Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I could be wrong, but I think there really were people who were asking for more Hackett - there were definitely people who got excited at finally seeing his face at the end of the Arrival DLC. It makes sense for us to be spending more time talking to him as well, since there's a war going on and he's in charge of it. Could his material have been done better? Sure. But I think the amount of time we spent speaking with him was justified by the plot.Zeel said:
I bring up Traynor and the others because while they still only have minor speaking roles, they're still greatly expanded over what Joker/Adams/Chakwas/Pressly/Supply Guy had in ME1.
Like I said, if there had have been more squadmate interaction, conversations and whatever back on the Normandy I would have been happy. But the amount that ended up in the game doesn't make me unhappy, if that makes any sense.
I absolutely get where you're coming from. Our mileage just varies I guess.
That's the thing; the Reapers don't destroy all organics. Technically they don't destroy any race, really, they just turn them into more Reapers. That's the whole point of the Reapers, from the perspective of the Catalyst. By the harvesting and forced ascension of advanced races at a specific point in their development, the plan prevents any of those races from getting advanced enough to make a truly unstoppable form of synthetic life, which would then inevitably go on to replace all organic life.sgtshock said:
Hence Harbinger (in ME2) repeatedly harping about how the Reapers are, in fact, the salvation of the galaxy, not its destruction. And why the Reapers only take advanced civilizations, rather than harvesting everything.
It's... a bit odd, I realize, but it's internally consistent for what that's worth.
Well, it's not like the mass relays are the only form of FTL travel in Mass Effect. The quoted figure is an average of like twelve light years per day, if I recall correctly. Which would let the Migrant Fleet get home in a little less than 20 years, most likely. Which certainly sounds like a long time, but they've been swanning around the galaxy for a lot longer than that already.sgtshock said:
It's also possible for the various races to communicate over vast distances instantly (the quantum entanglement communicators), and to build new mass relays (because the Protheans managed it, after all). At worst, the destruction of the old relays represents a substantial, possibly centuries-long setback wherein the galaxy will have a tough time with commerce and travel relative to the old days, but it's far from the end of civilization that people seem to be making it out to be.
I admit, it'd be nice if they went into a little more detail as to why the Crucible alters the Catalyst's perception of the universe.sgtshock said:
I'd definitely like a better idea of precisely what happened after Shepard made his choice, regardless of which choice it is. You know that your crew either makes it, or doesn't, but aside from that, you've got no idea what the long-term repercussions of you choices are, and that's something that I really wanted them to address.
I'm going to be honest and say I had no problem with ending. For me, it never made sense for there to even be a "happy ending" if there was I would've been disappointed but more on that later. Anyway, the catalyst was right in the end, at least in some sense - Here are some parts of the conversation with sovereign on virmire:
"We are eternal. the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
"The protheans were not the first. They did not create the citadel. They did not forge the mass relays. They merely found them, the legacy of my kind."
"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire."
The catalyst then tell us that "The created will always rebel against their creators"
By that I think he means to say that they are our creators, we developed along the paths they desired because every civilization that has been and ever will be uses or used their technology as the basis of their society. And at the end of every cycle when the reapers come we rebel against them (of course I don't know that EVERY society rebelled against them, but consider that the crucible schematics were passed down from cycle to cycle countless times until we finally completed it; how long would that have taken? maybe it started from the very first cycle or the 50th?)
and based on no supporting evidence and purely conjecture and supposition I believe that the very first civilization created the mass relays, the citadel and in the end the reapers. "the pinnacle of evolution and existence." This is how their civilization evolved, and because we are using their tech we would eventually even become them. As in the second game they were trying to create a human reaper and to do so they had to melt us down into genetic paste or whatever (I can't remember what the exact term was).
Anyway, the catalyst then goes on to say "we help the ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in reaper form" - The coming of the reapers is simply the next step along their path, we've followed in their footsteps thus far, there is no turning back now.
As to why the catalyst believes that the reapers are the solution to chaos I truely don't know, I suppose we're meant to reach that level of understanding once we become reapers. But perhaps they thought that if they created a cycle in which every society that evolves far enough to find the mass relays ETC and then came and harvested and helped them ascend into reaper form is in and of itself order, since it happens EVERY CYCLE nevermind the chaos while they're doing it.
And now we are given 3 choices: Destroy all synthetic life, Control the reapers (and by extension the cycle) or Synthesis.
Okay so we can destroy all synthetic life, but remember the peace won't last, and we would create our own synthetics and we'd end up destroying ourselves anyway. But perhaps this is the point? Your shepherd has enough faith and hope in the rest of us to believe were better than that. Whether or not we succeed is up to your imagination. This was your choice, bioware shouldn't have to tell us the outcome, that is left up us.
We can control the reapers, this one isn't really explained, the catalyst just tells us that the reapers will obey shepherd. Now in the cutscene we see them leaving earth so I would assume that shepherd sends them away for whatever amount of time he deems necessary. The outcome is again open ended like the other.
and finally synthesis - "Combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA"
This to me was the only answer, the only way to truely break the cycle. even though we destroy the mass relays cutting everyone off from the other parts of the galaxy (assuming they didn't all supernova, and I'm willing to believe they don't, I mean if this has the power to change everythings DNA and also the fact that they created the damn things allows me to extend my suspension of disbelief)
Synthesis seems to be the only way to "save everyone" - With that new DNA who's to say the other races stuck in our system can't eat our food?
I'm honestly glad that they didn't give us an ending where we somehow kill all the reapers and everything goes back to normal. It never felt like my choices didn't matter*, seeing Thane, Legion, Wrex, Garrus, Tali, and Ashley all felt like that was because of my actions (of course I don't know who takes their place if they're dead so yeah) - The reason I had the fight those damn rachni reapers(forget what they were called) was because I chose to let them live.
*The only time where I felt like my choice was disregarded was seeing the human reaper at the cerberus base, seeing as how I destroyed the collecter base. I can understand the explosion from the base not destroying it, but the fact it didn't end up inside a sun or a black hole or someshit was silly.
I was in the "we can't beat the reapers" camp when I was playing the other games... if that wasn't clear >.>
other stuff like why the catalyst is the child I'd simply believe that the catalyst is presenting itself in a manner in which shepherd can understand. The catalyst isn't actually the child, just how it wishes to present itself to shepherd so his mind doesn't explode. As to why your squadmates are on your ship I have no fucking clue
-------
I'm sure I missed a few points and contradicted myself. But that's my own personal perspective on things. Hope it's not too hard to read.
/raise flame shield - for the good it will do me.
"We are eternal. the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
"The protheans were not the first. They did not create the citadel. They did not forge the mass relays. They merely found them, the legacy of my kind."
"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire."
The catalyst then tell us that "The created will always rebel against their creators"
By that I think he means to say that they are our creators, we developed along the paths they desired because every civilization that has been and ever will be uses or used their technology as the basis of their society. And at the end of every cycle when the reapers come we rebel against them (of course I don't know that EVERY society rebelled against them, but consider that the crucible schematics were passed down from cycle to cycle countless times until we finally completed it; how long would that have taken? maybe it started from the very first cycle or the 50th?)
and based on no supporting evidence and purely conjecture and supposition I believe that the very first civilization created the mass relays, the citadel and in the end the reapers. "the pinnacle of evolution and existence." This is how their civilization evolved, and because we are using their tech we would eventually even become them. As in the second game they were trying to create a human reaper and to do so they had to melt us down into genetic paste or whatever (I can't remember what the exact term was).
Anyway, the catalyst then goes on to say "we help the ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in reaper form" - The coming of the reapers is simply the next step along their path, we've followed in their footsteps thus far, there is no turning back now.
As to why the catalyst believes that the reapers are the solution to chaos I truely don't know, I suppose we're meant to reach that level of understanding once we become reapers. But perhaps they thought that if they created a cycle in which every society that evolves far enough to find the mass relays ETC and then came and harvested and helped them ascend into reaper form is in and of itself order, since it happens EVERY CYCLE nevermind the chaos while they're doing it.
And now we are given 3 choices: Destroy all synthetic life, Control the reapers (and by extension the cycle) or Synthesis.
Okay so we can destroy all synthetic life, but remember the peace won't last, and we would create our own synthetics and we'd end up destroying ourselves anyway. But perhaps this is the point? Your shepherd has enough faith and hope in the rest of us to believe were better than that. Whether or not we succeed is up to your imagination. This was your choice, bioware shouldn't have to tell us the outcome, that is left up us.
We can control the reapers, this one isn't really explained, the catalyst just tells us that the reapers will obey shepherd. Now in the cutscene we see them leaving earth so I would assume that shepherd sends them away for whatever amount of time he deems necessary. The outcome is again open ended like the other.
and finally synthesis - "Combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA"
This to me was the only answer, the only way to truely break the cycle. even though we destroy the mass relays cutting everyone off from the other parts of the galaxy (assuming they didn't all supernova, and I'm willing to believe they don't, I mean if this has the power to change everythings DNA and also the fact that they created the damn things allows me to extend my suspension of disbelief)
Synthesis seems to be the only way to "save everyone" - With that new DNA who's to say the other races stuck in our system can't eat our food?
I'm honestly glad that they didn't give us an ending where we somehow kill all the reapers and everything goes back to normal. It never felt like my choices didn't matter*, seeing Thane, Legion, Wrex, Garrus, Tali, and Ashley all felt like that was because of my actions (of course I don't know who takes their place if they're dead so yeah) - The reason I had the fight those damn rachni reapers(forget what they were called) was because I chose to let them live.
*The only time where I felt like my choice was disregarded was seeing the human reaper at the cerberus base, seeing as how I destroyed the collecter base. I can understand the explosion from the base not destroying it, but the fact it didn't end up inside a sun or a black hole or someshit was silly.
I was in the "we can't beat the reapers" camp when I was playing the other games... if that wasn't clear >.>
other stuff like why the catalyst is the child I'd simply believe that the catalyst is presenting itself in a manner in which shepherd can understand. The catalyst isn't actually the child, just how it wishes to present itself to shepherd so his mind doesn't explode. As to why your squadmates are on your ship I have no fucking clue
-------
I'm sure I missed a few points and contradicted myself. But that's my own personal perspective on things. Hope it's not too hard to read.
/raise flame shield - for the good it will do me.
Thank you for this image. I now know what to show my friends when they ask why I don't like Bioware anymore.Omnific One said:
You dirty, lying dog, Casey Hudson.
no, bcause you played it like a feaking Casual Game.Zeel said:
There is more character interaction in ME3 than 1 and 2 combined, after every mission and in some cases after shifting from 1 system to the next the characters moved around the ship talking with each other and sharing new thoughts about what you recently did, I have never seen a game put so much enfasis in having their NPCs actually feel like they are alive, every time new interactions where give, around 22 by my count for each character.
The fact is you didnt play the game well, you choose shooter action mode instead of RPG mode because the game probably kicked your ass for trying to play it like a Shooter.
Do you know why everyone Kicks soldiers from Multiplayer in Silver and Gold? No you dont because you are as bad as the CoD casuals that are shitting up games. You have no right talking about stuff you clearly have no idea about, and Hackett commets on every single event you make, including missions, if you never heard him say "we are holding our ground" then you never played the game as an RPG.
Sure - if by interaction we're talking about conversations where the player gets to pick and choose responses. And I'm pretty sure that's what you're talking about.Zeel said:
As for interaction in a broader sense though... I dunno, I'd have to take a stopwatch to both games. Obviously there are less interactive conversations than the previous games, but as boag notes above, there are more unique comments and passive interactions than the previous games, in spots where you'd just get a generic "come back later" in the past.
Good analysis. I enjoyed reading it.nomzy said:
As to why your squadmates are on the ship, I'd assumed it was because the assault had failed, things were going boom and they were getting the hell out of there before it went the way of Aratoht.
I'm shocked that people thought the endings were a surprise. The entire series is filled with themes of transhumanism and posthumanism. From the first game, we deal repeatedly with synthetic intelligences, transformative technology and cyborgs. Shepard herself has been significantly changed both by the Prothean beacon and cipher and by becoming a cyborg. (My main Shepard is also a biotic, so has cyborg implants for that.)
It wasn't sprung on you any more than the choice at the end of Deus Ex (the first one) was sprung on you. To me, it felt inevitable.
Besides, you didn't just push button A, B or C. Depending on how much content you'd completed and the choices you'd made, some options may be unavailable or have different outcomes. This is a game where it's possible to make it all the way to the end and still heroically fail, which I love.
But why was the Normandy in FTL running away from the battle? Right up to the second we make our final choice we can see every other ship in the fleet continuing the battle - it's obvious nobody had sounded the retreat, there's no reason for the Normandy to be anywhere but the skies above Earth.ms_sunlight said:
And even if our other squadmates did go back to the Normandy for some reason, it doesn't explain how the ones that were in our squad during the run to the space-elevator got back there. If Harbinger's laser fried them, they shouldn't be alive to get out of the Normandy on the impossibly-convenient faraway garden world. If Harbinger's laser didn't fry them, why the hell didn't they follow us up the space-elevator like they were supposed to?!?
The more I think about it, the more I think the handling of the Normandy and the fate of the rest of your squadmates is the most horrible thing about the ending. And that's saying a lot, because I hate other parts of the ending an awful lot...
That is true, it is at least consistent with itself. Still, I'm bothered by the fact that:Raesvelg said:
-It seems totally out of character that the Reapers, who have been completely contemptible towards organics throughout the series ("Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh", "We are eternal, you are bacteria", etc.), have been doing what they do to preserve organic life all along.
-It isn't consistent with Sovereign's claim's that the Reapers' actions are beyond our comprehension. That's what I always thought made the Reapers such a cool villain. I know ending the series without revealing the Reaper's motivations would be kind of a cop-out, but it's still disappointing. Maybe they could have left their motivations at least partly unexplained, providing some exposition while still leaving some mystery to them?
-It isn't consistent with Sovereign's claim's that the Reapers' actions are beyond our comprehension. That's what I always thought made the Reapers such a cool villain. I know ending the series without revealing the Reaper's motivations would be kind of a cop-out, but it's still disappointing. Maybe they could have left their motivations at least partly unexplained, providing some exposition while still leaving some mystery to them?
I agree here. I'm not expecting "fixed ending DLC" like some people are, but I wouldn't mind if they at least posted an several-paragraph epilogue, going in depth on what their reasoning behind the ending was, and go into some detail on what the consequences of your actions are. A few parts of the ending felt rushed (heavily reused cinematics, no explanation for how the Normandy got away from Earth, etc.), so maybe with some explanation and closure it could go from a terrible ending, to an okay one that was just poorly executed/explained.Raesvelg said:
The huge laserbeams of death disagree with you. Look I understand that the Reapers would protect themselves which is why they get shooty but where the hell does the harvesting come in when all I could see in the game was Reapers blownig shit up and husks finishing off people they miss. If the Reapers are millions of years old surely they could come up with a non-violent/no struggle method of harvesting.Raesvelg said:
Hell I would even ignore the logic of killing to save if they were more efficiant. A few laserbeams per ship/Reaper could kill probably hundreds people a day maybe thousands if they where on a large ship or building, in a galaxy of billions the numbers would just not add up and in fact the amounts of births per second in the universe would probably be overwhelming compared to those harvested/killed by the Reapers.
The whole Synthetics destroying life to prevent them from creating synthetic life and destroying life is a logical fallacy. It is a poorly thought out premise partially ripped off from good Sci-Fi (ie Revelation Space) novels that makes no sense when you consider the past actions of the Reapers. And in case you say the Reapers are unknowable I would have gladly given you that a game ago but the Reapers' motivations are given to us as plainly as possible revealing the Reapers, who were previously quite cool in a mechanical Cthullu kind of way, as the most simplistic bad guys possible.
Also why would the Reapers say they are preserving the old races when they are using them to power Reapers that are fighting on the front line. That's like attaching an automated gun to a museum piece, it makes no sense.
Pretty much.ms_sunlight said:
I can't help but feel very sad that people don't enjoy or did not predict the endings. Possibly because it seems difficult for many to think outside the box and keep different perspectives around; the very notions of transhumanism and posthumanism run counter to many of the established beliefs and creeds.
Doubtless, Mass Effect always seemed like a whimsical space fantasy like Star Wars, to many people around, for this sort of backlash to occur.
I'm pretty sure most people aren't "unable to think outside the box", or that most of us weren't able to predict the endings (nice condescension by the way), the main issue I'm seeing is that a game series which prides itself around choice, self-determination and (less so) defying the odds and being kickass has 3 completely static endings which you have absolutely no say in. In Mass Effect 1 and 2, apart from there being several different ways you could end the game, stuff you did previously defined the ending somewhat and changed what would happen, whereas in Mass Effect 3, you get to the top of that Crucidel and the last 3 games might as well have not happened at all for all the difference it makes.Ernil Menegil said:
From what I've heard, you can't even die on your way to the Citadel lift or anything if you have shit-all forces at your disposal. It begs the question of why bother? In Mass Effect 2, you met all your crew and did all their loyalty missions or there was a very real threat that they would die, and if you didn't do enough then there was a VERY real threat that Shepard him/herself would DIE. That seems completely absent in Mass Effect 3.
I won't lie, when I got to the citadel lift thing in London and I was sprinting towards it, people dying left, right and centre, and then I got hit by that reaper laser, the first thought to cross my mind was "Fuck. That's awesome, I get to play it all again cos I fucked up and didn't have enough of something."
But no. It happens no matter what. Which strikes me, and I think a lot of other people, as very, very lazy, and not in keeping with the previous two games.
Speaking of laziness, same cutscene, different colours. But that's been mentioned at length.
ALSO: Apparently the Rachni queen is in ME3 whether you saved her or not in Mass Effect 1. The more I read about ME3, the more depressed I get.
My main character (the only one I've played ME3 with so far) killed the rachni queen in ME1 and she certainly came across a rachni queen in ME3. I don't think it's ever suggested that it's the same rachni queen but they're in the game whether or not you killed the queen in ME1.Sera said:
I'm actually a little interested to hear how this is handled in a different playthrough. In my (queen killed) playthrough, IIRC this is how the rachni thing plays out:
- You get the mission from Wrex to go check out the possible rachni sightings.
- At the end of the mission you come across a queen that's being used by the Reapers to churn out Ravager units.
- You get the choice to either save this queen or kill it.
- I chose to save it. This resulted in all the krogan other than Grunt dying. Rachni went to work on the Crucible project, bumping up my galactic readiness a bit, but after a while they went crazy, killed a bunch of scientists, and my galactic readiness went down. I didn't check, but I'm pretty sure it ends up as a net loss. Oops.
I gather that last bit doesn't happen and they actually prove useful if you didn't kill the queen in ME1?
Forbes has posted another article in support of those wanting new endings: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/
It's sad but telling that a website that does not depend on review copies and game advertising is the only one coming out in support of these gamers. I'm not saying these games websites are bought I just think they are less willing to piss companies off.Omnific One said:
I support games websites but it is shocking how little understanding there is out there.
Yeah my Rachni never went crazy so I assume that's what you get out of that...AD-Stu said:
But it's irrelevant anyway since your War Assets don't do diddly.
That's been the general consensus. Gaming websites, who are supposed to support us gamers, are coming out against us, while traditional media is supporting us.Deathninja19 said:
My opinion, while condescending by your definition, bears validity by force of reason. You may disregard it, or not, under such terms if you wish, and give it neither question nor attempt at reasonable consideration; quite simply put, I understood something I believe many did not, and I stand by my analysis. I invite you towards considering it, and to disagree or agree, as is healthy in any debate;Sera said:
I am not quite sure it 'prides' itself on any such specific traits. Indeed, I would claim the very opposite; from the very first game, we take note that the main antagonist is unthinkably powerful, to such an extent that a single member of its number could lay waste to entire flotillas' worth of ships. We are confronted with the difficulties of choice, and the consequences that derive from that capacity, consequences that hold us as if to shackles, denying us the apparent liberty that having choice implies, simply because oftentimes, there is no good choice, and oftentimes there is no choice at all. In Shepard's case, at the end of it all, he is faced with three choices of terrible importance for the future of the galaxy, however, and you most certainly have all say about what choice to make. Each of them represents dire ramifications for the future of life in the galaxy, both for good and ill. I find the subtlety of each ending to be sublime and thought provoking - I have never sat that long just pondering the ramifications of a choice. That sensation, I believe, is precisely what the authors intended, and I applaud them with a standing ovation for it.
We also take note of the humanity of the protagonist - yes, he is Shepard, warrior without equal, but he, too, can die, he, too, can weep, he, too, can suffer. I believe the considerations on the humanity of Shepard and the value of sentient thought to be far more at the core of Mass Effect than 'being kickass', pardon me saying it. That particular trait is borne more of the quality of the series than its actual intended purpose, I'd say.
You seem to ignore the context of Mass Effect 3 altogether. You seem to be of the idea that the previous games were great triumphs of epic resolution that would fix the issues at hand; it is well and firmly established that all that was accomplished in 1 and 2 were delays of the inevitable. You also seem to ignore the enormity of what Shepard accomplishes in the course of his career in the two previous games; every single choice matters for the future of the galaxy, even if it has no direct correlation to your success or failure in the battle against the Reapers.
I would counter-argue that Shepard, while a powerful force, is not the sun upon the center of the metaphorical universe. In fact, nothing about the purpose of the war on the Reapers is about Shepard; it is about all organic life. Why bother gathering forces if the final sequence will always be the same, you ask? The outcome will be dramatically different. Maybe Shepard will not die, maybe he will always take up that mass effect lift up to the Citadel no matter what choices were made before. But in the process of not caring for gathering enough forces in swift enough a manner, billions of lives are lost across hundreds of worlds. There is worth in bothering to unite everyone against the Reapers. The very purpose of many of the points made throughout the game is that either the species band together to face this foe and risk defeat, or be separate and certain that defeat will be a certainty.
It is easy to disregard and dissociate oneself from anything other than the protagonist. We get to know the protagonist, fight with him/her, accompany the struggles, successes and failures made. It is much harder to care for the faceless masses that Shepard fights for. I take those in far greater consideration than any fate befalling the protagonist because they are the reason the protagonist is fighting in the first place. They are the ones whom Shepard means to save.
I do think you have a point in this regard. It does strike me as odd that everyone else around Shepard must die, except himself, at that critical stage. As if he could not fail at reaching that pivotal moment in the plot. I would not exactly call it lazy; from a storywriter's perspective, the power of Plot would compel Shepard to at least make it up to the Catalyst for any semblance of plot completion to follow. I believe this is adequately compensated by the consequence being reflected on other factors - Earth's destruction, chaos and discord among the other species and so on.
I would counter that it is not the cutscene itself that matters, but what took place before it. The cutscene does the job for what it is intended; a big space machine doing its intended purpose. The different colours have different meanings, as discussed right before the taking of the choice.
As for the Rachni matter, that either needs proper canonical explanation or it risks complete and utter inconsistency for those who took that choice. 'Why the Queen is still there if I chose to kill her?' is a question that must be asked and answered satisfactorily. If not, then I agree, it is a serious deviation from internal logic which I cannot suffer.
I am in the process of playing through a Renegade who liquefied the Queen - I will look towards that part of the game once I come to it.
In conclusion, I do believe that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is some of the most brilliant writing I've seen in any game I have played in the last few years. I do understand the vitriol and the complaints, and I do understand the investment carried over throughout the series by many, including myself. I cannot, however, support the notion that the authors 'got it wrong' or that the ending is shit simply because it failed to match the expectations of the masses, the same way I can't support the (hypothetical) notion that people could lynch-mob Tolkien for not letting Frodo live happily ever after in the Shire after Lord of the Rings. Because that was never the intended direction of the story. And as regrettable as the dislike of so many is, it is even more regrettable that people find themselves in the right of demanding a different ending or clamouring about the demise of quality writing in games. Because I know what that means, sadly; it means conformity to the established formulae, in complete disregard for the internal logic of the setting. It means sacrificing quality for the sake of the mob's appeasing. And that is the death of the original artist.