What if the original ME 3 ending had been the true one?

[sanquin]

That's actually not how Asari reproduction works. The notion that an Asari offspring receives any amount of DNA from its "father" is purely superstition. Every Asari born is basically a slightly mutated version of her mother.

From the wiki:
The partner can be another asari, or an alien of any gender. However, since the asari began encountering other sentient species, non-asari mates have become preferred for the diversity they provide. This reproductive process can lead to some confusion among non-asari, who might expect offspring with "mixed" genes. However, the offspring is always 100% asari as no DNA is taken from the partner, but is rather used as a "map" to randomize the genes of the offspring.

So I had my information partially wrong. Indeed other races don't mix their genes with Asari. But their DNA does diversify through them. So Asari would still have far more diverse DNA than humans. 99% of our DNA is the same in every human. Asari could already easily have 15 different DNA maps within their species, including human. (How it could be explained that the Asari can use someone else's DNA to 'map' their own DNA to beats me, but whatever.)

 

[Eddie the head]

EDIT: As an addition, does anyone remember that episode of The Next Generation where it turned out the warp drives were ripping holes in space time. You know, the one that was so painfully a shallow metaphor for the ozone layer? Do you remember how awful it was? How subsequent writers completely ignored it because it made writing for TNG less fun?

Pretty sure that was in only one part of space that they never went back to.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm more disgusted at BioWare's decision to change the ME3 ending to make internet cry babies happy. I mean, how about show some self-respect and grow some backbones for your product. Just thinking about it making me sick.

Also, I don't know anything about the leaked ending.

If they had any self respect they wouldn't have released the game, period.

But seriously, with one ending already down, it's a touch inane to start talking self-respect and backbone.

 

[Autumnflame]

We did not get and ending. we got a ...... well there are no words to describe the failure.

the fan outcry proved that it was a poor closure to the series and the fans expected better when through many many points previously in the games they proved they are capable of greatness. And we were left with a soggy poo filled bite at the end of our mass effect sandwich

 

[Asita]

That's actually not how Asari reproduction works. The notion that an Asari offspring receives any amount of DNA from its "father" is purely superstition. Every Asari born is basically a slightly mutated version of her mother.

From the wiki:
The partner can be another asari, or an alien of any gender. However, since the asari began encountering other sentient species, non-asari mates have become preferred for the diversity they provide. This reproductive process can lead to some confusion among non-asari, who might expect offspring with "mixed" genes. However, the offspring is always 100% asari as no DNA is taken from the partner, but is rather used as a "map" to randomize the genes of the offspring.

So I had my information partially wrong. Indeed other races don't mix their genes with Asari. But their DNA does diversify through them. So Asari would still have far more diverse DNA than humans. 99% of our DNA is the same in every human. Asari could already easily have 15 different DNA maps within their species, including human. (How it could be explained that the Asari can use someone else's DNA to 'map' their own DNA to beats me, but whatever.)

I'm not sure you're fully understanding that concept. 'Mapping' in this context doesn't imply other species genetic information is actually added to the Asari. It just helps them to randomize their own genetic code, effectively creating a far less perfect clone than would be expected of pure parthenogenesis. At the end of the day though, that is the closest analog, to the point that the codex even refers to it as such.

For the sake of completion see ME2:


And quoting the same game on the nature of humans...

 

[Winnosh]

Someone please explain to me just why everyone says that none of the choices matter. Just because you die. Even if the entire universe dies at the end of the game. That would not invalidate the choices made during the series.

We all eventually die and all our world turns to dust.

But that does not invalidate the things we do and the people we care for today.

For me the resolutions with the characters, the tieing up of plot threads throughout the series made the game worth it. That was the ending not a little cutscene.


My ME3 turned out completely different from so many other peoples I had different people alive, different friends different quests and adventures. Even if I took the same choice as another Escapist here at the Catalyst I can bet that my ME Universe would be a completely different place than his.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I'm really late to the party and just finished ME3 about 2 weeks ago. I didn't want to make a thread about it (dead horses and all...), but I tried to avoid all spoilers before I finished it, knowing only that "it was bad, and it made the Internet explode". I guess there's a thread here where I can finally toss 2 cents on it, so basically:

Spoiler

I think the entirety of ME3 was Shepard dealing with attempted indoctrinations, made pretty obvious by those "dream sequences" where you chase the kid around. It probably started at, and foreshadowed by the DLC in ME2 where the whole base was indoctrinated. I don't know if it's a thing that people thought of, but when I was playing I couldn't imagine how Shepard could have possibly survived the blast from the reaper right at the end. After that you get the same dulled sound and visual effects as the dream sequences, and since there isn't any fucking reason Anderson or TIM would have been in the Citadel, that was probably the two ideologies in Shepard's mind fighting for control.

I think the star kid was just a reaper (sure as hell sounds like one if you shoot him in the EC) trying to trick you into synthesis because that's what they've wanted to do all along. The destroy is what you were there to do, and since the "Shepard's alive" bit only happens when you pick destroy, it clearly doesn't kill people with implants and cybernetics like the star kid was trying to say. I think the "destroy" option was presented as red by the reaper(s) to trick you based on blue being "good" and red being "bad/reckless". Hell, control is what TIM wanted, there's no way that it's the paragon option like the colors would have you believe. I'd say that synthesis is pushed so heavily and is the prominent option in the middle because it's falling into the reapers wishes and giving in to the indoctrination. But that's just how I saw it.

Overall, it was still rushed and not executed well, but I found it to be clever and basically the most of what they had available if there was time constraints as suggested. I wouldn't have been pissed if I finished it a year ago, basically...just disappointed, especially with the Earth mission itself. I'm glad this dark energy business being discussed here was probably scrapped for a good reason and would have been even worse.

If I may go on a tangent (given that I haven't had an opportunity to discuss this game along with everyone else):

Spoiler

The ending was the least disappointing part of the game to me. I hated the changes to the combat and the controls, clearly made to better suit multiplayer but still not up to a standard that would have been acceptable for competitive multiplayer. The journal is useless, giving only the barest of details because those giant waypoint diamonds point out everything all over the place. The dialog was overall of a lower quality, with only some moments managing to match the quality of 1/2. The planet scanning was smoother and quicker, but the reaper threat during those times was merely annoying as opposed to being full of tension and made them feel like Saturday morning cartoon villians or a Benny Hill chase. Your monogamous love interest jumps from "casual acquantaince" to "future wife/husband/kids" person from sentence to sentence. It just plain didn't feel like Mass Effect, and by that I mean the music, sci-fi aesthetic, and other features that blow you away once you play the first one again. Finally, whether it was circumstancial due to the reaper situation or because of executive meddling, it sucks that all the homeworlds you finally get to see are brown and grey wastelands that just aren't interesting places to be.

Essentially, I was shocked when I reached the ending, given that the overall consensus seemed to be "excellent, amazing game ruined by ending". I felt almost literally the exact opposite of that.

 

[floppylobster]

Really, I still can't believe anyone played those games for the story. Or any game for the story. I enjoyed all three, in the order of 2, 1 and then 3. But I was never invested in the story and hated many of the characters. There was no ending they could have tacked on to that to make me like it any more or less. I was in it for the game.

 

[___________________]

I love the fact the ending was so bad that people still haven't realized the game in it entirety is a rushed mess.

Yup. Lots of potential lost in it. The lame ending wasn't the deal breaker. It's the lack of seeing things happening and only hearing about them on the announcements of worlds being taken and stuff like that. Oh and imagine we saw reaper in the distance on a planet and we fired at it with a heavy weapon to draw its attention in order to help the troops fighting it. Then we could either escape as it chased us or fight it. But then again heavy weapons were for some reason pulled out of our equipment. I liked them in Mass Effect 2 and I'm not sure why they didn't keep them. Sure you find one here and there, on the field, but you don't have the option to launch a misssion with one glued to your back like before. Man...optional Reaper battles would be so kick ass. We'd be making a visibly continuous impact on the battle against the reapers. Oh and instead of hordes of characters for multiplayer they could add one or two extra ones in single player. I missed having a krogan in my party...Mass Effect 3 was a let down to me, but recently I've realised it's not because of the ending. Damn man, what a waste yeah?
I dunno what went wrong with production, but for a game that was supposed to be massive in scale to encompass the dimension of the reaper invasion it fell short. It's weird because the other 2 games were pretty good.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It couldn't be worse than the one we got. But we'll never really know unfortunately. The premise sounds interesting, way more interesting than organics vs synthetics, but we can't know how well would Drew Karpyshyn write and execute the whole thing.


People that are still clinging to "artistic integrity" argument are deluding themselves. The fact remains that EA didn't give them enough time to make the game the way they wanted it, and they forced them to implement a multiplayer mode. Don't fool yourself thinking that it was Bioware's independent decision. People don't seem to realize how much creative freedom publishers take away from developers in order to implement features that they think will sell more copies. EA publishers don't understand gaming market. They only see what sells and they have no idea that people expect different things from different games. They don't know that people love Bioware for their RPG's and stories and not for their ability to make a good shooter. They don't care about the fanbase and they most certainly don't care about you as the individual. They see that shooters sell more copies and they order their developers to make it more like that shooter game that everybody likes.

So Bioware had to cut a lot of corners. EA doesn't care about the final product. They don't care what happens after people buy the game. They only care about the money. They were counting on marketing, hype and payed reviewers. In the end they got what they wanted.

I think that people that are criticizing Bioware and Mass Effect the most are some of their most loyal fans. Why would they be so vocal about their criticism if they didn't care?

 

[sanquin]

I'm not sure you're fully understanding that concept. 'Mapping' in this context doesn't imply other species genetic information is actually added to the Asari. It just helps them to randomize their own genetic code, effectively creating a far less perfect clone than would be expected of pure parthenogenesis. At the end of the day though, that is the closest analog, to the point that the codex even refers to it as such.

For the sake of completion see ME2:


And quoting the same game on the nature of humans...

I was asking what 'mapping' means. And 'randomizing their genes' means. You can't just mix and match your own genes, it doesn't work that way. So you would either -have- to take someone else's DNA and make your own appear like it, or straight up use their DNA to mix with. Either way you're taking someone's DNA. The game might not agree, but then the game is wrong. And if they didn't want to use accurate science they shouldn't have used partially accurate science and scientific terms that are already used.

As for the second clip. I don't really care any more what they said in game about humans. 99% to even a bit more of our DNA is the same in every human. That's not genetically diverse at all. I simply said Asari would have more of a chance to have diverse genes because they mate with different species all together. It depends on how much of their own genes they alter in their child, but they would be my prime candidate.

Once again, just because characters in game SAY humans are genetically diverse, does not actually make it so... Actual real world science disagrees with them. Now, if they had given our ability to adapt as a reason it would have been more believable. As humans are indeed very adaptable to new environments, situations, etc.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

Well when you make art to make money then artistic integrity goes out the window because you are now making a product.

That is the dumbest thing I heard this week.

No it's real simple really you can't claim to have artistic intergrity if you create art in the hopes of making money,it's the love and heart you put into creating something that allows you to have a vision and you can't have that vision if you alter your art to suit the masses.

You should listen to Tom Waits' hat. It is way cooler than you. The idea that artistic integrity and using art for profit are mutually exclusive is simply stupid. You are telling me that no one who has ever sold their poetry, novels, movies, video games, paintings, drawings, sculptures, or songs had any interest in making good art? Are you high?

You mean to tell me that J.D. Salinger wrote his short stories entirely because he wanted to make money with them, and not because he actually cared about writing quality fiction, and creating quality experiences? That the decisions he made when writing were based on consumer demand and market appeal rather than on effective character development and story structure? That his one and only concern was making something to sell to the largest number of people possible, and whatever concessions he had to make to increase that number were acceptable? Despite the fact that he literally refused to let anyone make any films out of his books for fear of having their artistic integrity ruined?

That is the dumbest thing I heard this week.

 

[RJ 17]

I don't actually know anything about the leaked ending. I heard it had something to do with dark energy?

Anyone know the exact details of it? Or is it all hearsay...

The reapers were building more of them to stop dark energy from causing the universe to expand more and more rapidly (like it probably is IRL XD). Supposedly a human reaper could be used to solve the problem once and for all... For some reason. The final decision at the end was supposed to be choosing to sacrifice humanity to save the others, or destroying the reapers and finding your own way to solve the problem.

That's what I've heard anyway.

Here's the story as I understand it.

- The existence and subsequent use of Element Zero generates dark energy, increasing the rate of expansion of the universe leading to its early demise
- The Reapers are giant supercomputers created from entire species to find a way of reversing the spread of dark energy increasing the life-span of the universe . Each Reaper is able to view the problem from the perspective of that species, and it's ability to think of solutions within that perspective is tied to the genetic diversity of that species.
- The Reapers periodically harvest life in order to add to their work on the problem, and allow new unique species to develop.
- The Reapers believe that even though forcing life to develop Element Zero based civilisations will accelerate the death of the universe it is necessary in order to collect enough build a Reaper capable of determining a solution before it is too late.
- Humans are the most genetically diverse species in any cycle, and the Reapers believe that a Human Reaper is their best chance of solving the problem.

The final choice was: Do you defy the Reapers and rally together to attempt to solve the problem yourself. Or do you hand humanity to the Reapers to ensure the greatest chance of the universe's survival.

Note that this isn't inherently better explained, nor does it necessarily fix the lack of previous actions making a difference.

I remember hearing the story about how the ending was leaked. But not wanting to spoil it for myself I refused to read anything about the leaked ending (truth be told, I didn't even know the leaked ending got scrapped until I came to this topic). It does seem that this would at least tie into the Haestrom mission from ME3 which...kinda went absolutely nowhere.

But in the end, if those were the details about the leaked "ending that could have been", I doubt it would have been pulled off any better than what we got. As you mentioned, it does nothing to address what seemed to be the major complaint of "So nothing I did really mattered at all." And it still wouldn't have helped the fact that while the Reapers constantly preach that their reasons and motivations are unfathomable by puny mortal organics and their squishy little brains, this motivation would actually be a lot easier to understand than the motivation we got in the final product: "The existence of any single race is insignificant compared to the contiued existence of the universe." The motivation of "We want to prevent organics from killing themselves with synthetics by harvesting all organics and synthetics with an indestructible fleet of synthetics" makes sense when viewed through the lens of "corrupted AI logic". Star Child thought he was doing exactly what he was programmed for: preserving life. How'd he do this? By converting life into Reapers. As organics that's unacceptable, unfathomable logic because it makes no sense to us. How can you preserve life by destroying it? But to the corrupt absolute logic of an AI, it makes perfect sense.

I doubt any race would willingly sacrifice itself if the Reapers just came up and said "Look you silly little organics, we're trying to preserve the very fabric of existence here. What we're doing is a necessary evil to ensure that the universe doesn't rip itself apart." We wouldn't have agreed with their methods, but we would have at least understood it.

So in the end, I, for one, would take the ending we got over the proposed scrap-ending. It keeps more with the theme of Reapers being unknowable and impossible to fully understand.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

Well when you make art to make money then artistic integrity goes out the window because you are now making a product.

That is the dumbest thing I heard this week.

No it's real simple really you can't claim to have artistic intergrity if you create art in the hopes of making money,it's the love and heart you put into creating something that allows you to have a vision and you can't have that vision if you alter your art to suit the masses.

You should listen to Tom Waits' hat. It is way cooler than you. The idea that artistic integrity and using art for profit are mutually exclusive is simply stupid. You are telling me that no one who has ever sold their poetry, novels, movies, video games, paintings, drawings, sculptures, or songs had any interest in making good art? Are you high?

You mean to tell me that J.D. Salinger wrote his short stories entirely because he wanted to make money with them, and not because he actually cared about writing quality fiction, and creating quality experiences? That the decisions he made when writing were based on consumer demand and market appeal rather than on effective character development and story structure? That his one and only concern was making something to sell to the largest number of people possible, and whatever concessions he had to make to increase that number were acceptable? Despite the fact that he literally refused to let anyone make any films out of his books for fear of having their artistic integrity ruined?

That is the dumbest thing I heard this week.

Jesus that does sound stupid... sorry for making that post I was half awake at the time.

Hehe, we've all been there. It's always risky to post under the influence.