetics and the Reapers coming in and eating everything. This seems like a rigged deck to me.

Anyways, I don't have any problem with "bittersweet" endings, or even "dark" endings. I kind of figured from the beginning of the third game that Shepard was going to have to sacrifice herself, and I even figured that the Earth was probably doomed. The problem with the endings wasn't that Shepard didn't punch every Reaper in the face to death, then jump into the Normandy hot-tub and pop a bottle of Cristal.

No, the problem with the endings is that they are bad storytelling. They blatantly violate the "show, don't tell," rule to their detriment by consistently showing us one thing, and at the end telling us another (and any time you have to have an "Explainer" character at the end, your writing is suspect. Hitchcock only got away with it because he's freaking Hitchcock."). It violates one of the larger thematic elements of the last game ("Synthetics are people to! People who will ALWAYS KILL YOU."). AND, it violates its own internal logic ("Synthetic life will always destroy ALL organic life! Disregard the fact that I, a synthetic, am telling you this to try to save organic life. And the fact that Reapers, synthetics, were apparently created to save organic life.").

I'm not upset that the endings weren't happy. I wasn't expecting a happy ending. I'm just upset that the endings were stupid.

You can have a satisfying conclusion to a story and still have questions. Not everything needs to tie up into a neat little bow. In fact, frequently, "and everyone lived happily ever after" is more of an asspull than anything else. But endings DO need to fit the rest of the story. And these...don't.

Shepard has always been the patron freaking saint of self-determination. Saren says that Reapers are fated to destroy the galaxy, the only way to save everyone is to join them, Shepard says "FU," and blows Sovereign away. ~Everyone~ in ME2 says, "This is a suicide mission! You're all fated to die!" Shepard says, "FU," and lives through it, even potentially bringing his/her entire squad out the other side with him. This is the character that, against all odds, can bring together every race of the galaxy to fight a unified threat. So, you're telling me that this character, who has always done things the way he/she saw fit...this character is just going to lie down and take it when "The Guardian" says, "The galaxy is fated to end this way...because I say so!"

That just goes completely against the rest of the series! It goes completely against Shepard's character.

Look, I can understand destroying the Mass Relays. That way, the galaxy can finally be free from the Reaper influence and can have self-determination for the first time in...forever. That, thematically, makes sense. But the rest of the endings are based on a premise that I just can't believe within the context of the story. I just can't believe, from what I've seen in the games, that synthetic life will ~always~ rise up against organics. Nobody can say that they ~must~ or ~must not~ do anything, because the game pretty much determines that synthetics do have free will, and saying that any creature with free will is then ~fated~ to act a certain way just...doesn't add up.

 

[Agayek]

I'm sorry but you touch on two important things. First they are space cthulhus their motives and reasoning are inherently alien to us. I think that they don't see the races as important so much as the preservation of all organic life is. What does it matter if you have to remove these infect bits to save a whole after all. (the infected bits being the bits that can make synthetic life). I don't claim to fully understand how their mind works but their actions make sense in a very twisted sort of way but you have to try and step away from your human modes of thought to really see it.

Even taking into account alien sensibilities, it doesn't make any sense. The Catalyst flat out says "In order to stop synthetic life from killing organics, I created the Reapers to kill organic life". It's a gross self-contradiction and makes absolutely no sense, especially for the kind of galactic-scale genocide they commit. It's a fucking stupid reason, and it's sprung so suddenly, with no build up or hints towards it, that they just can't execute it properly.

Bioware could have pulled it off properly, but it would have required that to be the plan from the beginning, and it rather clearly wasn't. If they had hidden some hints in ME1 and 2 (or even in 3) towards the Reapers having a noble goal, then it probably would have worked, or at least been less jarring.

The fact is though, they didn't. Such a possibility isn't even mentioned until the Catalyst shows up. It's lazy storytelling at its best.

Second I never got that in Mass Effect 2 they said 'we harvest you to make more reapers' no that is just the result of the harvesting. They don't seem to want to make more of themselves of need to, it is just their way of preserving the races that they destroy. They constantly say they are each a nation unto themselves so for all we know everyone who is harvested is consciously still active in these reapers.

Mass effect 3 doesn't contradict anything it just explains stuff in much more plain terms than either of the two games. So stuff seems wrong because you leapt to the wrong conclusions in the first two or made faulty assumptions.

In Mass Effect 2, they are harvesting humans to build a Reaper. It's also shown that Reapers can and do die, as evidenced by the derelict Reaper you get the IFF from.

If that does not imply to you reproduction being at least one reason why the Reapers do their thing, you rather clearly have a faulty grasp on logic and deductive reasoning. There's no reason for them to preserve that which they destroy, especially since its' established very early on that the Reapers have nothing but disdain for organic life. You're making things up, applying it to the Reapers and then saying it all makes sense. If anything, that just proves it doesn't make sense in the first place.

Also:
"We are each a nation. Independent. Free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence." is Sovereign explaining how much more the Reapers are compared to organics. It's further explained by Legion that the Reapers basically AI gestalts, like the Geth but several orders of magnitude more advanced. Each one is countless individual programs working together. Thus, a nation.

 

[Agayek]

EDIT: I dunno wtf is up this was suppose to be posted earlier in the thread yet some how is way down here. W/E

Look at the timestamp for your post. That's why it's at the end.

 

[synobal]

EDIT: I dunno wtf is up this was suppose to be posted earlier in the thread yet some how is way down here. W/E

Look at the timestamp for your post. That's why it's at the end.

It's baffling.

 

[synobal]

I think one of the biggest problem with the endings, and why they are so unsatisfying, is because they seriously break the rule of "show, don't tell." You have this Guardian come out of nowhere, and tell you that organic life is (for some reason) destined to kill synthetic life. The issue with this is that we've seen through the game that organic life and synthetic life don't necessarily be at odds. They can even co-exist peacefully. In fact, Shepard can actively broker a peace between a synthetic species (Geth) and organics (the Quorian). This is also disregarding the fact that EDI, an AI, never had any conflict with organics, and always tried to help them and "her crew." So, we've SEEN through the game that organics can get along with synthetics, so being TOLD that they must ALWAYS end in conflict and that synthetics are destined to end organic life...well, that rings as false.

What's even worse is that the only synthetics we've seen trying to destroy organics...are the Reapers, and the Geth who follow the Reapers. So once more, being told, "No wait, those guys you've been fighting the whole time...THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS! They're trying to SAVE organic life!" Well...that's a pretty hard pill to swallow. The series didn't set up synthetics vs. organics. The series set up Reapers vs. ~everyone who isn't a Reaper!~

Also, it makes me a little uncomfortable that the ending of ME3 just seems to take at face value the fact that synthetics vs. organics is always a thing, will always be a thing (as long as they're not all merged into one big magic being), and that synthetics will ALWAYS wipe out organic life form. I find some unfortunate implications with this. Not only is it stupidly Luddite, but the fact is that a big theme in ME2 is, "do synthetic beings 'count' as lifeforms?" And it comes overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that, "yes, yes they DO count." Legion and EDI are shown to be more than just mere machines. They have feelings. They are a part of Shepard's crew. They fight for Shepard. They fight for organic life.

So, to have the game say, "Yes, these do count as a species," and then have the series say, "And they will ALWAYS take this sort of action NO MATTER WHAT," well...that's just dumb.

I don't understand people who seem to take what the catalyst says as the absolute truth. He is obviously some sort of AI or something that has reached its own flawed logic as to why the reapers must be needed. You can choose to take what he says as the word of god, or you can choose to disbelieve that it is inevitable or you can think there is perhaps some merit to what he says (as evidenced by the geth and quarian wars) and attempt to fix it with synthesis.

Yet everyone who posts about hating the ending seems to take everything the catalysts says as the word of god then shouts 'these are flaws and plot holes and it makes no sense' you see the catalyst is speaking from the perspective of himself and presumably he is responsible for the reapers if not a reaper himself. What he says is bias and not something you should take as literal truth. He isn't god people he is just a machine.

EDIT: I dunno wtf is up this was suppose to be posted earlier in the thread yet some how is way down here. W/E

 

[flipthepool]

First they are space cthulhus their motives and reasoning are inherently alien to us.

But their "motives and reasoning" aren't "inherently alien to us." They are inherently ~stupid~ to us, because there are much more obvious ways of solving the (apparent) problem of "Synthetics will kill all organics!!!!" that aren't "we shall save the organics by killing organics! And then when those organics rise up, we shall kill them! And so on and so on, with massacres every 50,000 years or so on schedule."

For example they could...NOT have the Mass Relays, which apparently ensure that the massacres occur on schedule. Or they could, you know, just kill all of the synthetic life? And then be like, "Hey, how about next time you don't make synthetic life?"

It seems way easier to get rid of a bunch of machines every so often than to have to go tearing through the whole universe to murder everyone every 50,000 years.

Besides, ME2 already did the "inherently alien to us," thing with Legion's mission. Disregarding the "paragon vs. renegade" thing, you can easily make an argument for either side being the "right" side. Because there isn't really a "right" side, as we know it, since the Geth don't operate in the same way that we do. They truly ~are~ alien to us, which makes understanding that they do have free will, and them coming to join in the fight against the Reapers that much more intense and emotionally satisfying.

With the Reapers, I completely follow the logic. But the logic is insane troll logic. It's just stupid, and anyone with five minutes could think of a more actually logical way to do it, and anyone with five seconds could write it so their reasoning works within the context of the story. As it is, we're left with something that doesn't work within the context of the story, and is just plain stupid.

The Reapers have always been dark gods, and you've essentially spent the past two games raging against the heavens. You spit in the gods' faces multiple times, and then, in the last game you go, "Oh, okay, sure. I guess I'll just go with you guys then."

And, having just played ME2, there wasn't anything that seemed to indicate the Reapers were trying to "save" humanity, unless you want to take a really twisted view of the word "saved." It seemed pretty obvious that they were trying to create another Reaper, and I think anything else is just a retcon to fit in with the, "The Reapers are really the good guys trying desperately to save the galaxy from ~itself~!" bullhonky.

Also, any "saving" that involves liquifying people alive, I'm going to be a little suspicious of, just saying. Just like if some crazy dude with a gun decided to "Save me from this sinful Earth!" by murdering me, I'd have a couple objections.

 

[The_Lost_King]

I have some problems with the ending:

1. The ending take no account of Shepard's prior choices, even the huge ones (Genophage, Geth war, etc) instead only showing the last choice's effects. Given how this has THREE games building up to a conclusion, this ambiguity is infuriating

2. I can understand the Crucible annihilating all Reapers locally, but spreading across the entire galaxy?! That's a Deus Ex Machina if I ever saw one.

3. The philosophical undertones placed in the end were not consistent, the undertone of Synthetic life overtaking organic life rings hollow when the Geth and EDI want to work with organics right then. Hell, the choices that can be made by Shepard to mend this divide aren't even addressed!!

4. The post-credit scene with the child and parent is so out of place, it is less intriguing and more confounding. What is the point of it? Or is it some high-brow attempt at saying that 'This game is all a story being told by a parent to a child' and by saying that "most of the details have been lost to time" they can excuse themselves from inconsistencies in their next game?

1. Except those choices still affect those races regardless of if the relays are gone or not.

2. It was stated that the Mass relays use their element zero cores to enact your choice, it is explained in the game. To be a dues Ex Machina it would have no explanation.

3. You also forget they only work together because they have a common threat, once said threat is gone the likelihood of them remaining friends drastically diminishes, nor does it account for future synthetic life.

4. The kid was a defendant of the colony The Normandy survives founded, it existed to show that the crew survived.

1. except for the fact that they are all stranded in the sol system.

2. where was that stated?

3. The geth were helping the quarians rebuild and never wanted to wipe them out.

4. source?

 

[Agayek]

It's baffling.

Considering tonight is the daylight savings swap, that could be the cause. I forgot about it myself, but the timestamps are actually an hour behind my clock, so I think that's what did it.

 

[synobal]

I give up trying to explain the endings to everyone. If you genuinely are interested in considering the endings from a perspective other than the knee jerk 'it didn't end with a slide show about how everyone lived happily ever after' feel free to PM me and we can discuss what possible futures are in store for the mass effect universe.