Mass Effect 3: The Wall

[Tsun Tzu]

OK. Firstly in me1 it is just referred to as the entire Arcturus fleet which would be all fleets stationed at Arcturus which could be multiple fleets. However ignoring this we still have a minimum of 1/6th of the human armada attacking 1 reaper, yes they would have lost a few to the geth but watching the cinematic they pretty well tore through the geth who had been weakened by the Citadel defense fleet. You then see, taking casualties into account, at least 1/8th of the human fleet all firing on a stationary sovereign and doing pretty well Nothing. It's only when you disable sovereign that the fleets fire seems to have any effect whatsoever. So best case scenario a fleet that size might be a match for a reaper capitol ship, extrapolating from there the forces of the galaxy united are still completely screwed.

Moving on, there isn't really much proof of individual reapers power in me2 just a whole lot of talk about how they're virtually unstoppable.

In me3 we still get the picture that the reapers are way too tough, yes in the start of the battle you see, not a reapers being destroyed, but 1 reaper having a couple of legs blown off. Reading in the codex we also discover that when the reapers first attacked Palaven through a trick maneuver the turians managed to destroy a couple of reaper capitol ships, and lost a good chunk of their dreadnoughts in the process. Not a sustainable casualty rate.

Yes we learn that the reapers normally take the Citadel first to cut off transport was never shown as the only reason, just a brilliant way to get a foothold and to minimise reaper casualties. Also the thanix cannons were only able to be installed on destroyers, can't remember why. So yes the reapers would have taken a lot of casualties, but no the combined fleets still couldn't have come close to beating them conventionally.

However I do agree with you that the strength of reapers is inconsistent and that really annoys me. Particularly the destroyer on Rannoch has no right to stand up to that much firepower. Only thing I can assume with that is that most of the fleet was too busy fighting the geth (even though thats not what they said).

Eh. from the context, via character exposition and facts prior to ME2's release, it seemed to be just the 5th, as that was Hackett's command and the 1st fleet was the Arcturus area defense fleet (not referred to as "the Arcturus Fleet"...nomenclature sucks). In terms of Sovereign's power, it was left behind as a vanguard unit, so it stands to some reason that it'd be a bit more powerful than the majority of his peers simply due to the potential importance of its mission.

It certainly didn't LOOK like that many ships (aside from the shot when they initially warped...ported...mass-effected into the battle anyway...I know it's an entire fleet, but it just doesn't LOOK like it is), but even in the lore it'd be a fairly sizable group. They had no prior experience with the Reapers at that point, weren't sufficiently armed to combat it, and we're not 100% on Sovereign's capabilities relative to other reaper capital ships.

Thanix cannons, in ME3's codex, are widespread throughout the Alliance and council navies and can be fitted on anything, including fighters. They also have those Thanix missiles you use to blast that destroyer on Earth. They're not really hurting for armaments that can damage or outright destroy reaper tech, as is illustrated in cinematics. This doesn't jive with how battles were playing out though, as every ship that wasn't the Normandy SR2 was just firing the older projectile weapons...which made no sense even when compared to the damned in game codex.

I didn't mean to infer that their tactics regarding the citadel was the ONLY reason. I meant that it was heavily implied, and if I remember correctly outright stated, that they rather heavily relied on that lack of communication/organization amongst the civilizations they were seeking to extinguish. They genuinely didn't want to face a potential galactic armada, even if they were to lose a quarter of their strength, it'd be a severe blow to their self-perceived godhood. I'm aware a quarter isn't sufficient for the galaxy to be victorious, but that's a minimum...they really did seem like they were scared, or at least worried, about a combined offensive taking place.

The inconsistency of strength is the biggest problem, I agree. That destroyer on rannoch was just ridiculous. Especially when you take into account that the thing was in atmo, with gravity working against its ME core and what not. Then you compare that to the destroyer on earth getting whacked relatively easily and the one on Tuchanka getting taken out by a worm.

It's terribly inconsistent and, therefore, a lot more difficult to gauge whether a "screw you" ending would be successful, or at least enough so that the Reapers would maybe chill out on the 'killing you to save you' routine.

 

[The Ubermensch]

Mass Effect 3: The Wall

A last farewell to Commander Shepard.

Read Full Article

Or is it?

*Breathe*

^.-

"She's pushing it... she's pushing it..."

"She is not just a really cool character to me, she is a fully realized person, with a clearly-defined value and belief system."

"... and she just pole vaulted over the edge."

You picked your background, the previous 30-some-odd years of your life from a list of three possible options, the binary morality system (which I still say is borked at times, changing who someone is against their will is comparatively more 'renegade' than just killing them), etc etc ad nauseam. Good character? Yes, but "fully realized person, with a clearly-defined value and belief system"? Koolaid.

To me, she is fully realized. I'm not talking just about what's in the games, I'm talking about the mindset that I use to make those choices. I know who Joanna is beyond the material that's provided in the Mass Effect lore. I know how she would react to virtually any situation, be it an awkward first date or an attack by space vampires. It's not Koolaid, it's personal investment in the character.

There is a lot of time in between games and the lore of the universe is quite vibrant, for some of us what we are given in the games are not sufficient for the very reason that you mentioned mr Eye, that in reality you wouldn't simply be at fork in the road, in fact had I not forgone the Paragon/Renegade system I would have given up on the game all together.

How ever, OT, and prepare yourselves for a wall of text, thematically the endings are still wrong. I'll move on with my life now, don't get me wrong, but there is still something off...

And this guy on the BSN forums effing nailed it!

"Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely ? and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' ? although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating ? if disheartening ? time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It?s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish ? it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point ? including the Illusive Man and Saren ? all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness ? not simply to ape human behaviours ? is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes ? Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason ? because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) ? indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity ? indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post."

My issue isn't so much with the endings presented, but the fact that Samus Shepard (three guesses) didn't try and disprove the flawed logic of the machines, seems like the thing she would do for the same reason as Mrs Arendt stated, 'cause she is a HUGE fan of the Great Dictator.

EC doesn't fix the thematic inconstancies... and don't get me started on the holes in the plot.

Ok, moving on with my life now...

*edit, fixed Arendt's name... I've been banned on other forums for less

 

[mdqp]

Just to post here some of the reasons that make the EC pointless to me:

The endings remain stupid for the most part, and the game seems to confirm that the catalyst has pretty much free will so it could easily:

1)Instead of control, simply do what Shepard asks him to do (no dying);

2)Instead of destroy, simply self destruct/fly away/whatever (no need to risk death for Shepard);

3)Synthesis justification is so stupid I don't want to discuss it, but for the sake of making my point clear, it says that it tried something like that on its own, but failed... WTF?! And it says that something like organics weren't ready, or some other bullshit like that... This comes from the most advanced AI in existance, supposedly, the collective consciousness of the reapers couldn't do it, but now by dumb luck Shepard fits the bill;

If you say that it couldn't do this before without the crucible, think again: this is an incredibly advanced AI, and the Reapers are shown to have better technology than everyone else in the game: they could have built their own version, easily. Also, the catalyst says that the crucible is basically a giant battery, so the designer of the crucible were either morons (let's make something that can't possibly be used to kill anything on its own, and let's attach it to citadel, that is always conquered from the Reapers as the opening act of each war! Which means that who planned for this couldn't possibly hope to do it... WHY?!?!?), or knew about the catalyst and somehow hoped it would agree to use it? It doesn't add up, and this sounds like the catalyst might actually be the one who designed it, for its purposes (I'll say this below, too, but it sounds like a AI that has gone crazy, more than anything else).

This doesn't explain why the EMS affects the ending at all, and doesn't address the fallacy of the catalyst (appeal to probability), but we can consider it crazy, after all (it goes on explaining its origins, and says something stupid... Again: that it was created by someone that feared the problem between organics and synthetics couldd arise, and he was to be a mediator of sorts, but the problems happened multiple times... This means that its creator created synthetics multiple times and never were destroyed? So it is wrong by its own admission, and its creator were morons, I guess. It also created the first reaper from its creators against their will, possibly being the first AI to get close to what it claims that synthetics might do.

Again, Shepard doesn't raise these points, and either goes along with this or decide to reject the catalyst... And then stand there like an idiot, instead of asking the fleet to at least obliterate the citadel, that is house to the evil AI.

In Bioware defense, I think that people that wanted just closure will be happy with it, and that if this was the ending from the beginning, they wouldn't have received that much negative feedback.

As for myself, it does nothing to fix it for me (as I said before), in fact it makes a few things worse. I guess I wasn't their target to begin with, and this is just more proof I don't fit with their games anymore...

P.S. Captcha: One way... I think there is a captcha guy somewhere, and he must be stalking me... ;p

P.P.S. I must also admit that I lolled hard at some of the explanations, so I got something from the extended cut, in a sense...

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

-snip-

I'd guess sovereign was fairly similar in power to the other capital ships, the impression I got was that they were all different inside but relatively consistent exterior excepting harbringer. Of course it would make sense for Sovereign to be somewhere in the upper boundary of the capital ships. In regards to the number of fleets, idk, in the me3 war assets it lists 3 of the fleets as having taken heavy casualties in that battle, but yeah it was never clear in any of the earlier games, actually when I first played me1 I think I thought it was pretty well all of humans combat ships that weren't on defense missions, which was clearly incorrect either way.

My apologies on the thanix cannons, you are correct. I only remembered that it had only actually mentioned it on fighters and frigates 'The weapon's relatively small size allows it to be mounted on most fighters or frigates.' but it would definitely have been mounted on other ships. Although whether or not they had a version that was comparable to a dreadnoughts cannons? idk. Regardless, I had forgotten but your comment reminded me: after I originally completed the game one of the things that really disappointed me about the space scenes was precisely that, where were the thanix cannons?

I think perhaps that, there has never been a case where they would have lost if they hadn't taken control of the citadel straight out, simply that it would have caused an unacceptable level of casualties. From the codex entry about reapers it said that every capital ship was basically an entire advanced species and this seemed unsustainable as it was. However even with the entire armada arrayed against them I'm still fairly sure they would have won, but yes they would have taken a lot of casualties, far more than they could replace in 1 cycle. Which actually makes the refuse ending make more sense when you see the stargazer bit at the end. It says that because of the data (from Liara) they found they were able to prevent the reaper war like our cycle had. Whether this was because they built the crucible and had it ready for when the reapers arrived or if they just found Liara's data a lot earlier and were able to prepare far more adequately for the now depleted reaper forces we can't tell.

I seem to remember that in some interview one of the devs said something about how the reapers were supposed to be too strong to defeat by conventional means. How well they presented this in game is a bit up to interpretation.

The inconsistencies in the game do bug me (a lot) but I tend to forget them after a while and its the emotional impact that I really remember. Hence my forgetfulness ie Thanix cannons.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

It would only seem like SLIGHTLY more of an ass-pull than harbinger deciding to stop shooting JUST long enough for Shepard to very *slowly* and *dramatically* hoist her squadmates on to the Normandy before resuming on her epic desperate last-bid charge towards the citadel.

Apparently "retreat via starship" is a free action.

I just played that section and was thinking the same thing.

Yeah, it's nice to actually see where the squad went instead of them just magically appearing on the Normandy... but the camera deliberately shows Harbinger just kinda sitting there while Shepard says goodbye. But to be honest, the amount of times throughout this series that a Reaper could have just carved the Normandy in two with their magical "destroy-all" lasers and didn't, is staggering.

If it was so easy to fly a high profile star ship like the Normandy down to the surface, in front of the damn Citadel beam, in front of Harbinger, without it being in any threat... then why didn't they do that first instead of faffing about with all the ground forces and rockets to take down the destroyer?

 

[I.Muir]

If there was no catalyst the end would be great
Since he is still there the end is still shit
Bio ware obviously thought people were going nuts because the ending was too sad or something and are therefore deluded. They must actually think that ending makes sense or at least somebody more important than the rest does.

Alas his very existence pretty much ruins the ending's narrative coherence, though he isn't the only problem by far, he is by far the biggest one.

-His very existence renders the keepers pointless and therefor unravels Mass Effect 1's main conflict in its entirety, as well as destroying the significance of ilos and its prothean scientists.

-His arguments still make no sense, even given the additional background we get in EC. In fact, his new background makes him the perpetrator of his own motivation, "created always rebels etc."

-There is no legitimate reason ever given as to why he, as the citadel, is incapable of using the crucible

-He completely devalues the existence of the otherwise well-done harbinger character, rendering him redundant, pointless, and nullifying a full game's worth of great characterization of him in Mass Effect 2

-He is revealed as "the big bad" essentially, the main antagonist, leader of our enemy, in the last 5 minutes of the last game of a trilogy

-If he controls the reapers and is the citadel, then there should be no reason why he kept the transport beam on during the battle for london

-If he's so damn certain of his fucking motives, why even give the destruction choice, which he claims won't solve anything? Why not just offer to fly the reapers into a black hole if we ask him to, so we can save the geth and joker's girlfriend?

Yep
Wonder if they will update the mod that skips him completely and goes to the destruction end
If they do Ill get it when I finally get round to buying the game
From someplace that isn't origin

 

[AnarchistFish]

How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Just load up the Auto Save generated after you beat the game the first time. It'll put you ba just before the Assault on the Cerberus Base.

Captcha: follow me....see

How do you actually activate it? After a few tries, I think I've managed to download it, but what next? I read that you have to load up some special save but I can't find anything.

Simply play from any earlier save. Personally I played from cerberus base because I think thats what they originally said would be the limit of where changes happened. I don't recall seeing changes up until the final push toward the beam. I *think* Bioware also kind of gave everyone an autosave just before you enter the beam/just after you get hit and the vast majority of the EC is after that. I'm guessing it should just appear as an autosave if you go to load game. Although personally I liked the drama of the scene they added just before it that explains why your squad members are back on the Normandy.

Ahh, thanks.

Fuck, I really don't want to go through the whole last two levels again. Once I play through something once, I find second playthroughs pretty frustrating and boring.

 

[MercurySteam]

Heartwarming that your shep is now a God? And a potentially 'Righteous anger and furious vengeance' God of the Old Testament? I mean, He remembers His life prior to 'ascension', but expresses no desire to interact with his old crew or even sapients in general. His sole purpose seems to be being 'The One who can Save the Many'.

Yeah, I see religious crusades in the next few centuries. "Convert now! Receive the blessing of the Glorious and Eternal! Pray for the Beneficence of the Omnissiah! Kneel and give praise to The Shepard, who is God!"

Heartwarming? You worry me...

Shepard effectively becomes the hidden hand behind the Reapers, a silent force with his morals and beliefs guiding them at the cost of his life, not much unlike Legion when he sacrificed himself for the good of his race. He helps the Galaxy rebuild after the war and acts as the Guardian of the Galaxy so while he does have immense destructive power at his disposal he has dedicated the Reapers to preserve organics through survival rather than harvesting. And it isn't really 'Shepard' himself that is controlling the Reapers, but rather a consciousness born from his ideals and memories that uses the Reapers as his peacekeepers but otherwise has no physical form so he can't exactly just hook up with his old squadmates.

Can't you just accept that it's a happy ending? Fine by me if you don't want to but It's no going to change how I feel about the ending.

 

[PingoBlack]

Ah, overwhelmingly positive write up.
Too bad the original ending had the same overwhelmingly positive write up too.

I'm still not touching this crap, even if Origin wasn't attached to it. In my universe ME3 never happened.

The ending still makes much more sense in my universe than in ME3 space magic age.

 

[The.Bard]

My problem is that the new endings would never be as exciting or as cool as the indoctrination theory. As I tweeted to Grey, nothing can beat a mountain dew fueled conspiracy theory.

I was right for the most part the new endings with the plot holes dry walled and patched just doesn't leave me disappointed but it doesn't excite me either.

Now that the ending is out I would like to see Casey Hudson give a play by play on why this video is completely wrong.


Like why are the piles of bodies next to the pillar of light, why are the dead bodies wearing the same default armors as Ashley and Kaiden.

Why you see the oily shadows during the confrontation with TIM and Anderson. Why when you shoot Anderson you are then wounded and why when you reach the top of the light you arn't wounded anymore?

There are tons of tiny details that are still left unexplained and I would really like some answers.

Technically speaking, the Indoctrination Theory endings haven't been disproven. I haven't watched the new Control ending (saving that for my Renegade playthrough), but the Destroy ending, viewed through a lens of IT, works just fine. The evidence is still there, and one could argue it's even more potent now that they've had a chance to fix the broken stuff, but those things remain.

The thing that really made me think that is the several pieces of new evidence, which I'll put in spoiler tags for those who haven't played the Extended Cut yet:

- Star Child claims to be an AI (well, at least in the same sense that Shepard is an animal). So then WHY does he look like the kid? No other AI/VI has ever been showin in a form taken from someone's mind. ie - HOW would it know to look like the kid who Shep has been guilted by all game without mental powers... unless the kid was a Reaper implant all along?

Connected to that, if he's an AI/VI, why would he use BroShep & Femshep's voices? He's using the voice of Shepard and an alternate universe Shepard. For a simple AI, that is an ODD choice. And they're LOUDER than they were in the original cut. So if you couldn't hear them before, you can REALLY hear them now.

- If you shoot StarChild, hot dang if that doesn't sound like Harbinger's voice (though I'm not 100% certain)

As before, whether Bioware INTENDED these conclusions or not is mostly irrelevant. What matters to me is that the evidence is there, and it can still be drawn to IT as a conclusion. Shepard is still shown bleeding from the same exact place where Anderson was shot. "Lazy and rushed" MAY have been a valid excuse three months ago for that kind of massive error, but they didn't change the angle, and they absolutely knew that people were saying Shepard is showing Anderson's wound. Which means they intentionally decided to leave it in there. Considering how SIMPLE the fix was... WHY?

And as before, Shepard is shown alive w/ Destroy/High EMS... on London. I think Bioware's original intent was for people to be able to draw different conclusions, and the Extended Cut effectively satisfies both viewpoints now. The "really real world" ending can stand on its own feet now, and so can the indoctrinated one.

And seriously, for as much as people complain about ME3's conclusion, is it not - on some level - poetically beautiful that you can effectively choose your own ending?

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

-snip-

Its not that I have a problem with the indoctrination theory, I just don't subscribe to it. However of the points you just made there there is a couple that I am curious as to how they support it. Firstly, why does the child speaking with what sounds like Harbringers voice support indoctrination, it certainly makes sense with indoctrination but it also makes perfect sense without. Secondly I am yet to hear why, in light of the EC, Shepard wakes up in London, as now the citadel only completely explodes in synthesis and is otherwise only damaged, his waking up amid wreckage, while still fitting the IT no longer is evidence for it.

 

[burningdragoon]

I've only seen the Destroy ending so far (and I feel really bad about killing EDI and the Geth) but I pretty much agree. The extended cut addressed my biggest issues of "holy shit did I get all my friends killed" and "holy shit is the galaxy going to starve to death".

My problem is that the new endings would never be as exciting or as cool as the indoctrination theory. As I tweeted to Grey, nothing can beat a mountain dew fueled conspiracy theory.

I was right for the most part the new endings with the plot holes dry walled and patched just doesn't leave me disappointed but it doesn't excite me either.

Now that the ending is out I would like to see Casey Hudson give a play by play on why this video is completely wrong.


Like why are the piles of bodies next to the pillar of light, why are the dead bodies wearing the same default armors as Ashley and Kaiden.

Why you see the oily shadows during the confrontation with TIM and Anderson. Why when you shoot Anderson you are then wounded and why when you reach the top of the light you arn't wounded anymore?

There are tons of tiny details that are still left unexplained and I would really like some answers.

The answer to most of the IT questions is pretty much "because it's a video game". Or even "the same reason Tali's picture is just a bad Photoshop job".

 

[Sandytimeman]

snip

You really should watch it as most of your debunking posts are actually addressed in the video.

like for instance bioware said in writing that the camera is a character. After Anderson dies, it purposefully shows you holding you side, taking your hand away seeing blood and being surprised. In close up.

after he goes up the beam, he can now dash short bursts and even semi-jump. Objectively he is much healthier after he goes up the beam after the TIM confrontation than before.

Also those oily black shadows, the same kind of shadows the Raachni queen talked about in ME1 when the reapers were controlling the Raachni before.

Again people seemed to have missed my point that the "default" armors I was talking about haven't been seen since ME1. The light beam I mean the one leading up from earth to the citadel. Surely if they were going to lazily throw bodies around it would have been a re-hash of the collector body piles or a use of the current generic soldier that was running down the hill with you.

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

snip

You really should watch it as most of your debunking posts are actually addressed in the video.

like for instance bioware said in writing that the camera is a character. After Anderson dies, it purposefully shows you holding you side, taking your hand away seeing blood and being surprised. In close up.

after he goes up the beam, he can now dash short bursts and even semi-jump. Objectively he is much healthier after he goes up the beam after the TIM confrontation than before.

Also those oily black shadows, the same kind of shadows the Raachni queen talked about in ME1 when the reapers were controlling the Raachni before.

Again people seemed to have missed my point that the "default" armors I was talking about haven't been seen since ME1. The light beam I mean the one leading up from earth to the citadel. Surely if they were going to lazily throw bodies around it would have been a re-hash of the collector body piles or a use of the current generic soldier that was running down the hill with you.

Honestly I see the evidence and have no proof that IT doesn't work although personally my Shepard wasn't indoctrinated and did get synthesis. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware had intentionally not done anything to actually disprove the IT in the extended cut given the number of people who liked it.

 

[badmunky64]

I'm glad they gave us more details and expanded upon the outcome of each choice. We finally got a hint as to how this all started.

My biggest beef with the original ending was that the bit with that ghost kid felt like just a cinematic. No questions and only 1 dialog circle. Bioware did a great job improving upon that.

 

[Darkmantle]

If by 'a handful of human ships', you mean the entirety of the Alliance's fleets, as well as the Turian/Asari fleets assigned to defend the Citadel, then yes. And even then, they still only won the battle because Sovereign made the mistake of possessing Saren's corpse to try and kill you, which backfired and overloaded his shields when you destroyed Saren for good. And even after all that, the Alliance's fleets still took heavy losses. And that was for one Reaper. One that wasn't even the biggest or the strongest. No, the reapers were quite thoroughly built up as an insurmountable threat right from the beginning, and ME3 is what happens when you have thousands upon thousands of them all coming at once.

If by handful of human ships I mean a single unprepared fleet(with no dreadnoughts), engaged with geth forces, supporting what's left of the defence forces (who also had no dreadnoughts, and were also surprise attacked), yes, those are who I'm talking about. And It was a single fleet, you can check it out in your war assets (Not to mention, the weapons on the old normandy, not even the upgraded thanix cannons, could pierce directly through a reaper. I'd say the extra ships were overkill).

If the turian dreadnoughts were there and prepared for battle, sovereign would have fell long before he even got close to the citadel, as evidenced in me3 when a single dreadnought during the siege of palaven Short warped right into the middle of the reapers, and managed to kill several before succumbing to fire. it's either in the codex or the war assets I don't remember. And if you watch the cutscene when the victory fleet arrives, they get the first few volleys off, that tactical advantage alone should have annihilated a good chunk of the reaper ships, based only on prior engagements.

the reapers were not as built up in the previous games or hell, even in early ME3, as much as they were in the last 4-5 hours of gameplay. All other evidence points to them being able to be defeated.

They did give explanation during the course of the assault on Cerberus HQ. EDI describes during the mission how Civilians lured to Sanctuary by promises of safety are rounded up, indoctrinated to be loyal to Cerberus and given reaper tech surgical implants that make them individually tougher than any Alliance soldier, and are then turned into new shocktroops for Cerberus's forces. Also, for many (though certainly not all) of the places where you fight Cerberus, they literally WERE unopposed. Everyone was so focused on the Reapers that there weren't enough forces left to defend areas from Cerberus. The only major exception to this is when they attacked the Citadel, but even then they had a member of the Citadel council help them sneak on-board to launch a surprise attack.

That is not sufficient. Cerberus Should not be able to support such a large force, they don't make that kind of money. Assault gear for literally thousands of troops, those implants for all those troops, dozens of cruisers, equipped with light interceptors, whole new space stations. They didn't have those before. It went from 150 people, divided into three cells, one of which was Miranda's, to a full military force in less than 6 months, as I understand it. I doubt they had more spaceships then they could staff just lying around for no reason, so they all had to be bought/built recently. That's a lot of up front cash, and I'm only willing to accept so much "well the illusive man is rich" BS, he just magically comes up with the funds.

It wasn't Miranda's dad either, he spent his money on rigging the aforementioned refuge colony, which also makes little sense as there wasn't many refuges before the reapers attacked, so I fail to see how sanctuary could have possible supplied his troops Pre-Invasion, which he did have during his coup on Mars.

Also, how the hell did all those Cerberus troops fit in two makos, as your squad member so elegantly put it, there were at least 50 in that base alone, no way 1 shuttle and 2 tanks carried them in.


Like I said, it just reeks of classic power creep nonsense.




Also, why the HELL is earth Alliance space so DAMN huge! The asari/turians/salarians only have one system each, but earth gets this massive chunk of the galaxy? Nonsense.

 

[1337mokro]

If you like the extended cut. Please do pick the refusal ending. I view that ending as Bioware venting it's rage at the fans for being loud enough that they had to go back into the box and edit the cut footage back in.

Just as a question. Why when you pick the fourth ending does the god child get angry? Isn't that what he wants you to do? Why does he find the other endings more preferable and the ending where you let things play out enrages him? The god child doesn't bat an eye at the destruction of his own creators, nor at millions of years of genocide.

But you refusing to play along makes him shout in the Harbinger voice? Quite amusing. I imagine that ending as being the middle finger of the bunch. Erected firmly up at the fans who didn't want to play along and rejected all three endings. Just goes to show, Bioware isn't above trolling the fans, so you shouldn't be above trolling Bioware.

It just amuses me so much.

I'd say he gets angry cos he just asked you to help determine the fate of the galaxy and you essentially gave him the finger. Also in that he's looking for a change of some sort as he says his solution wont work anymore and your refusing to change things. So yeah, he gets angry.

I can't really buy that. It's sort of the "Omnipotent being that can't intervene" excuse. If he wants to change something. Why doesn't the kid look out the fucking window, see the Geth and Quarians and all other organic life fight side by side against the reapers and then just deactivates all of them.

If he wanted change he didn't need Shepard, the kid just needed eyes. No, to me it's just much more likely this was a very angry Bioware employer wanting to express his feelings towards the customers.

 

[pilouuuu]

If there was no catalyst the end would be great
Since he is still there the end is still shit
Bio ware obviously thought people were going nuts because the ending was too sad or something and are therefore deluded. They must actually think that ending makes sense or at least somebody more important than the rest does.

Alas his very existence pretty much ruins the ending's narrative coherence, though he isn't the only problem by far, he is by far the biggest one.

-His very existence renders the keepers pointless and therefor unravels Mass Effect 1's main conflict in its entirety, as well as destroying the significance of ilos and its prothean scientists.

-His arguments still make no sense, even given the additional background we get in EC. In fact, his new background makes him the perpetrator of his own motivation, "created always rebels etc."

-There is no legitimate reason ever given as to why he, as the citadel, is incapable of using the crucible

-He completely devalues the existence of the otherwise well-done harbinger character, rendering him redundant, pointless, and nullifying a full game's worth of great characterization of him in Mass Effect 2

-He is revealed as "the big bad" essentially, the main antagonist, leader of our enemy, in the last 5 minutes of the last game of a trilogy

-If he controls the reapers and is the citadel, then there should be no reason why he kept the transport beam on during the battle for london

-If he's so damn certain of his fucking motives, why even give the destruction choice, which he claims won't solve anything? Why not just offer to fly the reapers into a black hole if we ask him to, so we can save the geth and joker's girlfriend?

Well, Catalyst is not an awful character anymore, he's simply a crappy one and I wouldn't consider him the big baddie, just because he is the last character you meet. He is simply a Reaper AI and doesn't have complete power, that and the fact that the Crucible worked as some sort of hack of his functions is why he can't choose unless Shepard acts. That's why even if he represents the Reapers and their "solution" he can't simply destroy Shepard and continue with the mission. He has been changed as he states. He's not even a Deus Ex Machina, but simply an informer of Reapers' mission and of possibilities.

That's why I don't think Catalyst is so awful with the new EC, because I don't give him as much importance as you do.

Captcha: modern love

 

[grigjd3]

The problem with the star child is that it's a case of Deus Ex Machina. For three long games, the story has been built up along certain guidelines. In the end though, you're given a choice that has nothing to do with the rest of the game. Perhaps it is even more striking that the choice you're offered is a straight up rip-off of the ending of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It's kind of ironic the name of the game they are ripping off is a reference to phrase referring to a terrible writing technique. This star child has no purpose in the narrative and thus is jarringly out of place when presented at the end. The dream-sequences are vague enough to have simply been shoe-horned in to justify what was otherwise a completely ridiculous scene. The problem with the ending isn't how short it is or how happy it is. The problem with the ending is that it is unconnected to the rest of the game. When I played it before, I just became bored. From what I have heard, Bioware has done nothing to rectify that situation - not that I think they should have. They screwed up and just need to accept that and move on.

 

[Britisheagle]

Wahey! I am pleased to see I am not the only one happy with the extended cut. Since release the internet still seems to be filled with hate even with this good gesture from Bioware for their fans.

Perhaps its the lack of Indoctrination theory but personally I was satisfied with the conclusion to the trilogy after this release.

With one small exception: My Shepard had a first name dammit!