Mass Effect 3: It's not the endings, its the final battle (And synthesis)

[Cooperblack]

The up spin of all this, though, is that the Catalyst is a Reaper. It's entirely possible it lied about a whole bunch of stuff. After all, with high enough EMS, Shepard survives. And, though we don't see any geth, or EDI, in the summary slideshow, we also don't hear any confirmation they died. So it's pretty easy for me to watch the destroy ending, see Shepard and the crew all survive and imagine that the geth at the very least made it too. EDI is an acceptable sacrifice for that ending, much as I grew to like her in 3.

Claiming the Catalyst is a Reaper despite it being blatantly obvious that the Catalyst is not "a Reaper" simply so one can pretend it is unreliable and that there really isn't any price to pay in the Destroy ending.

*facepalm*

This is the message that game developers might get from ending-bashers: if you make a game where victory through sacrifice is a major theme from the beginning to the end, then people will like that theme up until the very last moment when they will hate it just because it spoiled their sunshine-and-flowers happy ending.

If it's clear the catalyst is not a reaper why does it confer it self as "we" and "us" when talking about the reapers, Why does it flat out state that it is the collective conscious of the reapers?

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Oh, I see. A professor can't be a lying troll. Of course.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Like sabotaging the genophage cure when Wreav is the leader of the krogan without Eve?

Wreav is the Krogan Genghis Khan, and he doesn't bother to hide it, and very openly talks about taking revenge against his enemies. Heck, the prospect of leaving him in change, with no Eve to keep him in check, scares Mordin so much that he choose not to undo his biggest mistake.

Or abandoning the fake rachni breeder?

Who was put together by the Reapers, and was only there because you killed the original one because you didn't trust it. It is made clear it would be very stupid of you to trust that one.

Hm, I think you're leaving out one very prominent example. Commander Shepard?

Oh, yes, the guy who really had no say in the matter on the account of being dead, and becomes ugly and robotic in appearance when he is acting like a dick.

The game revolved around the construction of a superweapon because it was made clear throughout the entire series that there was no way to defeat the Reapers in conventional warfare.

In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won?t just find some long-lost Reaper "off" button.

Well, they pretty much failed on that front. And there was even so many potential and perfectly good threads spread out in Mass Effect 1 and 2 they could have picked up on. Instead they wrote themselves into a corner with a very specific level of hopelessness [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615], where the only solution was a deus ex machina. Again, it could have worked, if it weren't for the Catalyst, because again, that is whart all the problems are tied up in.

That's not what most people wanted. Most people weren't delusional trolls who didn't pay attention to anything in the series.

Again, that word. And O RLY?: http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989

And don't try to bring up that "silent majority" argument. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and costumer behavior will know that that one is a load of bollocks in a hat.

This is what it really is, in terms of a game-master analogy.

If we forget that the players could roll over every other adversary up to this point, or outright talk them down if they played their cards right. And lets not forget a last minute plot asspull of a twist that involves trusting what is essentially Space-Hitler, who, even if you meta-game it, the players have absolutely no reason to trust, and the only reason they are there is because the GM contrived that very specific level of hopelessness.

that can't be arsed to choose an option where there isn't a sunshine-and-flowers choice.

When is this strawman argument going to stop being used? Even in my best-case scenario where the scene with the Catalyst and his plot-destroy powers is erased from existence, the homeworlds and the military of the galaxy has already suffered quite a bit, and Shepard has lost some close friends. It isn't going to be a Disney ending under any circumstances.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Oops double post.

 

[Terminal Blue]

When is this strawman argument going to stop being used? Even in my best-case scenario where the scene with the Catalyst and his plot-destroy powers is erased from existence, the homeworlds and the military of the galaxy has already suffered quite a bit, and Shepard has lost some close friends. It isn't going to be a Disney ending under any circumstances.

Sorry, have to disagree here.. This is like saying Bambi didn't have a Disney ending because the blue fairy doesn't appear and make Bambi's mum come back to life.

Having trials and lasting consequences within the story does not prevent the ending being flowers-and-sunshine.

In ME1, was the ending emotionally complex because of all the servicemen and women (as well as Citadel residents) who died in the final battle? No, because you didn't care and neither did anyone. It was just stuff happening off-screen. You were happy because Shepard and the characters you did care about had survived. You can't expect people to care about nameless, faceless numbers which they had no opportunity to do anything about anyway. The fact that bad things happened in the story has no impact on the tone of the ending.

I actually agree with some of what you're saying despite not particularly minding the ending. However, I don't get this bit.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

reduces Shepard to a chump that does his bidding ... you end on helping the antagonist fulfilling his original goal.

Is it really that hard to acknowledge dialogue during the ending?

Is it really that hard to acknowledge that the Catalyst doesn't want you to choose Destroy?

Is it really that hard to acknowledge that the Catalyst flat-out tells you that it considers Synthesis to be the best option in its opinion?

Anyone who thinks that Destroy or Control are the Catalyst's options or that it wants you to choose Destroy or Control either hasn't played the game or is a liar, simple as that. Because I refuse to believe that any intelligent person could watch the ending and come up with such a stupid, blatantly-false perception of the ending when the Catalyst makes it clear that it's the opposite of such an ignorant belief.

And I'm sure that BioWare knew that all along.

Is it really that hard to acknowledge that the Catalyst is making a "fact statement" with the options presented? To the point of informing you in the Extended Cut that (in low EMS) the Crusible is so damaged that using it will vaporize everything (synthetic or not).

You may say that the Catalyst doesnt want the Destroy option because of the implications of these lines of dialog:

Catalyst: "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth. Even you are partly synthetic"

Shep: "But The Reapers will be destroyed?"

Catalyst: "Yes, but the peace wont last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back"

(55:13)

1) If the Catalyst REALLY wanted Shep to not choose Destroy, he could have lied by saying:

Cat: "Because Destroy in particular uses an Electro Magnetic Pulse Technobable Technobable, it will destroy the mass relays and make them explode "Arrival" style. Killing EVERYONE"

Shep: "What do you mean "everyone"?"

Spoiler

Cat: "And that is terrible. Now, if i may direct your attention to OTHER options to your left, you may notice that Synthesis over there is much better solution because organics will be as awesome as Synthetics and viceversa. Thus, there is no need to make synthetics at all when you are already a synthetic cyborg"


2)The last line of the Catalyst in particular ("but the peace wont last. And blah blah") implies that Destroy isnt a permanent solution to the Reapers problems as Synthesis would be. But there is a problem, there is nothing stopping the Organics from this generation or the ones coming after those, from making synthetics anyway that is superior to their Organics / New Race of Cyborgs / Synthetic Hybrids creators, and THEN get wiped out by these synthetics.

(Skip to 01:07:46 in video already posted)

So Synthesis is just as useless in its long term plan as Destroy is. They both further the Reaper agenda, but are clearly not permanent or long term solutions. I can see The Catalyst trying to lie about Control IF, and only IF, becoming The Catalyst is also a trap of the Reapers to make whoever tries to control them become vaporize with the electrodes of Control, or just flat out rewriting the mind of the victim to still think like the previous Catalyst anyway, thus, once again, furthering Reaper agenda by stil being alive AND obtaining a new perspective that may or may not help them to kill/preserve/indoctrinate people more efficiently.

Nevermind that Synthesis doesnt solve a problem that the series forgot to notice, and so did the Reapers: How is preserving life by making everyone synthetic, a permanent solution to Entropy (AKA "The Heat Death Of The Universe") or ANY end of the universe scenario that is a threat to all life in general (like "The Big Crumble")?

http://www.exitmundi.nl/bigexpansion.htm
http://www.exitmundi.nl/crumble.htm

Both come from this "End of The World" encyclopedia:
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

But in the end, this discussion doesn't matter because The Catalyst doesn't even care that The Crusible changed him into accepting more variables, because The Reapers (and by extension, The Catalyst, as i already elaborated in this thread) blow the Crusible up:


Remember this thing you mentioned and everyone forgot until you brought it up? yeeaaah, you probably shouln't have.

Lets see, if Synthesis is the ideal solution (we know it isnt but lets believe Catalyst for a short moment) then why The Reapers try to destroy it? isnt it better to:

1)Start repairing it? now that they know it IS possible to use The Crusible as a permanent solution to their problem?? Why dont you all stop fighting the Organics (because i can see you outside the window that you are still firing eye beams) and repair it?

2)Kill the organics and keep The Crusible to upgrade it to their specifications? just in case that it ends up blowing things up, because of the damage it received because the Reapers THEMSELVES made? (Remember, less options on The Crusible is because of Low EMS. Meaning that less ship protecting it = more damage from the Reapers = more unstable and likely to kill everyone)

3)Keep feeding it with energy? Lets assume that, somehow, the Crusible runs out of energy because, as The Catalyst puts it "The Device you know as The Crusible, is a little more than a power sourse" (Extended Cut). Alright, if this thing explodes or is destroyed when it runs out of fuel, then why not provide fuel so your "ideal" solution doesnt explode in our face and become lost forever.

But of course, that answer is lost forever in a sea of contrivedness. This has been already been explained to you, Lily. But sadly, you dont "get it".

EDIT: Oh by the way. Here is the original dialog Pre EC of Catalyst. He says at 0:55 :"I CONTROL the Reapers. They are my solution"


Its over. There is no use for you to defend this. You wasted your life for nothing. Welcome to the "minority"

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Oh, I see. A professor can't be a lying troll. Of course.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You should convince that Profesor to gather more Literature profesionals (that probably already dealt with "Shit protected by fans that have Stockholm Syndrom" like Twilight) and all of them make a video together for everyone in the world of Internet, to see how broken the ending is. Physical evidence is always a good argument.

BONUS: Get Harlan Ellison, creator of "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", who spent his entire life defending Sci Fi from being "just trashy literature not worth of being art", to actually comment on Mass Effect.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

the catalyst in me3 to me seemed like it WANTED organics to find another way, he was impressed by how far this cycle had come, and he had always wanted a better solution but was doing the best he could with what he had. and that's where the crucible comes onto play, it modified the citadel and gives the catalyst the power to do find a new solution.

Honestly i kind of like how i have it in my head, to me this ^ makes sense, and more than any indoctrination theory does anyway...

I am sorry. But The Catalyst doesnt care about finding a new solution. Otherwise, this wouldnt happen:


And also, if he wants a new solution, then why it has to be ANY of those 3 options?? Why cant i argue with him that those solutions dont work (or that there is a heavy risk on that the Reapers indoctrinate everyone because they can do that even while being dead, just because Synthesis and Control makes them still be around to do just that), and provide a new one with the evidence Shepard has by showing that Synthetics and Organics can live together (Quarians+Geth)?

Instead, when you reject the 3 options, he goes: "SO BE IT!" and doesnt listen anymore. (6:08)


He just wants YOU to use HIS solutions. Nothing else.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Still don't understand why the Catalyst(and by proxy the reapers) would see "Control" or "Destroy" as an solution, I get that Synthesis apparently has been what the reapers have been working towards...in some strange weird space magic makes little sense kind of way - But Control and Destroy deals directly with the reapers being the problem, In fact it's a complete 180 from the organics and their desire to build synthetics is the problem as stated by the catalyst.

So why would control and destroy be seen as a "solution" by the catalyst when they don't even address the organics building synthetics problem that the catalyst and the reapers are combating?

Destroy/Control treats the reapers as being the problem - needing new leadership(control) or just needs to go away entirely (destroy).

Reffer to my Post 310 of this thread.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

You should convince that Profesor to gather more Literature profesionals (that probably already dealt with "Shit protected by fans that have Stockholm Syndrom" like Twilight) and all of them make a video together for everyone in the world of Internet, to see how broken the ending is. Physical evidence is always a good argument.

Well, for starters drayfish has posted quite a bit on the subject on his blog (well, some of it is published at http://whatculture.com). It is definitely worth reading:

http://drayfish.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/thematically-revolting-the-end-of-mass-effect-3/
http://drayfish.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/its-not-just-the-journey-mass-effect-3-and-why-endings-matter/
http://drayfish.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/this-is-the-way-the-world-ends-a-response-to-mass-effect-3s-extended-cut/

 

[JellySlimerMan]

I'm sorry but how exactly at the end are you helping the antagonist fulfill his original goal? He lets you destroy or control the Reapers if you want..? Do you just mean in regards to the Synthesis ending? If so then I think the solution is obvious... just don't pick that ending. If saving the lives of countless lives across the galaxy isn't worth robbing people of their self determination then don't do it. You do have other options you just have to be prepared to pay the cost they demand.

Why do people seem to think that the Synthesis ending is supposed to be considered the "good" ending? None of the endings are good, they all suck and they're supposed to in a way... I can't imagine the final decision was ever supposed to be an easy one with a clearcut good and bad outcome. You're going to have to face the truth that something you value is going to be lost to ensure the Reapers are stopped, It all comes down to what you are ultimately prepared to sacrifice to save everyone?

This article will answer that question for you:
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

People think is the "good" ending because the narrative seems to imply it and the EMS score. The closer to 100% completion, the quicker you get to Synthesis being available.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

SNIP

Oh by the way. Remember when i said that the Reapers only harvest Space Faring Races and leave everything else alone?

I was wrong. They can indoctrinate young non-sentient species to do their bidding, regardless if they have FTL technology but not the right DNA. Makes you wonder then, why leave the Yahg alone if they are using creatures like this to strenghten their numbers. Wont those be better?

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Harvester
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/The_Reapers#Reaper_Variants

Contradicting the Catalyst statement Nº32.742 of "No. We harvest advanced civilizations. Leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we did with your people the last time we were here" at 1:25

 

[JellySlimerMan]

The up spin of all this, though, is that the Catalyst is a Reaper. It's entirely possible it lied about a whole bunch of stuff. After all, with high enough EMS, Shepard survives. And, though we don't see any geth, or EDI, in the summary slideshow, we also don't hear any confirmation they died. So it's pretty easy for me to watch the destroy ending, see Shepard and the crew all survive and imagine that the geth at the very least made it too. EDI is an acceptable sacrifice for that ending, much as I grew to like her in 3.

Claiming the Catalyst is a Reaper despite it being blatantly obvious that the Catalyst is not "a Reaper" simply so one can pretend it is unreliable and that there really isn't any price to pay in the Destroy ending.

*facepalm*

This is the message that game developers might get from ending-bashers: if you make a game where victory through sacrifice is a major theme from the beginning to the end, then people will like that theme up until the very last moment when they will hate it just because it spoiled their sunshine-and-flowers happy ending.

If it's clear the catalyst is not a reaper why does it confer it self as "we" and "us" when talking about the reapers, Why does it flat out state that it is the collective conscious of the reapers?

Original Pre EC Catalyst Dialog. At 0:55 you will find the answer you seek:


"I CONTROL the Reapers. They are my solution"

And of course, the EC says that "He embodies the collective intelligence of all Reapers" if it wasnt obvious enough.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Of special note is the part where the exceptionally intelligent professional states that Saren tried to control the Reapers.

Blatantly-ignorant troll? Check.

Now you are just being wilfully obtuse and cherry-picking. And you obviously still have no idea what "troll" means.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Contradicting the Catalyst statement Nº32.742 of "No. We harvest advanced civilizations. Leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we did with your people the last time we were here" at 1:25

A handful of harvests that do not dramatically undermine the survival prospects or evolutionary tract of the species constitutes "leaving alone" when dealing with timelines of tens of thousands of years. In the case of humanity for example, we are speaking of a period predating recorded history by 40,000 years. We have no history, no memory, and no evolutionary adaptation that seemingly benefits their purposes.

Of course, it also must be considered that the Catalyst has been running a lengthy experiment lasting thousands of cycles trying to produce a specific set of conditions that the current cycle apparently meets. The evidence of their direction in this case is significant in that they make it as easy as possible for new species to quickly reach the level of space empire before the harvest. In the case of humanity, it simply took a manned mission to Mars to generate technology they hadn't even dreamed of outside of science fiction.

Now, if you want to nitpick about motivations, the best place to start I'd say is asking a simple question: what makes this cycle different from the rest? If you take the Catalyst at his word, something makes this cycle special and thus eligible for his preferred solution of synthesis. Given we only have information regarding three cycles (the first, the prothean, and the current), there simply isn't sufficient data to make any solid determination.

 

[daibakuha]

Now you are just being wilfully obtuse and cherry-picking.

Oh, I'm so sorry that I expect critics to, y'know, not be completely (bleep) wrong about the work they're crying about.

And ending-bashers wonder why I have no respect for them...

You're literally taking a very large group of people with the only main unifying characteristic being they don't like a certain ending then generalizing the F*** out of them. When arguing you take any single flaw in their statements, then blatantly hand wave everything else all the while insulting their intelligence. If anyone doesn't deserve respect, it's you.

Honestly, both sides have been doing this since this whole thing started. I can't tell you how many times I've seen these debates resort to name-calling just as soon as someone of reasonable intelligence starts to debate these points.

To be honest it's been a lot more one-sided previously.

 

[Asita]

Of course, it also must be considered that the Catalyst has been running a lengthy experiment lasting thousands of cycles trying to produce a specific set of conditions that the current cycle apparently meets. The evidence of their direction in this case is significant in that they make it as easy as possible for new species to quickly reach the level of space empire before the harvest. In the case of humanity, it simply took a manned mission to Mars to generate technology they hadn't even dreamed of outside of science fiction.

Not really, no. Again, the Catalyst identifies the Reapers as its solution. That the crucible even exists is treated as a testament to the Catalyst's failure. It even introduces these concepts to you in those terms. That Shepherd is there is in spite of its best laid plans, not because of them. To quote, that you stand there "proves that [the Catalyst's] solution won't work anymore". It doesn't describe this as an eventuality, it describes this in the context of it being a failing on its part, one that requires a new solution to be formulated. It even points out that these options didn't exist until the crucible - which was created as an anti-reaper weapon, mind you - was plugged in and somehow changed the catalyst (in its own words). That the reapers are still perfectly happy to destroy the crucible furthers the implication that this cycle is a spanner in the works.

It's also worth noting that half the trap was ensuring that technology developed along familiar paths that the Reapers knew themselves to be above and the fact that this cycle got as far as it did was due in no small part to the Prothean's meddling to prevent the keepers from activating the Citadel Relay and providing a trail of bread-crumbs to counteract the element of surprise that was the Reapers' single greatest weapon. By the time of the first Mass Effect Sovereign was implied (or at least inferred by Vigil by means of the the reaper's comparatively direct actions) to be fairly desperate to bring the rest of the Reaper fleet through in a great hurry and was LONG overdue. This was corraborated in Mass Effect 2, wherein Legion stated that Sovereign had been searching for allies to help bring about the Reapers' coming for upwards of a millenium, which serves to also make sense of the Rachni Queen's characterization of an external force corrupting her kin, leading to the Rachni wars almost two thousand years before Mass Effect 1. Again, this cycle's unusual progression is very much in spite of the Reapers' plans, which would have had this cycle end much sooner.