Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[wicket42]

Just some other things that bug me.

The Catalyst says "The Created will always rebel against the Creators."

The mission with Legion in the Geth Server actually shows the Quarians were the ones trying to kill the Geth; the Geth acting in self defense. Additionally, once the Quarians flee, we see the Geth letting them go, Legion telling us there was no reason to pursue them as they were no longer a threat.

The Catalyst says "without us to stop it, the synthetics would destroy all organics". The Catalyst is a synthetic dedicated to preserving organic life.

So either the Geth (also EDI) disprove the Catalyst, or the Catalyst itself disproves the Catalyst, or both. There are other problems, but I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

I, and I suspect others, don't have a problem with the relays being destroyed, or Shepard dying, or even Joker getting stranded (how did my crew even get back on the normandy when we saw them all in London anyway?).

I have a problem with the fact that the reason the Reapers exist doesn't make sense. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's cathartic to me

Certainly more cathartic to come and complain about a nonsensical ending, than to do nothing.

God, it's like eating a sub sandwich, the best you've ever tasted, and the last bite has a big ol turd for filling, and it puts you off ever eating another sandwich again.

 

[kommando367]

First. When exactly did they promise us a perfect happy ending?

Secondly, I think that endings really make sense (except for the synthesis one) because sacrifice is such a major theme in Mass Effect, especially ME3. A lot needed to be sacrificed in order to destroy or remove something as powerful and unstoppable as the Reaper fleet.

As for the kid, the catalyst most likely could manifest itself as whatever it wanted to. Any number of reasons could have explained why it chose that form. I think it's because that's what has been haunting Shepard throughout ME3.

I only wish that there was a forth option (or possibly the result of an insufficient army for the final battle) to just have have the Reapers wipe out everything and fulfill their purpose.

 

[MomoElektra]

I've seen very few of the things presented by SK presented as having been pulled out of thin air. The explanation as to why Normandy is in the mass relay is one example, you could arguably point to, as it is merely a guess as to why it's there, but to me, it's a very sound guess.

I don't know how you can keep ignoring the things presented by SK, every thing that's been pointed out as being an inconcistency or a weak spots has been countered and explained by SK, but most of them have been ignored or met with comments like "that makes no sense", despite being sound explanations.

I don't ignore them and most do not make sense.
But it feels like trying to convince a homeopathy-follower homeopathy doesn't work.

And I don't think it's okay to guess about most of the things that happened (I'm not saying no guessing is allowed, but not of that magnitude). Because it should have been explained.
Yes, if you want to can make up something that sounds good (in your head). But it cannot ever be an explanation because it didn't get explained in the game.



I'll try it this way:

I have the perfect argument up my sleeve that will completely convince you of everything I said and think.
But I'm not going to write it down. You will have to imagine it, you will have to make it up yourself.
So now that that's clear you have now the same opinion I do and support everything I said.





You know why it doesn't work that way, do you? Why should it work with ME?

 

[MomoElektra]

"Could that have to do with the fact that the people who play these games are more and more, hmm "normal" people instead of hardcore gamers?"

That doesn't sound derisive to you?

No. I've had too many discussions with hardcore gamers about the evils of mainstream approval to consider "normal" in this context derisive.

I have a problem with the fact that the reason the Reapers exist doesn't make sense. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's cathartic to me

Likewise

 

[Ifrit7th]

First. When exactly did they promise us a perfect happy ending?

Secondly, I think that endings really make sense (except for the synthesis one) because sacrifice is such a major theme in Mass Effect, especially ME3. A lot needed to be sacrificed in order to destroy or remove something as powerful and unstoppable as the Reaper fleet.

As for the kid, the catalyst most likely could manifest itself as whatever it wanted to. Any number of reasons could have explained why it chose that form. I think it's because that's what has been haunting Shepard throughout ME3.

I only wish that there was a forth option (or possibly the result of an insufficient army for the final battle) to just have have the Reapers wipe out everything and fulfill their purpose.

So far I haven't seen one person asking for a happy ending. We Knew going into this that there was a good chance Shepard would fall. This was the end of the story, that much was promised, but the end of the world regardless of weather or not the reapers are destroyed? There's nothing wrong with wanting at least some sign that the galaxy's on the road to recovery, something at least more satisfying then some old guy and a kid.

 

[Ifrit7th]

"Could that have to do with the fact that the people who play these games are more and more, hmm "normal" people instead of hardcore gamers?"

That doesn't sound derisive to you?

No. I've had too many discussions with hardcore gamers about the evils of mainstream approval to consider "normal" in this context derisive.

The word 'normal' wasn't the derisive part of that statement I took offense to, but we're getting off track here. If you didn't intend it to be insulting, then I'm sorry for taking it so personal.

 

[Agayek]

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that there is a major difference between the arrival Relay and the ME3 relays in that
1. The Arrival relay was putting out far more power then a normal relay because of its Alpha relay status
2. The relays at the end of ME3 used ALL of their power in their pulse waves that enacted whatever choice Shepard picked and thus would have had no energy left to create a supernova system destroying energy wave.

So no 60% of the galaxy's destruction there

There is absolutely nothing to indicate there is a difference in power output between the alpha relay and any of the others. Matter of fact, the only reason it's called the Alpha Relay is because it's the first one the Reapers were going to come through. It's (most likely) no different from any other relay out there.

Second, it never says anything about that. All we know for sure is that the beam goes through the relays and each relay it fires from explodes. From there, the most likely conclusion is that they explode in a similar fashion than the one relay we've seen explode previously. Is it possible they don't do as much damage? Certainly. That doesn't make it terribly likely though.

Actually all it did was remove the relays, the civilizations of the galaxy never built, or even fully understood, the relays. Thus in a post-relay world they would still be exactly where they were technologically they just have to get to a point were they can build relays, which they already were ages away from doing anyways. the big difference now is that they can do it on their own time, using their own methods, and their own designed, and make a BETTER future for themselves because they are not constrained by the Reapers path.

I don't think you understand just how devastating the sudden and unexpected removal of every single possible trading route can be to a society. The vast majority of colonies will see rampant starvation and disease since they can't get new supplies from anyone. There'll probably be a few that are self-sufficient, but they will be the very, very small minority. And it will take even those centuries before they can even start expanding their technology enough to recreate the relay network. They'd need to stabilize their own populations and deal with the problems suddenly being cut off from everything creates.

Except the big thing you are forgetting is that the peace with The Geth was ONLY possible because of The Reaper War.

Had The Reaper's never attacked the Geth would have stayed behind the Perseus Viel and suffered from centuries more attacks by the quarrians and other organics who fear/distrust Synthetic life, the situation that allowed for Shepard to make peace will have never even come up, which EASILY sets up for the Geth attacking and starting a war.

How people can think "If the situations for what caused the peace never existed the peace would have still been made" s beyond me, its such flawed and illogical thinking.

And you're fucking crazy. The peace between the Geth and the Quarians exists because Shepard convinced the Quarians that it was stupid in the first place. The Geth prove time and again that if they are left alone they won't harm anyone.

Beyond that, the only people that would attack the Geth are the Quarians. With Legion befriending Tali, it's only a matter of time for a peace to be brokered. As the old hard-liners die, new Admirals will join and will likely have more progressive ideas with regards to the Geth if Tali does any part of her job properly.

From there, it's fully feasible that a peace between the two could be brokered within a generation, possibly two. Hell, the Geth could probably just give them Rannoch and the war would end instantly.

 

[Sp3ratus]

No, those are pretty much facts.

Nothing - the genophage, quarians vs. geth - nothing plays into the ending. You get two options that have nothing to do with how well you performed throughout the trilogy. These things are as much in play as whether Joker was waxing his carrot at the time or not.

The genophage has still been cured and the quarian and geth still have peace(for now), no matter which of the three endings you choose. Also your choices, throughout the entire series does matter. Shooting Wrex, destroying the genophage reasearch Maelon did, back in ME2. Those choices affect how you deal with Tuchanka in ME3. This directly affect how many war assets you can get and in the end, influence the ending. Yes, there are 3 different choices at the end, but there are actually 16 different endings, based on what you did in earlier games and what you did in ME3. See a full list here of all the possible endings. With that in mind, you can't still say that nothing you did throughout the game or series didn't matter.

The Conduit's reasoning (aswell as Shepard's response) is nonsensical and has been picked apart many times before. So is the way this Crucible thing is operated.

Opinion.

A) It took less time than almost any other cinematic moment in the game;

While this might be true, that doesn't invalidate it.

B) It explained nothing;

Opinion.

C) It conveyed no sense of satisfaction, which, when we're talking about saving the galaxy, is bloody something;

Opinion.

D) It didn't signify a change in any character's perspective;

This might be true, but it did signify a massive change in the entire galaxy and by extesion every character.

 

[voltron]

thank god I'm not the only person who saw this. The games ending felt more like a novel to me than a video game, you just don't see these sorts of ending in video games that often so I guess that is why people are bitching. You don't see this ending in Movies any more either because the unwashed mashes can't handle a compelling ending to a compelling series. Just look at what they did to I am Legend for proof of this.

The ending was beyond satisfying for me. Compare it to say the ending of Halo. Halos ending was basically 'when ever we want more money we can make a sequel' ending. Talk about lame.

This is perhaps the most outrageous posting here. Such an arrogant rant about "unwashed masses" is intolerable. You should apologize for this.

 

[Mikkel Uldall]

I too was very disappointed with the ending. For several reasons: why were my squad-mates, who I was certain died during the charge to the beam, on the Normandy? And where was it going? Fleeing the battle?
Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Talia's Loyalty mission in ME2 (along with other optional stuff) hint at this weird mojo called "Dark Energy" actually being the real threat, and that the Reapers were actually preparing to stop it from consuming the entire galaxy?

And this whole "Stop the created from destroying their creators" plot-point came out of nowhere. I disproved this by creating peace between the Geth and the Quarian, and the Geth, wouldn't you know it, turned out to be nice people who fought back in self-defense against a xenopophic Quarian race? And, remember, the only times the Geth were shown as aggressive during the entire trilogy was when they were either under the control of the Reapers, or defending against Quarian attacks. If this "created destroys the creators" plot is the entire philosophical point of the series, then why did we hear NOTHING of such things before the very end of ME 3? The Protheans weren't destroyed by their creations - and we heard, caps again for emphasis, NOTHING about past races being wiped out by their creations.

I did not want a happy ending. I wanted to beat the odds with sacrifice and loyalty to the "greater good," but these endings... When did the writers decide to change so many things so radically and out of nowhere? Where did the Dark Energy plot go? Why were we not told about "created destroying creators" before?

My Shepard survived the "Destroy" choice, and still, I just felt... Meh. I sighed, I rubbed my eyes, and asked out loud: "Dafuq just happened? And dafuq was that rambling kid-god-AI talking about?"

(Not to mention how screwed every race in the galaxy is after every ending - the Codex entries make it pretty clear that without the relays, space travel takes forever. And the whole hinting at the Stargazer and the kid being members of a colony founded by the Normandy's crew just seemed... Odd. The crew was mostly male, relatively small compared to most convectional warships because of its focus on speed and stealth and rapid deployment, and... I don't know. I'm too confused to go on.)

 

[Raesvelg]

An ending we could have gotten (my idea):

Why didn't we get something like this? Very, very grim, but at least with a sense of completion.

Also blindingly unoriginal, of course.

Technically Mass Effect as a whole is blindingly unoriginal, since science fiction is a fairly prolific genre. Pretty much every idea has been done before, sadly.

There are, however, a few valid complaints about the endings. Lack of resolution being the primary one for me; I actually don't mind the ending, except that I'd really like to know, say, the next hundred years or so of galactic history.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Yes, there are 3 different choices at the end, but there are actually 16 different endings, based on what you did in earlier games and what you did in ME3. See a full list here of all the possible endings. With that in mind, you can't still say that nothing you did throughout the game or series didn't matter.

Reading from that chart only tells that the difference between saving or destroying the collector base are only a slight alteration to the score required to fulfill the criteria for the different endings. Otherwise they read the same.

 

[flipthepool]

Except I'm not trying to excuse the endings for being bad, I'm saying that as an empirical fact

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying before, thought you were trying to defend the endings. Oops!

Anyways, I have yet to see anyone explain the discrepancies in The Catalyst's logic in a satisfying way. Hearing, "All synthetic life will ALWAYS destroy ALL organics!" Is a bit rich coming from...you know, a freaking synthetic trying to save organics. Why can nobody explain this? Oh, maybe because it's complete bullcrap, and it places the entire ending premise on a faulty premise with absolutely ~no~ proof and that goes completely against established facts in the game?

The ending is unsatisfying because it's based on a premise that goes completely against the entire game! The only conflict between synthetics and organics (that didn't involve the Reapers being evil), was the Geth vs. the Quarian...and in that case, the Quarians were the ones that ~started~ the whole conflict! And then you can ~solve~ that conflict!

Aarg, it's just terrible, nonsensical writing, and anyone who says it is "good" writing is just plain wrong. I don't care if you like the ending. Really, I don't. That's good for you. But you can't defend it by saying that it's "good," or that it fits in with the rest of the story, because it just plain doesn't. I have yet to see anyone give any reason as to how it fits in with the tone and theme of the series. Mass Effect has always been about Shepard, and his crew, doing the impossible and coming out the other side. It's been about the galaxy beating impossible odds. It's been about THE REAPERS, the elder gods of the galaxy, vs. EVERYONE ELSE. It's been about the Reapers trying to control the destiny of the universe, and Shepard saying, "No. FU. We control our own destiny, and we're not going to take this lying down."

NONE of that fits into the endings as they are. None of it. Shepard just believes everything the Catalyst says, no questions asked, no ability to say, "Hey, you are full of crap, and here's why." And then just goes along and does whatever the Catalyst says to do. No other options. No other choices. And in a series that has been ALL ABOUT the importance of choice, and the importance of self-determination, the fact that you don't really get any options is pretty damning.

And can people please stop with the "what did you expect, a HAPPY ending?" No, I expected an ending that followed logically from the rest of the entire freaking series, and didn't change the whole tone of the ME universe and my entire freaking character in the last 15 minutes.

Also, just because an ending is "dark" doesn't make it good, and just because you liked it doesn't make you magically ~more advanced~ then all of the people who had real problems with it.

Fauxlisophical bullcrap does not a "deep" or "good" ending make.

 

[Sp3ratus]

Yes, there are 3 different choices at the end, but there are actually 16 different endings, based on what you did in earlier games and what you did in ME3. See a full list here of all the possible endings. With that in mind, you can't still say that nothing you did throughout the game or series didn't matter.

Reading from that chart only tells that the difference between saving or destroying the collector base are only a slight alteration to the score required to fulfill the criteria for the different endings. Otherwise they read the same.

Well, to me there's a huge difference between:
Ending #4 (Readiness Rating = 2,350 points)
You can choose to destroy the Reapers and save Earth, but it is ruined.(Collector base destroyed)
and:
Ending #4 (Readiness Rating = 2,350 points)
You can choose to control the Reapers and save Earth.(Collector base saved)
just to take an example. The readiness score also, as you can see, influence who and what you can save and that score is accumulated from choices you made.

It might just be minor alteration for you, but they are different endings, as different things happens in each and it is influenced by earlier choices in the series.

 

[flipthepool]

The Conduit's reasoning (aswell as Shepard's response) is nonsensical and has been picked apart many times before. So is the way this Crucible thing is operated.

Opinion.

Dude, that is not an opinion. People have talked about, and made excellent points about how the Catalyst's reasoning is faulty and directly contradicted by the game itself. Nobody is saying, "the Catalyst is a stupidhead!" and that's it. People are bringing up the contradictions in the Catalyst's logic, and how the Catalyst himself directly contradicts the whole "synthetics will ALWAYS KILL ALL ORGANICS, BLARGH!" reasoning, being that he IS a synthetic, who is trying to SAVE organic life.

These...aren't opinions. Saying, "the Geth (synthetics) and the Quarians (organics) were able to peacefully reconcile their differences," ISN'T an opinion. Asking, "If synthetics are ALWAYS going to kill ALL organics, then why is the Catalyst, a synthetic, trying to save organics? Doesn't that disprove that line of reasoning?" ISN'T an opinion.

Saying that the whole "synthetic life will ALWAYS do this thing," goes directly against the self-determinism of the series is NOT an opinion. Saying that it goes against the idea that synthetic life has free will ISN'T an opinion.

None of these things are opinions, they are facts, and they are why the endings are so freaking stupid. They are based on a premise that is faulty from the offset, and one that is in no way supported by the rest of the series. "Synthetics vs. organics," hasn't been the major conflict of the series. "The Reapers vs. Everyone else in the universe," has been the major conflict of the series.

I mean, the second game goes WAY out of the way to try to establish that a) not all synthetics are evil Reaper lovers, and b) they have their own thoughts, their own feelings, their own motivations. So when the third game suddenly goes, "Nope! They're all going to KILL YOU," well, I call shenanigans. Because that was in no way supported by the game itself.

 

[MomoElektra]

It might just be minor alteration for you, but they are different endings, as different things happens in each and it is influenced by earlier choices in the series.

In my opinion that makes them the exact same ending with some different variables.

snip

What you said.

"The Reapers vs. Everyone else in the universe," has been the major conflict of the series.

Absolutely. And 3 minutes before the 2-minute-end that gets changed.
To be honest, the sheer gall baffles me.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I haven't finished the game yet,I have a couple of hours left,but I know and read about the spoiler'y endings.So now with that out of the way...

There is something that I've been pondering and I wish to know.

The party you take on your last mission die? For them to survive do I need to let them behind on the Normandy and take the party that are meant to die? Does my LI die if I take her with me during the last mission? (Tali in this case).

Would like an answer to this.


Thank you in advance.

 

[synobal]

I haven't finished the game yet,I have a couple of hours left,but I know and read about the spoiler'y endings.So now with that out of the way...

There is something that I've been pondering and I wish to know.

The party you take on your last mission die? For them to survive do I need to let them behind on the Normandy and take the party that are meant to die? Does my LI die if I take her with me during the last mission? (Tali in this case).

Would like an answer to this.


Thank you in advance.

No they don't die at least there is no indication they do. I saw Garrus and Liara getting off the Normandy at the end and they were the two I took with me.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

In my opinion that makes them the exact same ending with some different variables.

Pretty much, in the end it all boils down to "do you want the blue light for your ending, or the red light for your ending?" with some minor variations.

 

[AvroArrow]

Everyone,

Please take a look at my post on the Bioware forums.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9784536

Thank you!

(I would write it here, but it is rather long.)