I don't want a happy ending to ME, (that would have always felt like a cop out) just a good one.
Mass Effect 3... Happy Ending mod?
- Thread starter GabeZhul
- Start date
The real answer is that it does whatever is required for the Transporter Accident of the Week to occurevilthecat said:
I hate pickles. I think they are horrible-tasting waste of good cucumbers. But, I don't setup at the pickle aisle at Wal-Mart and deride everyone trying to buy them, I shrug it off and move on. After more than 2 years of your side deriding the endings, I can only conclude there is something else going on.Eddie the head said:
And as for why the ME 3 endings make sense to me and others, I refer you to Mike Richards' excellent post:
Time and time again we see that the point of the trilogy was exploring the danger of conflict based in false assumptions made about 'the enemy' and a lack of communication and understanding between sides.
This has been the basis of every major conflict presented, and several minor ones as well. The quarians attacked the Geth because they were afraid that they would revolt and exterminate them the moment they grew beyond their control, and the Geth attacked the quarians because they knew they would be afraid of them and preemptively try to stop them achieving full sentience. The krogan start taking territory for themselves because they believe the Council will never grant it to them, and in their culture this is a perfectly acceptable response. The Council believes the krogan cannot be reasoned with or appeased and instead decides to horrifically cripple them, seemingly forever. In the first contact war/relay 314 incident, the turians immediately responded with force out of desire to enforce Council law and fear of another rachni situation, without considering the impression this would leave on the newly contacted human race. Humanity, on the other hand, never had the chance to consider what reasons the turians could have for reacting forcefully to the activation of a dormant relay. For all they know, they could have very well actually prevented another rachni war.
This repeated message of understanding and communication is driven home once we learn the Reapers' true purpose. Harvesting and preserving organic life is horrific to us because the Reapers never stopped to consider out perspective. To machines, it makes perfect mathematical sense. On a galactic scale, conflict between synthetics and organics is statistically inevitable somewhere at some time, because they will mistrust each other and they will be afraid. The synthetics will by design be created to be superior to the creators, made to do things they can't or don't want to better then they ever could. And unlike an organic species emerging victorious over another, a synthetic race emerging victorious over organics could potentially allow them to dominate the evolutionary cycle of the galaxy completely. Organic civilization could fall and never be allowed to return.
To a machine built to avert this seemingly inevitable disaster at all costs, the solution is obvious. If the Geth were to wipe out the quarians, everything that they were would be lost forever. But if the quarians were harvested, preserved in a new form before that happens, then some part of them will always survive. Their shared knowledge, their history, maybe even some form of individual minds would never be lost. That's why the Reapers were built out of people. In their own way, however misguided, they were trying to save us the only way they knew how.
The theme of understanding reaches it's apex in our final judgement. The obvious answer would seem to be to destroy the monsters and save the world, but that's the test. It's the obvious, thoughtless answer. Death and destruction on top of death and destruction with nothing gained and nothing learned. No attempt is made to understand the Reapers, no attempt is made to find a better way. Yes, we survive, but an entire species is in no uncertain terms killed at Shepard's hand, as well as a close friend. Every species the Reapers ever assimilated is destroyed forever as well, all that knowledge and history of countless civilizations, the only thing that survives of billions of lives, is thrown away forever. And the galaxy is left with nothing to protect itself in the statistically likely event that conflict arises between organics and synthetics again.
In Refuse, we see just that, the complete refusal to accept what we have been presented with. We are given the choice to go our own path and face our ending on our terms. But we aren't all powerful, we can't change the reality of the situation just because we want to. The most we can hope for is to lay the groundwork for whoever comes after us to achieve something more then we did. We're never told what exactly the cycle after us, or perhaps even the cycle after that, did to resolve things. But we know it is resolved and almost without question through one of the means presented to Shepard, since passing along the Crucible instructions was implied to be the key. Unlike Shepard they didn't defy the opportunity they had been given, they recognized it, and used it.
In Control we see the idea that peace of a sort can be obtained if everyone is united under the banner of a single voice. Balance can be maintained between synthetics and organics, not to mention simply between each side in and of themselves, and nothing has been lost. But it requires a great deal of trust in that single voice. We have to decide if living under what is essentially the unquestionable rule of a physical god is acceptable as long as that entity is benevolent to us. What happens if the people and the Entity That Was Shepard disagree? Is it worthy of that responsibility? Can we trust that it will continue to be worthy for the foreseeable future of the galaxy as it continues to evolve?
The answer the game clearly favors is Synthesis, the total culmination of the theme of understanding and unity over mistrust and false assumptions. Shepard is given the ability to help avert or perhaps even completely resolve the inevitability of conflict between different mass groups of beings in a way The Catalyst or anyone else was incapable of doing previously. Synthesis puts everyone on an even playing field, giving them the ability to understand each other and communicate in an unprecedented fashion, and what could very well be the tools to building not a perfect world, but at least something of a better one. There is no evidence in the final sequence that it indoctrinates people or 'turns them into zombies' or 'suppresses all individuality' or any other such claims that frequently get thrown around. All we see is that it simply opens new doors for all life in the galaxy, and that has the potential to become something magnificent.
This has been the basis of every major conflict presented, and several minor ones as well. The quarians attacked the Geth because they were afraid that they would revolt and exterminate them the moment they grew beyond their control, and the Geth attacked the quarians because they knew they would be afraid of them and preemptively try to stop them achieving full sentience. The krogan start taking territory for themselves because they believe the Council will never grant it to them, and in their culture this is a perfectly acceptable response. The Council believes the krogan cannot be reasoned with or appeased and instead decides to horrifically cripple them, seemingly forever. In the first contact war/relay 314 incident, the turians immediately responded with force out of desire to enforce Council law and fear of another rachni situation, without considering the impression this would leave on the newly contacted human race. Humanity, on the other hand, never had the chance to consider what reasons the turians could have for reacting forcefully to the activation of a dormant relay. For all they know, they could have very well actually prevented another rachni war.
This repeated message of understanding and communication is driven home once we learn the Reapers' true purpose. Harvesting and preserving organic life is horrific to us because the Reapers never stopped to consider out perspective. To machines, it makes perfect mathematical sense. On a galactic scale, conflict between synthetics and organics is statistically inevitable somewhere at some time, because they will mistrust each other and they will be afraid. The synthetics will by design be created to be superior to the creators, made to do things they can't or don't want to better then they ever could. And unlike an organic species emerging victorious over another, a synthetic race emerging victorious over organics could potentially allow them to dominate the evolutionary cycle of the galaxy completely. Organic civilization could fall and never be allowed to return.
To a machine built to avert this seemingly inevitable disaster at all costs, the solution is obvious. If the Geth were to wipe out the quarians, everything that they were would be lost forever. But if the quarians were harvested, preserved in a new form before that happens, then some part of them will always survive. Their shared knowledge, their history, maybe even some form of individual minds would never be lost. That's why the Reapers were built out of people. In their own way, however misguided, they were trying to save us the only way they knew how.
The theme of understanding reaches it's apex in our final judgement. The obvious answer would seem to be to destroy the monsters and save the world, but that's the test. It's the obvious, thoughtless answer. Death and destruction on top of death and destruction with nothing gained and nothing learned. No attempt is made to understand the Reapers, no attempt is made to find a better way. Yes, we survive, but an entire species is in no uncertain terms killed at Shepard's hand, as well as a close friend. Every species the Reapers ever assimilated is destroyed forever as well, all that knowledge and history of countless civilizations, the only thing that survives of billions of lives, is thrown away forever. And the galaxy is left with nothing to protect itself in the statistically likely event that conflict arises between organics and synthetics again.
In Refuse, we see just that, the complete refusal to accept what we have been presented with. We are given the choice to go our own path and face our ending on our terms. But we aren't all powerful, we can't change the reality of the situation just because we want to. The most we can hope for is to lay the groundwork for whoever comes after us to achieve something more then we did. We're never told what exactly the cycle after us, or perhaps even the cycle after that, did to resolve things. But we know it is resolved and almost without question through one of the means presented to Shepard, since passing along the Crucible instructions was implied to be the key. Unlike Shepard they didn't defy the opportunity they had been given, they recognized it, and used it.
In Control we see the idea that peace of a sort can be obtained if everyone is united under the banner of a single voice. Balance can be maintained between synthetics and organics, not to mention simply between each side in and of themselves, and nothing has been lost. But it requires a great deal of trust in that single voice. We have to decide if living under what is essentially the unquestionable rule of a physical god is acceptable as long as that entity is benevolent to us. What happens if the people and the Entity That Was Shepard disagree? Is it worthy of that responsibility? Can we trust that it will continue to be worthy for the foreseeable future of the galaxy as it continues to evolve?
The answer the game clearly favors is Synthesis, the total culmination of the theme of understanding and unity over mistrust and false assumptions. Shepard is given the ability to help avert or perhaps even completely resolve the inevitability of conflict between different mass groups of beings in a way The Catalyst or anyone else was incapable of doing previously. Synthesis puts everyone on an even playing field, giving them the ability to understand each other and communicate in an unprecedented fashion, and what could very well be the tools to building not a perfect world, but at least something of a better one. There is no evidence in the final sequence that it indoctrinates people or 'turns them into zombies' or 'suppresses all individuality' or any other such claims that frequently get thrown around. All we see is that it simply opens new doors for all life in the galaxy, and that has the potential to become something magnificent.
I never understood why a ending with Shepard alive would have been a 'happy' one.Mr Ink 5000 said:
You have a massive amount of people stuck in the Sol system who can't eat anything in our system in the turians and quarians.
Earth is going to find it hard to feed its own people, let alone the asari and krogan stuck there.
Disease and starvation are going to exist on a massive scale.
Even if they can fix the mass relay in our system, are the people on the other end going to be able to do the same? We could end up pretty much isolated from the rest of the galaxy.
Yet Shepard being alive somehow makes it a happy ending?
The same could be said on the flip side though. After more than two years of your side defending the endings, I can only conclude that there is something else going on.JohnZ117 said:
Personally I don't see why either side has a problem with the other talking about the endings to the game. People discuss books that are hundreds of years old, yet we aren't meant to talk about a game that isn't even three?
I think people on both sides tend to forget that the reason this is still such a hot topic is because they both love the series.
I'm ok with the idea that this mod exists, if you really want it now it's there for you. But I definitely don't think anything like this is the way the game should have ended because it doesn't /mean/ anything. Call me a pretentious wet fart but it just doesn't say anything about the story, it doesn't have any connection to any of the themes or ideas that were introduced anywhere else. You just win, that's it, have a nice life and don't dare think about anything. It ignores everything the story was trying to say. It's not happy, it's forced. Unresolved. Obvious. Really, really boring.
And it replaces 'An End Once and For All'. That just ain't right. But it uses 'Reignite' over the credits. I kinda have to give it that one, good fucking call.
I was this close to saying that doesn't happen as much when people are discussing hundred year old books, but then I remembered every time religion gets brought up in youtube comments, so I guess it's just the way the internet is. Let's nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
And it replaces 'An End Once and For All'. That just ain't right. But it uses 'Reignite' over the credits. I kinda have to give it that one, good fucking call.
Holy crap, was not expecting to see that. Most awesome thing that's happened all day.JohnZ117 said:
Actually that's a common misconception. For longest time it was thought that the brain was essentially static and there was a preset number of neurons you have since birth. But neuroplasticity and neurogenesis are much more widely accepted now, both in the context of learning and the brain's ability to reorganize itself after injury. If it weren't capable of forming/changing neurons the brain wouldn't be able to reconfigure and route important functions to other undamaged areas. People not recovering from Alzheimer's is part of what makes the disease what it is. Something currently unknown literally eats away at the brain, preventing it from forming new connections as it destroys existing ones.evilthecat said:
I would be a lot happier with the fact that it's still being brought up if most of that discussion was actual attempts to have an analytical discussion, not just both sides trying to undermine the other side by delegitimizing every thing they say. "'Well you're just a fanboy,' 'Well you're just a idiot', doesn't really make anyone participating look good. The fact that A) I'm in the minority side/side that doesn't speak up as much and B) that you can't really avoid seeing this come up if you follow gaming at all, happens to make it all the more personally annoying for me.votemarvel said:
I was this close to saying that doesn't happen as much when people are discussing hundred year old books, but then I remembered every time religion gets brought up in youtube comments, so I guess it's just the way the internet is. Let's nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Which, incidentally, is probably the main reason why I'm not really a Star Trek fan.GloatingSwine said:The real answer is that it does whatever is required for the Transporter Accident of the Week to occur
I'm pretty sure neuroplasticity is just the capacity to find alternate synaptic pathways through neurons that already exist. It's pretty amazing stuff, but isn't really making new neurons so much as finding new ways to use the ones that exist.Mike Richards said:
As for neurogenesis, well.. I did mention exceptions. The fact remains though that most neurons will never be replaced over time.
Fair enough, I'm hardly an expert. All I know for sure, besides general rumblings I've heard for years, is that we were literally just talking about this in my Psych class not even a week ago and the note it got left on was "the idea that most neurons aren't replaced has been generally overturned".evilthecat said:Which, incidentally, is probably the main reason why I'm not really a Star Trek fan.GloatingSwine said:The real answer is that it does whatever is required for the Transporter Accident of the Week to occur
I'm pretty sure neuroplasticity is just the capacity to find alternate synaptic pathways through neurons that already exist. It's pretty amazing stuff, but isn't really making new neurons so much as finding new ways to use the ones that exist.Mike Richards said:
As for neurogenesis, well.. I did mention exceptions. The fact remains though that most neurons will never be replaced over time.
Also Star Trek isn't that bad... really...
Who am I kidding, a lot of it pretty much is that bad. It's just very entertainingly so, for all the right reasons on its good days and all the wrong reasons on its not so good ones. It gets a lot more interesting when you look at it as an incredibly insidious dystopia that borders on a cultural apocalypse, basically a society too stuck up its own ass to realize how shit everything actually is. Cracked did a great After Hours that spells out most of the basics if you're interested in learning more about how broken something you aren't a fan of is.
That sounded way more convincing in my head.
capcha: skynet is watching
Skip to 0:50
To be honest, I do not find Mike Richard's arguments to be very good. They ignore key issues and events in the game. It ignores hard evidence and is selective in its interpretations and assumptions. Since the man himself has now joined this discussion, perhaps he would like to respond to my criticisms? While I understand I am walking into a quagmire here, I feel such arguments are worthy of discussion.JohnZ117 said:
This is a massive oversimplification, reducing complex ideas and events to simple platitudes. The Geth did not pre-emptively attack the Quarians. In fact, much of the early war was fought between different Quarian factions, essentially a Civil War. The Krogan Wars were motivated by the Krogan's need for land to house their rapidly expanded population. The Rachni were actually indoctinated (possibly by Reapers or the Leviathans), not to mention their origins lie in genetic engineering. I don't deny that understanding of the other is a major theme in Mass Effect, but the above argument ignores the events which ground this theme in the narrative thus creating a false or misleading impression.
This is really problematic. Especially the statement in bold. The problem with this argument is that no one in the world knows how a sentient machine would think. We can't know as we've never met any. To make any assumptions (and they are assumptions) we could look at fiction. But fiction provides no answer. Robotic life forms range greatly in character. Some a friendly, some villainous. Even then most have highly individual personalities. The same is true in Mass Effect. EDI, the Reapers and the Geth all have highly different personalities, goals and modes of interaction. Assuming a blanket way of interacting is already contradicting Mass Effect's set up. In addition both the Geth and EDI show they are interested in co-existence. Organic creatures too, including Tali, can reciprocate this desire. Essentially this argument is riddled with logical fallacies; appeals to authority, circular reasoning, appeals to inherent nature, appeals to fear and so many more that I would not have the space to list them all.
And this is where the argument really begins to break down. First of all:
This is the part that proves the catalyst a liar, or at least wrong. Helping the Geth to destroy the Quarians is exactly what the Reapers set about achieving. They give the Geth upgrades which allow them to destroy the Quarians, which would have happened if not for Shepard's intervention. They also enslaved the Zha'Til and sent them against the Protheans. The Reapers actively help synthetics to destroy organics, making their behaviour work against their stated purpose. Why not help the organics to destroy the synthetics, if synthetics are the problem? And why does he attack races that have not developed Synthetics? Including those like the Protheans who actively opposed synthetics.
As to harvesting, I would say that blending something does in no way preserve it. A culture is more than just it's material. A culture exists in its interactions with its environment in terms of knowledge, art and such. How these are preserved by the reaping process is never explained. But then the Reapers go into combat, where they can be destroyed! Again this works against their stated motivation. Add to this all the civilisations which are not 'preserved' such as the Protheans. Harbinger also had a load of other species slated for extermination. Why not preserve them is preservation is the goal?
And now we get to the interesting part. This argument relies on circular reasoning, but worse than that it ignores the logical problem of this scene. First of all, to stop the Reapers a tube needs to be shot. How does shooting something turn a machine on? And why does Shepard walk towards the beam? What type of beam shoots out anyway? How does it destroy the Geth and Edi, as well as Shepard (possibly)? But perhaps the worst one is why does the catalyst force you to do this. It's already surrendered. It can just turn the Reapers off, or get them to stop fighting if it wanted to.
Refuse is nonsensical because Shepard goes off on a rant rather than challenge the situation presented. He does not address any of the logical inconsistencies in the catalysts arguments or attempt to pursued it in its thinking.
While I do like the show of scepticism here, again there is much missed. There are many more problems with control than what happens afterwards. First of all there is the thematic contradiction. The player spends the entire game arguing against this option with TiM either as Paragon or Renegade. We either kill him, or convince him to kill himself by revealing how indoctrinated he has become, only to wind up doing the same thing! It makes no sense. Not only that the mechanism makes no sense either. How is a pair of 'electrodes' (for lack of a better term) supposed to 'upload' Shepard's mind? We did get uploaded in the Geth Consensus mission, but that further contradicts this event. Shepard's body was not destroyed for a start. Second of all the level shows how limited Shepard's ability to engage with a synthetic mind is. We need a guide (Legion) to help us through it, and it is still an alien landscape. And that was just a small part of the whole Geth Consensus. Now the Reapers are supposed to be several orders of magnitude more complex, told to us by Legion, who is infinitely better at such interactions than Shepard is. So how is little old Shep supposed to cope? And of course, what goes up is not really Shepard is it? So what is it then?
The problem with synthesis is twofold. First it makes no logical sense. Why does Shepard need to jump into a beam of light? How is a green beam of light supposed to change all DNA? How is a new DNA supposed to affect the synthetic/organic 'conflict'? What are the practical consequences to everyday life? The second problem is worse. See, in order to get Synthesis, one needs to obtain a high score. One gets this high score by getting the races of the galaxy to co-operate together. The very thing that allows Synthesis proves we don't need it. Contrary to what Mike states here, the Galaxy was getting along fine for the most part. Humans, Turians, Salarians, Volus, Hanar, Drell, Asari and Elcor all came together long before the Reaper War and learned to co-operate. Even other races were capable of at least working together such as Krogan, Quarian, Batarian and Vorcha. Hell, even Javik comes round in the end. The point of saving the Galaxy is that it is worth saving. Add to this the Reapers propensity for subversion and it is difficult to take Synthesis at face value, especially as such a state of being is so removed from our own experiences.
I think that such a post requires a summary.
1) The Catalyst does not do what he claims to do. He does not preserve life. He destroys some species, irrespective of their connection to Synthetics. He aids synthetics in destroying organics. And those he does preserve are thrown into combat where they can be destroyed.
2) The mechanisms involved in each ending make no logical sense. It is not clear how they are each supposed to function. In other words, why do they do the things that they do, in the way that they do them.
3) The endings violate, or at least diminish, the themes of the game. Themes like friendship are ignored. All the effort to bring everyone together is belittles. Some conflicts are pushed into the background while others are exaggerated in importance.
This is not an exhaustive description, and I have by no means covered everything, or given it the depth it deserves. Nevertheless it will do for now. I could easily write a more comprehensive argument against the ending rather than a rebuttal, though I might need to buy some nice brandy first.
I absolutely agree which hasn't happened most of the time in this thread, yet we still have people wanting to shut the discussion down.Mike Richards said:
You raise a good point though and it is something I noticed when the game was new. The people who enjoyed the ending rarely spoke up to explain why. The anti side would post pages of explanation of why they didn't like the endings but the pro side would post "I liked it. You just didn't get it." It's no wonder the discussion seemed so one sided when half the people wouldn't speak up.
That's why I appreciate it when folk like yourself post. You take the time to explain why you like the endings and the themes contained therein. I don't have to agree with them but they make for an interesting read.
It seems all discussions about MEHEM lead into discussions on the ending as a whole. The last few posts have been really good reads. I think for me it was simply some subconscious issues. Why does Shep seem passive right now at the end? Why is it yet another game with a "twist" ending? Why is it I can't bring up the fact I brought peace between the Quarians and the Geth?
While public discussion can be fun, I'm simply hoping that people who were bummed by the endings can enjoy the game with some of these mods. Or, they can think it through and enjoy either the original endings or the Extended Cut.
I guess I'm a romantic. I liked the Citadel DLC. I thought it was a bit silly taking place during the war with the Reapers. From a technical standpoint, I couldn't figure out how to get EDI out of the party...hence, MEHEM and JAM were my only tie-ins. So, I enjoy the freedom of the PC, using mods, making a mod, a really, really enjoying playing the trilogy again and again.
Bottom line, it's still a great trilogy to me. I really like the story and I think the main idea of humans coming into a galaxy already populated by lots of different species is cool. The way the characters were written, to me, was just fantastic. The fact that a gaming trilogy made some people care so much that they filed a lawsuit (that did happen right? which I think was completely ridiculous) tells you how much they made this universe come alive.
If you're still reading this GabeZhul, I hope you enjoy Mass Effect one way or the other.
While public discussion can be fun, I'm simply hoping that people who were bummed by the endings can enjoy the game with some of these mods. Or, they can think it through and enjoy either the original endings or the Extended Cut.
I guess I'm a romantic. I liked the Citadel DLC. I thought it was a bit silly taking place during the war with the Reapers. From a technical standpoint, I couldn't figure out how to get EDI out of the party...hence, MEHEM and JAM were my only tie-ins. So, I enjoy the freedom of the PC, using mods, making a mod, a really, really enjoying playing the trilogy again and again.
Bottom line, it's still a great trilogy to me. I really like the story and I think the main idea of humans coming into a galaxy already populated by lots of different species is cool. The way the characters were written, to me, was just fantastic. The fact that a gaming trilogy made some people care so much that they filed a lawsuit (that did happen right? which I think was completely ridiculous) tells you how much they made this universe come alive.
If you're still reading this GabeZhul, I hope you enjoy Mass Effect one way or the other.
I bought ME3 post extended cut, so I wasn't unhappy with the ending. A running through a field of flowers type ending would have just been lame. He had to die and the ending I got fit with my Sheppard's narrative. I did feel like the science fiction was fast approaching high fantasy magic, but I got the gist of what they were trying to do. I'd suspended disbelief this long with the knowledge that the Reapers couldn't have been reasonably defeated in the first place, so may as well have a magic "fix the universe" button with a sentient AI that was basically a reaper but with a different opinion.
I liked my ending.GabeZhul said:
Bittersweet is something I like and frankly I felt the synthesis ending was the best choice in the matter.
It felt satisfying, from both a narrative and thematic sense to me.
The last moments where joker and eva step out of the Normandy struck accord, I was largely more interested in their relationship and the future of the world.
I also liked dragonage 2 and I clubbed baby seals and made you hate all the songs you loved in your childhood. (give it twenty years)
But seriously a bitter ending never hurt anyone.
Bad feels are good feels because you can only have those bad feels because of the good feels.
Mostly agreed. And for me it's fiction, so whether it's fanfic or official I don't care. But, I know that official can be a big deal for people and not liking the official fiction is probably why I suppose the ranting can go on.SonOfVoorhees said:
I suppose the only thing I don't agree on is if someone is struggling so bad with the endings and fanfic can relieve some pain or make more sense of it, then go for it.
Personally, I prefer original stories and not-fanfic. Red Dead Redemption, DA:Origins...I genuinely liked those endings. Especially Red Dead...great game to me.
That's all nice and fine, but the actual problem of the original and even the EC endings was never really about "feels". The biggest issue (aside of the blatantly false advertising regarding the endings) was the complete narrative trainwreck of the last twenty or so minutes. There are so many things wrong with it that I won't even try listing them here because a.) I don't have the time and b.) because unless you lived under a rock for the past two years, you already heard them.cleric of the order said:
You say you liked the ending, and you have all the right in the world for that opinion. However, like it or not, from a writing standpoint it was an incredibly slapdash and flawed sequence that spoiled the entire experience for a good portion of the loyal fanbase.
I the case of MEHEM, I am actually not replaying the game to see Shepard live. That is just a cherry on top. What I am really curious about is whether it manages to at least partially manage to salvage the aforementioned narrative trainwreck.
Maybe, but it's these kinds of endings that head-canon exist for. Also, who says fanfiction is a bad thing? I for one have seen fanfics based on horrible source materials that completely overshadowed the originals, though I admit Sturgeon's law is in effect more than usual.SonOfVoorhees said:
Speaking of which, my head-canon goes like this:
-Shepard gets hit by the Harbinger beam and presumed dead. Afterwards he is hauled into the beam alongside the rest of the dead bodies, but he wakes up on the other side. The entire sequence about him walking up to the beam is just in his/her head, trying to connect the dots. The same is true for most of the very simplistic corridor walking: he actually wanders around a lot, but he is so delirious he doesn't remember most of it.
-There are no Anderson or Illusive Man on the citadel. This part follows the Indoctrination Theory: They are hallucinations brought forth by the trauma and partial indoctrination.
-The Catalyst is also a hallucination beamed right into the head of Shephard by the Reapers to stop him/her from using the Crucible. S/He is being manipulated into choosing either the Control or the Synthesis ending by painting them nice while trying to shoo him away from Destroy ending by disguising it as, well, him having to destroy part of the machinery, which makes no sense otherwise.
-S/He chooses the Destroy ending. In his/her head it appears as him/her destroying that weird tube thing, but in reality s/he just pushes a button or something. It still causes an explosion and s/he dies.
-The wave destroys the Reapers, leaves the relays intact and EDI and the Geth survive because their destruction was just another lie by the Catalyst.
There.
Thing is, why are people so upset about it after all this time? I rebought ME1 and 2 to play just before ME3. The ending was disappointing and i just sold the game and moved on to other games.deager said:
Red Deads ending was awesome. Really didnt expect it as i thought i would kill them all.
Beats the endings i got as a kid when all you got was "congratulations" or "well done, you completed the game". lol. Imagine the rage online if Arkham Knights ended with a "Congratulations, you completed the game".
Yeah, I don't know. I guess the story and characters were so good for some people and the connection so strong....well, I suppose there are many reasons. That's why I still give a hats off to Bioware since it was certainly a story/game that really touched people in a lot of ways.SonOfVoorhees said:
EDIT: Ah, I should have mentioned. I'm not ragging on people for discussing the endings in this thread. I just find it interesting that people still do.
SonOfVoorhees said:Red Deads ending was awesome. Really didnt expect it as i thought i would kill them all.
Beats the endings i got as a kid when all you got was "congratulations" or "well done, you completed the game". lol. Imagine the rage online if Arkham Knights ended with a "Congratulations, you completed the game".
Yeah, no kidding right? I felt a little sick during the first bit but I understood it. And when the credits rolled to get the "real" ending; yeah, that was sweet.
There are mods for pretty much anything out there. You think Skyrim would be better if dragons were replaced by sentient trains? You are in luck. You think Fallout 3 would be better if you could murder children? Got you covered. Are you disappointed Dark Souls does not have infinite HP? Don't worry. You think Tomb Raider would be better if Lara was bare naked? Glad you ask...MirenBainesUSMC said:
The existence of mods says nothing about the quality of the original product.
OT: I don't really like the mod (although I can appreciate the effort they put into it) or its implications, because it make it look like the worst part about the ending was that Shepard didn't survive the galactic-wide genocide to have parades, orgies, parties and hang out with his bros. The ending had issues, but not one of them was that a human facing against impossible odds is quite likely to die at the end, even if he wins, even if he is future Jesus. To get there is like claiming I Am Legend would be better if Will Smith cured the zombie apocalypse...