325 réponses à ce sujet

[Harbinger of Hope]

Umbrellamage wrote...

Games are art, but they are also entertainment.  Any hybrid has to strike a balance between thriving as art, and being successful as a medium for entertainment.  ME3 does both right up until the end.  But in the last 5 minutes the balance shifts heavily over to art, flying in the face of almost everything established up to that point.  In games we rely on continuity of plot, and logic to make sense of things with some artistic lisence given to allow theatrics and emotion. 

The catalyst's argument is flawed at a base level.  Not because he argues the synthetic/organic aspect despite the peace brokered.  But because he doesn't argue the true meat, creator and created.  Conflicts between the creator and the created are bound to occur.  It's even stated that the created will rebel against their creators.  Had he left it at that instead of shifting back to the synthetic/organic argument he might have had a foot to stand on.
 
However that foot dissolves when one also considers that the synthesis ending is based entirely on the synthetic/organic dynamic, and doesn't come close to addressing the issue of the creator/created conflict.  In the synthesis only life actually changes.  So it's entirely correct to presume that at some point the synthesized could again create synthetics out of synthetic materials, and presumably if they were not alive at the time of synthesis they would be true synthetics.  The creator/created dynamic would remain intact and synthetics could potentially destroy synthesized life.  

In life, things I do matter because I can either see or experience their effects.  I can talk to people to get their perspective on how things effect them, why things matter to them.  From there the web of experience and understanding only grows larger.  If something notable happens it may be written down, but largely it falls to an existential experience.  I can also deduce the effects my actions have.  I can show a friend something cool in javascript or CSS3, and in the next site they code I can see that they utilized what I showed them, they may even thank me for it.  And I think, "paragon +2".  As a people we thrive on logical cause/effect interaction.  We enjoy asking questions and answering them, we enjoy learning.

When someone gives their life they can't experience the effects, they can't learn anything, they can't have their questions answered (not going into a discussion on afterlife in any capacity right now).  But they are also no longer alive to feel anxiety over the lack of answers, the lack of effect, experience, and connection.  The way the ending is handled we don't actually have any questions answered, but we are presented with a list of new questions as we see things happening that we don't understand.  Why is the Normandy in the relay?  What happened to my crew?  What was the final effect for everything I've done over the past games?  Yes our character may be dead except for one ending, but we are not dead, we are very much alive and in desparate need of having our anxiety quelled, our questions answered.  The anxiety is there because the Mass Effect universe is one we genuinely care about, mass relays or no.  We care about the characters just as we would care about friends.  

This is where the nothing matters feeling comes in.  This entire series is based around choices and consequences.  Up until the end we see the overall effect, but then when we hit the end we're hit with a black hole of nothingness.  The player is treated like he/she is dead, but we aren't, we're very much alive, and in being alive we want to see what the effect of our decisions were.  Did every species die a slow death due to starvation?  How quickly was earth rebuilt?  What was the damage overall?  Do our companions ever get off the planet or do they set up a nice vacation resort?  I'm sure some of these will be answered in DLC, but the lack of any epilogue, any personal closure is jarring.  Our questions are not answered, our desire to learn is not sated.  On this front all anyone really needs for closure is a DA:O style epilogue at least telling us what effect we had on the final picture in this game of choices.  We want to learn the history of this universe. The legacy of our Shepard.

As for the bioware got lazy point, it may be blunt, but it feels accurate.  For the three choices we get one final cutscene with a few plot holes, subtle alterations and a different color filter.  For the finale of a trilogy of this magnitude don't you think IT deserves an individual cutscene for each end, at the very least?  

It's not so much the endings themselves people have issue with, it's the vehicle through which we have to experience them.  The vehicle of the catalyst god child feels inherently flawed because aside from being forced in 5 minutes before the end, Shepard acts entirely out of character for this finale.  People are angry, they reject this end because the Shepard they see is not recognizable to them.  The actions of Joker, who stood by Shepard thick and thin are not recognizable.  The actions of his squad mates (who presumably make it back to the Normandy because Garrus and Liara were with me for the mad dash, and he stepped out of the Normandy later, in different cutscenes) are simply not recognizable.  Garrus would not leave Shepard's body, Liara would not leave his body, no one that comes to mind would leave Shepard when the stakes are that high, if there was a hope he could be alive and the mission could be accomplished.

From here is where the idea of a hallucination or dream crops up.  The actions of everyone save, maybe Anderson and TIM, are absolutely incomprehensible to the vast majority of the fans who spent years with each of these characters throughout ME1 and 2.  We feel angry, like this was all just a cop out to force a poorly written and "artistic" ending.  Any ending that opens up plotholes and fundamentally changes the nature of a character, or multiple characters without sound reasoning in story is poorly written and forced.  There's no way around that.

The game is masterful, the ending is just a sloppy mess of art with no consideration for game.  And Mass Effect deserves so much more.  Of course, all this is moot if Bioware has some ingenious plan for a true ending.  At this point that all remains to be seen.

You get a cookie for that. Seriously, well done. I will not get how people can sit there and defend the ending when there are so many plotholes in it. I can swallow the forced three choices, but at least let me see what happens to the galaxy after it.

[krthomps1]

HKR148 wrote...

krthomps1 wrote...

HKR148 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

2. "Nothing mattered!"

You may as well extend this logic to real life.  If everything ends, including life itself, and infinite continuation is necessary for you to feel something "matters," then nothing you do in your real life matters either.  None of the relationships you have, none of the decisions you make, nothing.  Everything mattered in Mass Effect; Shepard touched the lives of thousands of individuals, and some on a very personal level i.e. Love Interest and squad/crew. 

As for our choices in the game resulting in direct consequences, we saw these consequences throughout the game.  Throughout the entire game we saw the consequences of our actions over the past 2 games.  We saw the result of the relationships we've nurtured, we saw the result of saving the council, saving Wrex, or keeping our crew alive in ME2.  Granted, the Collector Base choice from ME2 could have been integrated better, but we saw a great deal of direct consequences.  Now, the end game, that's a huge decision.  All 3 decisions may look the same with a wave of energy, but just think of the ramifications for the future of the galaxy.  I like that Bioware left that part, the part after Shepard's story, up to us.  And yes, the ripples of your decisions are still going on even though you don't get to personally witness them.  The Krogan are either cured of the genophage or doomed to extinction.  The Quarians could be alive to rebuild or dead since the middle of the game.  This is huge, and I scoff at anyone who says "nothing mattered."  Just because you'd like to see more direct evidence of what you do (which is a fair criticism) doesn't mean that "nothing mattered."

If this was a game that was only about the good of the entire society, then your argument can be backed by that. But the central theme of the game is not and the last 15 minute was a clear abandonment of the type of genre the Mass Effect was supposed to be. Do you ever read a literature that spends 4/5 of its portion on Romance than suddenly 1/5 it's turning into a non-sensical murder mystery? I would call that a garbage literature. That's what I find the ending unacceptable.

I've been copy/pasting my argument on several thread tealking about the basically the same argument. Really don't want to spam this,

[Here]

What I absolutely am not tolerating is the traumatic betrayal of the central philosophy that Bioware was trying to build up in ME3. Take Paragon path for an example. The definition of 'hope' was not only that the rest of the galaxy will survive, but 'hope' that he/she will be able to get through the ordeal along with people he/she cherishes (love interest, squad members, friends etc.) even though the odd was very slim.

Shepard went through the odds to try breaking the cycle. The Prothean has acknowledged that what he/she has done was something that was never seen in the history of the galaxy filled with repeated genocidal cycle commited by the reapers. Right up to the fleet approaching Earth; the story had reached a climax where Shepard and the rest of the galaxy is about to undo the Reapers and it's all because of the protagonist's existence.

Then the catalyst happened, every philosophical direction the game was taking suddenly became meaningless. Whatever the truth the catalyst believed in is the absolute truth and we must accept that. And suddenly Shepard, and us the players, have to comply with that unacceptable philosophy.

This in my view was an absolute betrayal against the central theme of the ME story-line, and for me this is absolutely unacceptable. If this was a book I wouldn't even bother keeping it in my bookshelf. The way Bioware portrays human value is simply unacceptable by any philosophical standard in my book.

I love the thought you put into this.  But I disagree that we had to accept the Catalyst's "truth".  The only option that seems to suggest this was synthesis.  I destroyed the reapers because I disagreed with the catalyst, and so did Biotic Sage, it seems.  I rejected what this self-appointed god-thing believed was good for the galaxy, and acted accordingly.  This was also, specifically, the reason I didn't pick "synthesis".  His logic was wrong, and his method flawed. 
The supremely heroic vision of Shepard was not lost in those last moments for me.  She accomplished exactly what she set out to do.  The reaper cycle of extinction was ended.  Organic life was to have the chance to write its own future.  She went out as the greatest hero the galaxy will ever know. The fact that the mass relays were destroyed is poetic as well.  We no longer require the "guidance" of this catalyst.  We will do it ourselves.  Absolute independence from the reapers and their creators.  I think it is a beautiful thing, and it a fitting, heroic culmination of everything the series stands for. 

If the point of the storyline was about the larger-than-life views, every single personal element has been sacrificed for sake of that, and the complete lack of closure for any major characters in the game is what makes me extremely dissatisfied. Take the stories from the WWII for example, war never is a fight for the society, there's always personal element attached to it; I've dissected the ending over and over again and I just simply cannot find enough personal element being involved in the ending scene to make me believe that the ending was tangible enough for the central theme of the series.

This is interesting to me because I felt the ending was intensely personal.  Shepard was facing the end of her life.  In the background, as we were to make our choice, you could see the scale of the conflict.  As you decided the fate of the galaxy, you were surrounded by evidence of the scale--thousands of ships shattered, reapers floating menacingly in orbit.  I felt the weight of this decision tremendously, but not in a simple, intellectual way.  I saw the devastation, and reflected on the events that led to that moment.  All the chaos, all the sacrifice.  The fact that I was separated from my companions only seemed to highten the sense of responsibility.  They weren't there in person, but I was thinking of them the whole time. 
The entire series, it seemed to me, had led to this moment.  It didn't feel "larger than life" to me.  It felt like all those personal stories, relationships, trials and sacrifices, were spent in order to purchase this choice.  It was an incredibly moving, weighty moment for me (almost traumatic lol).  I can't imagine a more personal experience.  "We all die alone" as the saying goes, and as you have the option to tell a squad member earlier in the game.  The lonely "detached" feeling I felt on the Crucible wasn't removed from personal, emotional considerations.  I felt exactly the opposite. 

[Biotic Sage]

@Aspex

First of all, lol at the rock on Rannoch. I thought that part was a little lame to begin with but if the texture didn't load that's just icing on the cake haha.

You make a very good point about EMS. Effective Military Strength was a meaningless number that we didn't see the results of. It was completely opaque, so we don't know how much of it we need to get in order to get certain endings. Why is gaining an extra reporter that puts you at 5000 exactly significantly better than 4995? EMS was terribly done. It's one of my main criticisms of the game.  We should have had cutscenes during the battle showing specific war assets being used.

I agree with your first post. I think some people enjoyed Mass Effect only because of the empowerment it gave them. They felt empowered because they were a larger than life figure who could mold events and other individuals at his/her whim. They could overcome impossible odds and still prevail. I think that these people were missing the fact that Mass Effect was first and foremost a dark science fiction story set in a fantastic universe with amazing depth in its themes; also it was at the same time extremely character driven to give the emotional factor just as much impact as the intellectual one. The "empowerment" stems from the medium itself: it is a video game and there has to be a certain "fun" factor. But that factor takes a backseat when concluding the narrative.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 01:08 .

[krthomps1]

As a side note, I hope that those interested in the response to the ending will refer to this thread in particular. There's not much trolling. The arguments are generally thoughtful and well put. This is an example of how a topic like this should be handled. After what I have read elsewhere, this thread makes me feel much better about my fellow Mass Effect fans.

[Ishiken]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I've seen some fair criticisms of the endings (most that I disagree with but they are fair), and then I've seen some criticisms that have not been thought out at all.  Here are the three that annoy me every time I see them:

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

The fallacy of the Catalyst's logic resides in its belief of the inevitability that synthetics will rebel against the organics and that organics will always lose. The war between Quarians and the Geth proves that synethics and organics can actually get along and flourish together as long as organics recognize that an AI is as much as an individual as organics. Even if synthetics was to eventually rebel against organics, there is no evidence that synthetics will actually wipe out organic life. Jarvik stated that the Protheans faced a similar situation in the Metacon War, and the Prothean's solution was to unite all organic life and fight back and he stated that they were winning the war against the synthetics until the Reapers showed up. The Catalyst implemented genocide against all advanced technological species based on an unproven assumption.

[Biotic Sage]

Ishiken wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I've seen some fair criticisms of the endings (most that I disagree with but they are fair), and then I've seen some criticisms that have not been thought out at all.  Here are the three that annoy me every time I see them:

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

The fallacy of the Catalyst's logic resides in its belief of the inevitability that synthetics will rebel against the organics and that organics will always lose. The war between Quarians and the Geth proves that synethics and organics can actually get along and flourish together as long as organics recognize that an AI is as much as an individual as organics. Even if synthetics was to eventually rebel against organics, there is no evidence that synthetics will actually wipe out organic life. Jarvik stated that the Protheans faced a similar situation in the Metacon War, and the Prothean's solution was to unite all organic life and fight back and he stated that they were winning the war against the synthetics until the Reapers showed up. The Catalyst implemented genocide against all advanced technological species based on an unproven assumption.

What I'm saying is that there's no conclusive proof for either side of the argument.  Did you read my entire original post?  All I'm saying is that the Catalyst itself believes this premise to be true and is operating from the basis of that premise: when operating from that basis, everything it does is logical.  And while we can disagree with the premise, as you and I both do, we still do not have conclusive proof.  Even if the Protheans did end up winning the Metacon War, they could still eventually be destroyed by synthetics.  This is an unknown, and something Shepard must make a judgment call on.

[Pandaman102]

Biotic Sage wrote...
1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion. [...]

I won't disagree with that, I raised an eyebrow when Tali mentioned Geth were hopping into Quarian suits to jumpstart their immune systems, because the first thing that came to mind was Javik's story about how a race in his cycle was enslaved (and having their genes rewritten) by the AI they created to enhance their minds.

Biotic Sage wrote...
2. "Nothing mattered!"

You may as well extend this logic to real life.[...]

Don't mean to be confrontational, but the first half of your argument doesn't... really make any sense. If any argument for or against the story can be countered by "this is true in real life, therefore your objection is invalid", then absolutely nothing about Mass Effect is even worth discussing by nature of it being science fiction.

That aside, I won't disagree that the decisions in ME1 and ME2 do create a different experience at the emotional level during the game, but mechanically speaking every choice you made in the previous game has little to no effect on the actual progression of plot. For example: killing the Rachni Queen in ME1 does not remove Ravager units because she is replaced by another queen, nominating Anderson as the human counselor does not prevent Udina from suddenly becoming counselor or his betrayal, killing Wrex and destroying Maelon's data does not prevent the cure from being developed. etc. etc.

Ultimately your decisions result in cameos and side missions that are not necessary to achieve the best ending and, more strikingly, neither can it sabotage your ending. Another example would be a Shepard who murders everyone and destroys every resource in ME1 and ME2, logically that sort of "hero" would be dooming the galaxy to a swift and humiliating defeat (something that I actually did just to see what kind of hilariously terrible ending I could achieve), but even with decisions like that I would be able to achieve the best ending with some last minute frantic resource gathering and wheeling-dealing. Conversely it's possible for a Shepard the did everything "right" in ME1 and ME2 to fail miserably if he doesn't go through the same jumps and hoops as the aforementioned nutjob-Shepard.

Now as to how these decisions do not affect the ending I will explain in the next argument, which is related...

Biotic Sage wrote...
3. "Bioware got lazy!"

Whether you agree with the ending or not[...]

Totally agree, it's ridiculous to assert that Bioware was lazy when everything before the Deus Ex Machina Catalyst-Morrigan's-God-Child was so utterly amazing (well, with the exception of the animation, which was stiff, and the lousy mission journal that only updated when you completed a mission). However the decision to reduce the final scene into a choice between three options, based entirely on your EMS level (and theoretically the state of the Collector base) was... lacking.

For ME3's ending to truly claim to be influenced by "every decision" in the previous two games, the ending has to be determined by those decisions and not a single choice (granted this choice was probably provided so players can go with what they felt best fit their Shepard's personality) in the last five minutes of the game.  So let's take a look at all the important plot decisions in ME1/ME2 (not going to include ME3's choices because some of them aren't binary, which complicates the math a bit):

1 - Save/Kill the Rachni Queen
2 - Keep/Kill Wrex
3 - Save/Sacrifice the Council
4 - Anderson/Udina becomes Counselor
5 - Keep/Destroy Maelon's data
6 - Rewrite/Desroy the Heretic Geths
7 - Disable/Destroy the Collector base

That's seven (in previous posts I only mentioned six, but let's include the Udina/Anderson thing) major decisions, each with two possible outcomes, which comes to 2^7, or 128, possible states the galaxy could be in for anyone importing from ME1/ME2. Now those decisions also have to be framed in context to Shepard's personality (for simplicity let's say there's three - leaning Paragon, leaning Renegade, or a Paragade mix) for a total of 384 variants of Shepards going into ME3.

Now it's silly to expect 384 variations of the ending movie, so some trimming and rolling the various Shepards into the same endings is to be expected. However in this situation we have 384 variations shoehorned into three choices (of which have some variations themselves, but again entirely determined by your EMS) - and that's what makes people think Bioware got "lazy" (not that I agree with this sentiment) and why the choices don't actually influence the ending.

Now if you consider all of ME3 as the "ending" rather than the third chapter of a trilogy, then Bioware could say the choices in ME1 and ME2 really did influence the ending... but that would be one hell of a stretch.

Modifié par Pandaman102, 11 mars 2012 - 01:41 .

[Baronesa]

Biotic Sage wrote...

This is an unknown, and something Shepard must make a judgment call on.

Agreed on this... but from my perspective, that judgement was taken from me. None of the possible endings account to that.

[Biotic Sage]

Baronesa wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

This is an unknown, and something Shepard must make a judgment call on.

Agreed on this... but from my perspective, that judgement was taken from me. None of the possible endings account to that.

See my updated original post about the three ending choices.  Unless you already did...in that case we just differ in perspective and there's nothing I can really say to change your mind.

[Ishiken]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I agree with your first post. I think some people enjoyed Mass Effect only because of the empowerment it gave them. They felt empowered because they were a larger than life figure who could mold events and other individuals at his/her whim. They could overcome impossible odds and still prevail. I think that these people were missing the fact that Mass Effect was first and foremost a dark science fiction story set in a fantastic universe with amazing depth in its themes; also it was at the same time extremely character driven to give the emotional factor just as much impact as the intellectual one. The "empowerment" stems from the medium itself: it is a video game and there has to be a certain "fun" factor. But that factor takes a backseat when concluding the narrative.

'Empowerment" does not have to take a backseat when concluding the narrative. Shepard could easily be living happily after the game and still not have a significant impact on the ending of the game and the future of the franchise. If the writers in Bioware cannot conclude their games without actively killing off all of their heroes, then they need to hire new and better writers.

Mass Effect trilogy is a game designed to be sold to the masses and it is not actually some high form of art. The writers in Bioware decided that they wanted to take the artistic road in ending Mass Effect, however they forgot that they are creating an RPG game that's going to be sold to millions of consumers. They also made a stupid mistake from a business standpoint, which is that happy endings sell better during harsh economic times.

[knightnblu]

I see your points, but I ask you to consider the following:
 
Both the control and destruction options result in the destruction of the mass relays and this will lead to the termination of life on Earth, Palavin, Thessia, and any other occupied planet where there are sentients living. That spells the deaths of trillions and the possible destruction of the attendant civilizations.
 
The synthesis option presents an entirely new dilemma. One of Shepard subverting the will of the individuals and species in the galaxy. What gives Shepard the right to take that option? How can he, in good conscience, force such a change on the citizenry of the galaxy both known and unknown? The mass relays are destroyed in order to obtain the energy to re-write the organic genome to one of both organic and synthetic a la Battlestar Galactica's solution to the problem of the Cylons.
 
Then there are the issues of why couldn't the AI stop the Reapers himself? It was his solution, therefore he created the Reapers to implement that solution and he comes right out and says that the solution is no longer a good one. At that point, why does he not order his servants to stand down? Once the AI has reached that conclusion, then what is the point of the continued slaughter unless it is merely for the sake of slaughter itself? Why does he force Shepard to destroy himself in an effort to solve a problem that the AI could easily solve?
 
Those who praise the ending never answer any of these questions and I wonder if they truly understand the implications of the endings.

[Mixon]

I don't want my Shep's die Thats all i wanted, just a small thing

[Biotic Sage]

@Pandaman102

I said in a previous post that I hate EMS. It is opaque and arbitrary, and probably my least favorite part of ME3. Also, I agree that some of the major choices should have had more of a definitive impact throughout the game. I know they like Ravagers and all, but if the Rachni were destroyed, they should be destroyed completely. That's a copout to have a new queen.

I will disagree about the very, VERY ending though. I am satisfied seeing my choices come to fruition throughout the game and then having a hugely impactful rather uniform (in terms of cinematics and imagery) ending as long as its well done, which I thought it was. However, all of those choices were vastly different, we just didn't get to directly see the outcomes. That's left to our imagination and I like that. It makes for good discussion.

[Biotic Sage]

knightnblu wrote...

I see your points, but I ask you to consider the following:
 
Both the control and destruction options result in the destruction of the mass relays and this will lead to the termination of life on Earth, Palavin, Thessia, and any other occupied planet where there are sentients living. That spells the deaths of trillions and the possible destruction of the attendant civilizations.
 
The synthesis option presents an entirely new dilemma. One of Shepard subverting the will of the individuals and species in the galaxy. What gives Shepard the right to take that option? How can he, in good conscience, force such a change on the citizenry of the galaxy both known and unknown? The mass relays are destroyed in order to obtain the energy to re-write the organic genome to one of both organic and synthetic a la Battlestar Galactica's solution to the problem of the Cylons.
 
Then there are the issues of why couldn't the AI stop the Reapers himself? It was his solution, therefore he created the Reapers to implement that solution and he comes right out and says that the solution is no longer a good one. At that point, why does he not order his servants to stand down? Once the AI has reached that conclusion, then what is the point of the continued slaughter unless it is merely for the sake of slaughter itself? Why does he force Shepard to destroy himself in an effort to solve a problem that the AI could easily solve?
 
Those who praise the ending never answer any of these questions and I wonder if they truly understand the implications of the endings.

As to your first point, I think it should have been clarified in the scene with the Catalyst that the Relays being "destroyed" actually means they are being deactivated, their energy being negated.  I never got the impression that it's another Arrival incident where an asteroid is slamming into them.  Bioware obviously didn't intend for us to think that all life on Earth was destroyed.  They showed people cheering and the Reapers defeated.  Like I said, this could have been clarified with more dialogue between the Catalyst and Shepard, and the question definitely should have been asked by Shepard, who has first hand experience with relays being "destroyed" and is still haunted by it.

For your second point, that's why I chose not to take the Synthesis ending.  If you are a transhumanist or you accept the fact that organics will inevitably be destroyed by their synthetic creations, however, it is quite appealing.  See the bottom part of my original post for my take on the endings.

For your final point, I didn't think that the Catalyst was an AI personally, but it's open to interpretation so that's a completely valid inference.  I liked that ambiguity.  I thought of the Catalyst as a being that was neither organic or synthetic, perhaps one of pure energy, but definitely completely alien to all that we know about "life" and with a much different way of thinking.  It almost seems godlike to us, much as the Protheans seemed godlike to the Hanar because they were so far beyond the Hanar.  Anyway, it seemed to me that for whatever reason, the Catalyst was operating under strict parameters.  It had no control of anything and could not alter those parameters.  It couldn't move the Citadel itself even though it is a part of the Citadel, it needed the Illusive Man to do that.  And even with the Crucible, which allows for modification of its prime directive, it cannot step outside its parameters.  In fact, it even says that "I can't and won't."  So take that how you will.  It is a bit ambiguous, but we can't pretend to understand this being's nature from that brief interaction.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[Aulis Vaara]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I think that these people were missing the fact that Mass Effect was first and foremost a dark science fiction story set in a fantastic universe with amazing depth in its themes;

Yes, wonderful themes! Themes that were all thrown out to give us a very poor ending.

[Militarized]

Biotic Sage wrote...
2. "Nothing mattered!"

You may as well extend this logic to real life.  If everything ends, including life itself, and infinite continuation is necessary for you to feel something "matters," then nothing you do in your real life matters either.  None of the relationships you have, none of the decisions you make, nothing.  Everything mattered in Mass Effect; Shepard touched the lives of thousands of individuals, and some on a very personal level i.e. Love Interest and squad/crew. 

As for our choices in the game resulting in direct consequences, we saw these consequences throughout the game.  Throughout the entire game we saw the consequences of our actions over the past 2 games.  We saw the result of the relationships we've nurtured, we saw the result of saving the council, saving Wrex, or keeping our crew alive in ME2.  Granted, the Collector Base choice from ME2 could have been integrated better, but we saw a great deal of direct consequences.  Now, the end game, that's a huge decision.  All 3 decisions may look the same with a wave of energy, but just think of the ramifications for the future of the galaxy.  I like that Bioware left that part, the part after Shepard's story, up to us.  And yes, the ripples of your decisions are still going on even though you don't get to personally witness them.  The Krogan are either cured of the genophage or doomed to extinction.  The Quarians could be alive to rebuild or dead since the middle of the game.  This is huge, and I scoff at anyone who says "nothing mattered."  Just because you'd like to see more direct evidence of what you do (which is a fair criticism) doesn't mean that "nothing mattered."

The whole point of ME1 and ME2 were not just seeing what happens directly as a point of your action... you could see them carry on into the end. You kept your save file because you would find out what happened later. In lui of their being no more Mass Effect.. you would provide closure. 

It's simply bad story telling, pidgeonholing a philosophy that is no where hinted at in the rest of the game except in minor subplots. They broke the writer-reader contract. 

Also your comment in another post about it not being an AI infuriates me even more... throwing metaphysics into this game suddenly as a way to end it is not ambigeous or surprising... it is immersion breaking and stupid. 

Modifié par Militarized, 11 mars 2012 - 02:03 .

[philippe willaume]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

How is that believe and assertion different than the one presented by the Dalatras? Did you also faked the cure for the genophage because the Krogan MAY become a danger later? or the Rachni?

Anyway... the point is, if we cannot buy this premise, that is the foundation for the Catalyst's reasons and the options given, how can we pick any of those options? I'm glad that for you those reasons work, but that is the main problem I have with it. If I cannot be convinced/accepts the singularity explanation, how can I consider the 3 options valid, if all 3 depend on you accepting this explanation?

No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

Control - Implies that you don't know what to think about the Catalyst's premise.  The Reapers will be around anyway, just in case some Reaping needs to be done, so it's the "safe" option if you aren't sure.  I considered it "unsafe" because I don't want Reapers around anymore, period.

Synthesis - Implies that you accept the Catalyst's premise and that in order to get out of the fatalistic doom of synthetics rising up we need to create a new paradigm for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Hello I agree with you.
The fundamental question of ME3 is how you would like organic and synthetic life form to deal with each other in the next cycle and how bad will it end for that cycle.
 
The proposition of the Catalyst is to prevent all organic life to be annihilated by synthetics, we cull the more advance races before there creates a synthetic life form who will becomes powerful enough to wipe out all organic.
 
Now having the protean in the team helps to put thing in perspective.
 I.e. they seem to have been an hegemonic culture where one of the races of the time had a Quarian-geth like problem and and inherent mistrust for the Geth and EDI. Ie the seeds of what the catalyst is mentioning.

But you see what you present is not implication, in the logical sense, those are conjecture and personal interpretation.
For example I see destroy as pressing the reset button. Wipe out synthetic in any shape or form (and May be even people with cybernetic implants and pace makers).
I see it as the best outcome for people that never recruited legion and sided with the Quarian, and were weary of EDI/EA.
 
The control is more a way to stop the reapers, and preserving as much as we can of the now, knowing that without mass effect space travel. The worlds as we know it will dwindle and regress, so it a softer reboot. As it seems that we will control the reaper just for that end of cycle.
I see it as good or best outcome if you were very attached to your team mates, kind of pro-human without Cerberus hegemony at all cost, or having a sympathetic view to the Geth (and the Geth quarian new synergy) and EDI/EVA
 
The Synthesis is breaking the cycle. Were organic and synthetic are merged, mass relay are still destroyed but it is the best chance for the future,
 
Obviously some other people will have different view, just as valid as ours on how the ending can be interpreted.
Now, the problem with the ending is not the logical aspect or the interpretation, it is that it is not presented well enough to the player. I.e. it feels disjointed in regard of the story in ME3 and the series.
 
As well the fact that in some case Joker+EDI  or joker and the LI  end up caught in the shock wave does not really makes sense. Especially since all the LI bare one are on the ground with you.
 
Now It would if during the exploration we did we could have found a world that looked good just in case and if we had a cut-scene where you ask joker to take the LI or EDI and find a world.
 
The other issue is that we do not know what happened to the companions.  It is the end of the Sheppard story and we already have lost a few companions. Now we can assume that he one you talk to in the com centre are going to be fine in most endings. But the one that were on the ground with you, did they die did they live?. The death of some where well done,  so They could have died getting us there on the last run, died or lived as a result of our choice or even getting in the citadel with us.

PS I really like your notion of treating with dignity and respect by slaughtering them all so that the next batch can be "better".

[Biotic Sage]

Militarized wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
2. "Nothing mattered!"

You may as well extend this logic to real life.  If everything ends, including life itself, and infinite continuation is necessary for you to feel something "matters," then nothing you do in your real life matters either.  None of the relationships you have, none of the decisions you make, nothing.  Everything mattered in Mass Effect; Shepard touched the lives of thousands of individuals, and some on a very personal level i.e. Love Interest and squad/crew. 

As for our choices in the game resulting in direct consequences, we saw these consequences throughout the game.  Throughout the entire game we saw the consequences of our actions over the past 2 games.  We saw the result of the relationships we've nurtured, we saw the result of saving the council, saving Wrex, or keeping our crew alive in ME2.  Granted, the Collector Base choice from ME2 could have been integrated better, but we saw a great deal of direct consequences.  Now, the end game, that's a huge decision.  All 3 decisions may look the same with a wave of energy, but just think of the ramifications for the future of the galaxy.  I like that Bioware left that part, the part after Shepard's story, up to us.  And yes, the ripples of your decisions are still going on even though you don't get to personally witness them.  The Krogan are either cured of the genophage or doomed to extinction.  The Quarians could be alive to rebuild or dead since the middle of the game.  This is huge, and I scoff at anyone who says "nothing mattered."  Just because you'd like to see more direct evidence of what you do (which is a fair criticism) doesn't mean that "nothing mattered."

The whole point of ME1 and ME2 were not just seeing what happens directly as a point of your action... you could see them carry on into the end. You kept your save file because you would find out what happened later. In lui of their being no more Mass Effect.. you would provide closure. 

It's simply bad story telling, pidgeonholing a philosophy that is no where hinted at in the rest of the game except in minor subplots. They broke the writer-reader contract. 

Also your comment in another post about it not being an AI infuriates me even more... throwing metaphysics into this game suddenly as a way to end it is not ambigeous or surprising... it is immersion breaking and stupid. 

Didn't say it wasn't an AI, said it was open to interpretation since it was never explicity stated either way...

Disagree on the ending, since I found my closure before the ending happened and was ready for new possibilities.  We will just have to agree to disagree there.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 mars 2012 - 02:06 .

[hawat333]

I like that they don't spoonfeed the outcomes. You cane make up what you think will happen after the the endings. That's a good thing, as long as people still have some imagination.

[Tahleron1]

what seems odd to me is that if you look at the last cycle, the protheans, they were a hegemony that believed "join us or die", in that sense the Reapers actually saved the humans, turians etc not from ai, but from being forced indentured servants to the "purebred" Protheans, but then the enemy became synthetics completely arbitrarily....

Modifié par Tahleron1, 11 mars 2012 - 02:08 .

[Pandaman102]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I said in a previous post that I hate EMS. It is opaque and arbitrary, and probably my least favorite part of ME3. Also, I agree that some of the major choices should have had more of a definitive impact throughout the game. I know they like Ravagers and all, but if the Rachni were destroyed, they should be destroyed completely. That's a copout to have a new queen.

I will disagree about the very, VERY ending though. I am satisfied seeing my choices come to fruition throughout the game and then having a hugely impactful rather uniform (in terms of cinematics and imagery) ending as long as its well done, which I thought it was. However, all of those choices were vastly different, we just didn't get to directly see the outcomes. That's left to our imagination and I like that. It makes for good discussion.

Ah, to clarify I'm not really talking about an epilogue (though I wouldn't mind that as well), I mean the ending should have been decided by our choices over the course of all three games, rather than a choice in the last five minutes.

Say, for example, I have a Renegade Shepard who supported the humanity front, sacrificed the Council, and basically did everything that would make TIM blush at his own humble methods - instead of Shepard having to limp his way to a choice, it should have been an automatic Control ending, except with heavy implications that Shepard is now controlling them in humanity's interest.

On the other hand if I have a Paragon Shepard who saved everyone, made peace at every turn, and irritated Javik's sensibilities enough for him to grow hair for the express purpose of tearing it out in frustration, I would expect the ending to be an automatic Control ending as well, except with the Reapers being sent into the depths of space.

Or a Paragon who destroys the Rachni queen, saves the Council, destroys the heretics, but brokers peace between the Quarians and Geth automatically goes with Destruction targeted toward the Reapers only, while a Renegade goes goes "zap them all, let their digital god sort them out" and destroys all synthetic life. Etc. etc.

It doesn't have to go into an epilogue about how the decisions affected the other races, so plenty of room can be left for discussion about the fate of the galaxy, but it would be a much more personalized ending that actually reflects fives years of investment into the story. The trick would be having enough variation to leave people satisfied for the most part without causing the cinematics department from hurling themselves off the roof in despair.

[xtorma]

It's bad because it's a loup you can't get out of. Synthetics always win , you either enable them or become them.

These are the plot holes i have problems with.

1. most every harvested race contributed something to the crucible. The protheans nearly completed it , but they just ran out of time. If the protheans knew that the crucible was the only way to stop the reapers, why didn't vigil tell shepard where to get the plans and to start building it?

" you must enter the conduit and stop saren. Should you prevail, you must find the data about the weapon we created and begin it's construction." or something better written by a professional. Even if everyone in the galaxy said they didn't believe it , and no one botherd trying to find the data, it would have plugged this huge plot hole.

I have more , but if i rationalize enough , i can make up reasons as to why they may be believed, unfortunatly, when you are playing a game or reading a book , or watching a movie, at the end, you want the writer to close these holes, you shouldn't have to.

[Biotic Sage]

philippe willaume wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

How is that believe and assertion different than the one presented by the Dalatras? Did you also faked the cure for the genophage because the Krogan MAY become a danger later? or the Rachni?

Anyway... the point is, if we cannot buy this premise, that is the foundation for the Catalyst's reasons and the options given, how can we pick any of those options? I'm glad that for you those reasons work, but that is the main problem I have with it. If I cannot be convinced/accepts the singularity explanation, how can I consider the 3 options valid, if all 3 depend on you accepting this explanation?

No, no.  I don't think we have to buy the Catalyst's premise is my point.  That's why the endings are beautiful to me.  

Destruction - Implies you reject the Catalyst's premise because organic society is going to rebuild and eventually create synthetics/AI again.  This means that if the Catalyst is correct, you are dooming future generations to extinction.  But that's why I chose it, because I don't think the Catalyst is correct, and I am giving organics a chance to treat AI with dignity and respect and trusting AI to value all forms of life as well.  My experiences with the Quarians and the Geth shaped my Shepard's thinking here.

Control - Implies that you don't know what to think about the Catalyst's premise.  The Reapers will be around anyway, just in case some Reaping needs to be done, so it's the "safe" option if you aren't sure.  I considered it "unsafe" because I don't want Reapers around anymore, period.

Synthesis - Implies that you accept the Catalyst's premise and that in order to get out of the fatalistic doom of synthetics rising up we need to create a new paradigm for life in the Milky Way Galaxy.

1. But you see what you present is not implication, in the logical sense, those are conjecture and personal interpretation.
For example I see destroy as pressing the reset button. Wipe out synthetic in any shape or form (and May be even people with cybernetic implants and pace makers).
I see it as the best outcome for people that never recruited legion and sided with the Quarian, and were weary of EDI/EA.
 
2. The control is more a way to stop the reapers, and preserving as much as we can of the now, knowing that without mass effect space travel. The worlds as we know it will dwindle and regress, so it a softer reboot. As it seems that we will control the reaper just for that end of cycle.
I see it as good or best outcome if you were very attached to your team mates, kind of pro-human without Cerberus hegemony at all cost, or having a sympathetic view to the Geth (and the Geth quarian new synergy) and EDI/EVA
 
3. Obviously some other people will have different view, just as valid as ours on how the ending can be interpreted.
Now, the problem with the ending is not the logical aspect or the interpretation, it is that it is not presented well enough to the player. I.e. it feels disjointed in regard of the story in ME3 and the series.

4. As well the fact that in some case Joker+EDI  or joker and the LI  end up caught in the shock wave does not really makes sense. Especially since all the LI bare one are on the ground with you.

5. PS I really like your notion of treating with dignity and respect by slaughtering them all so that the next batch can be "better".

(I numbered your points so I can address them in a friendly format)

1. I guess the better wording would have been "implies to me."  All works are ultimately subject to what the reader/viewer/player brings to the table.  I like your interpretations as well, and it just further convinces me that the ending was brilliant, because there are so many facets to it.  It has so much depth.

2. I definitely agree.  I saw the "Control" ending as the one that most closely maintains the status quo of the Mass Effect universe.  Of course, the status quo is completely disrupted in all endings because of the destruction of the relays, but the Control ending most closely maintains the status quo.  I would have loved to choose this ending but the Reapers still being around was unacceptable to me, which is why, with a heavy heart, chose the "Destroy" ending.

3. I didn't feel the disjointedness that you felt.  Maybe what you saw as "disjointed" I saw as "distinct."  I always thought that Mass Effect should have a "distinct" ending, one that is a huge revelation and really stands out from the rest of the narrative, but also is supported by the rest of the narrative. 

4. I don't like the Normandy suddenly ending up in the shockwave either.  It was jarring because there's no context given.  The editing was poorly done and we don't see enough of the continuity as to how it ended up in that situation.  And of course no one you took on the final mission should show up in the final scene exiting the Normandy.  I don't even know what that's about, I hope its a glitch or unintentional.

5. Haha like I said!  It may seem hypocritical, but I felt it was the most acceptable sacrifice.  I really wish I didn't have to do it, but when presented with a Sophie's choice like that, what am I to do?

[Militarized]

TheRisenStar wrote...

Lemme get this straight...

Game hammers the theme of "Control is wrong. Freedom is good. Fight for freedom, self determination, and your friends!"
Tuchanka - Genophage is control. Control is wrong.
TIM - Control of people (and Reapers) is wrong and dangerous,
Geth - Need I say it... again?
Miranda's Father - Control is wrong.


And the penultimate example - Reapers are a system of control. An artificial means to produce someone's idea of "Order" as a supreme value. And no matter what, we're forced to accept their logic, submit to their presuppositions, and make a choice in congruence with their perspective.

Damn right I chose destroy. Sorry Geth and EDI, it's the only (terrible) option I had to be consistent with the theme of the game, and of ME in general. What a miscarriage of storytelling...

I'll also add, that the "hero's sacrifice" does not have to mean death. See Frodo, LOTR - another apocalyptic, against all odds, fight for your friends, life, and all that is good story.

I want my Frodo ending. {edit} or any real ending that respects the actual themes of the saga.

Never posted here before, have lurked for years. Adding my voice now.

Saw this in another thread, another example of breaking the reader-writer contract. They shoehorned the AI thing in at the last minute... it's obvious and I really don't see why we're even debating that fact. :-/

[vigna]

taylortexas wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I've seen some fair criticisms of the endings (most that I disagree with but they are fair), and then I've seen some criticisms that have not been thought out at all.  Here are the three that annoy me every time I see them:

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

Fair enough. In the Catalyst's unfallible logic, it is very well possible that the geth will eventually be on the other end of a war with organics (for one reason or another) or that a new eventual brand of synthetic live will not be as forgiving. Perhaps the hologram-like boy of Shepard's nightmares truly is all-knowing, and despite things contradicting it's claims at that very moment in time, it doesn't mean that will be true in another 50,000 years. I don't know that I completely agree... the fact that a supposed god could ever be wrong at any point time; to me, says that it is not really a god. There's also the complete loophole in the logic of crafting a race of synthetic genocide machines which will destroy all organic life to prevent them from being wiped out by their own synthetic creations. A man is going to go buy a gun so that he can kill himself. You want to save him, so instead you buy a gun first and kill him. Different means to an end: he dies, and in this scenario all organic life is wiped out. Despite all that, the main factor in not enjoying the endings (for me) was that of all the damn choices, they ultimately lead to the same thing. The universe is set back hundreds of years, the Normandy crashes... somewhere, and Shepard's fate is unknown for the most part. Okay, that's cool, but give me something else to work for next time.

Is the Catalyst all-knowing? All powerful? Infallable? Can Shepard trust the Catalyst? Does the Catalyst have a secret motive? Is the Catalyst playing/tricking Shepard into doing something "it" can't do for itself? Shepard asks none of these questions. Auto-dialogue is your enemy here.

Modifié par vigna, 11 mars 2012 - 02:24 .