49 réponses à ce sujet

[M0keys]

Just wondering how Bioware thinks the player avatar commiting total genocide of an entire race of sentient, friendly beings is supposed to give us, as they said at PAX, satisfaction?

Who do they think their player base is? Genocide isn't cool

[Allan Schumacher]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

... because after all that 'does this unit have a soul?' talk on Rannoch, it turns out it was them or us all along. Tali's character develoment is moot. Legion's sacrifice was meaningless. I want to ragemurder a kitten.

I actually don't see it this way, and I did pick the Destroy ending.  I saw the Reapers as a threat and one that ultimately needed to be destroyed.  I also loved that I was presented an option to make peace between the Geth and Quarians earlier in the game.  It (and Tuchanka) was probably one of my favourite moments in recent gaming history.  Probably since Planescape: Torment (my favourite game all time).


When I reached the conduit, I fully expected to have to sacrifice myself.  To be fair, I expected to sacrifice myself at the end of the previous two games too, so to me it's always something that I saw coming.  I also had no idea what to expect the Crucible to actually do.  Given the talks with Hackett, I felt it was us putting all our eggs in one basket because we only saw one basket to put our eggs into.

So I get to the Catalyst and start talking with him.  He presents the ways that the crucible can unleash its power.  I'm going into this thinking "Reapers. Must. Die!"  But then I'm told that choosing to destroy the Reapers will also destroy the Geth!  "Wait... WHAT?!  But I don't want to do that!!"  I found it very, very similar to Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 (one of my favourite parts of that game).  When presented with the Control ending, I was now a bit more considerate of it.  When presented with the synthesis ending, I was a bit more considerate of it.

It is because of the growth of the Geth and Quarians that my "obvious" choice was now not so obvious.  I also refused to believe the Catalyst's statements about the inevitability of synthetics and organics to destroy each other.  In fact, when Shepard says "Maybe" in response to the Catalyst's claims, it was my exact same thought.  I had grown to appreciate the Geth and Quarians because I was able to help resolve the 300 year conflict with them.  They were able to move on, which gave me hope that synthetic-organic conflict was not inevitable.

If Legion's sacrifice was meaningless, and Tali's character development irrelevant, I wouldn't have taken the time to think about whether or not I should destroy the reapers.  I wouldn't have cared at all.  I choked up when Tali told Legion it had a soul, and when Legion said "Keelah Se'lai" to her.  It was an amazing scene.  I thought it was awesome that the Geth were helping the Quarians adapt and retake Rannoch.  Which is what made the destroy option that much more impactful for me.  Rather than being a trivial, obvious choice, I hesitated and had an emotional response to the decision.

In the end, I chose the destroy ending.  I found it bittersweet because it came at the cost of the Geth, but ultimately freeing the galaxy of the Reapers is something my Shepard felt had to be done.  The "maybe" he said rang true for me, and I wanted to give the opportunity for organics to prove the Catalyst wrong in the future.  I actually preferred this ending to simply "destroy all reapers."  Though I can understand that people would have preferred something more ideal.


NOTE:  While my name has BioWare attached to it, I've only ever worked on the DA franchise and actually would close my eyes and go "LALALALALALA" during the ME parts of studio meetings so as to not spoil anything for myself

In other words, I played through the game as a fan of the franchise too


Cheers.

Allan

[Allan Schumacher]

Gammazero79 wrote...

So speaking fan to fan were you bothered by the ends at all? I mean honestly how did the rest of the end make sense to you? [not insulting I truly want to know] Joker running away, the scene on the garden planet, the fact that your war assets were little more than a number, the lack of explanation and options, ect..... 

Responding at the risk that my response somehow be interpreted as an "official" response....

As a show of good faith though, I'll share my thoughts.  It's important to note here that I finished the game probably around the 14th, so I had heard rumors about how bad the ending was so I went into it preparing for some awful stuff to happen, which made me innately more accepting of whatever it was I was about to see.


On the whole, I found the ending to be a let down compared to the rest of the game.  I think this is more of a reflection of how highly I thought of the rest of the game than anything else though.  Rannoch and Tuchanka were phenomenol, and the usage of the ME1 theme at those points brings me goosebumps just typing about it now.  So yeah, the ending wasn't up to the quality of the rest of the game.


I found the ending choices to be too inspired by the original Deus Ex, but I also didn't outright mind the scene on the Citadel, even if I found it strange and a Diabolus Ex Machina.  The thing for me was that the Crucible was a giant unknown, so it wasn't too difficult for me to accept that it might react in ways that I didn't expect or didn't necessarily want though, so the options presented to me weren't enough to remove my suspension of disbelief.  As a result I didn't mind the relays getting destroyed (I haven't played Arrival so I had no prior idea for what might happen when a relay is destroyed).


As for Joker, I didn't actually think much at the time as to WHY Joker was running, but I did find the garden planet scene confusing.  In retrospect, I wouldn't have included the stuff with the Normandy because I found it confusing.

With respect to explanation, I'm assuming you're referring to some type of closure?  I am not actually the type of person that needs all that much explanation of what happens after.  While there's definitely a part of me that would love to know what happens in the immediate aftermath, there's also a part of me that associates the game as being Shepard's story, and that part of me likes that I, as the game player, have to make my decision knowing that I'll not know the full implications of my decision, just like Shepard.  And I actually did enjoy wondering what happens to the galaxy and have had some fun discussions with some friends and co-workers about it.  I think the big thing here is whether or not you believe the galaxy is totally kaput (I don't.  And I'm saying that with no additional information and I don't want anyone to think that i'm hinting towards anything for the upcoming ending DLC or anything like that).


Regarding War Assets, after the game and reading some of the thoughts around the Net, I started to wonder if I misunderstood the real representation of the War Assets.  I think I am like a lot of other people, in that we saw War Assets as being a kickass military asset.  Though given the way the endings play out with lower war score, it seems there's more emphasis on the War Assets as a team building/protecting the crucible, as opposed to the ability to fight the reapers.  I would have loved to see situations on Earth that demonstrated my choices, such as fighting along Geth/Rachni, etc.  It's a shame that it didn't happen the way I had hoped.


As for "options," this is going to be a place where I likely differ in opinion from a lot of fans.  I've actually always considered Mass Effect's choices to be more superficial than a lot of other people, especially when concerning the key antagonist.  In the end my only option in ME1 is to defeat  Saren and Sovereign.  I can talk Saren down but ultimately still had to fight in in some capacity (I hated this actually... I would have loved to just talk Saren down and let that be the end of it).  ME2 has some interesting reactivity in whether or not parts of your squad survive, but to me the same ultimate ending happens, just with differences in who makes the end.  Only at the end are we presented with a choice and it doesn't have any effect on the ending for ME2.

So would I have loved more choice in ME3's ending?  Yes.  But I'd have also loved more choice in ME1 and ME2's ending, which I felt were sorely lacking.  So I hesitate to state that my disappointment with ME3's choice is a reflection of solely ME3's ending.  I think it was an issue with all 3 Mass Effect games.


Anyways, I am actually getting quite hungry and should go get some food.  I obviously don't respond too much but I'll try to make an effort to chime in later if people have any relevant comments.



EDIT: Wall of text crits you all for 9999....

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 07 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

CronoDragoon wrote...

That's fine Allan, but what you are saying is that you are okay with the whole Tali/Legion thing being reduced to a reason to make you hesitate destroying the Reapers. In fact, being such a great part of ME2/3, it should have allowed you to refuse the choices presented to you or modify them. Destroy does not refuse the Catalyst's reasoning because that choice is not "Destroy the Reapers" it is "Destroy all Synthetic Life," which is still a decision basing itself upon the Catalyst's premises.

I don't consider it a reduction.  Based on the discussion that has gone on on the forums, it seems whether or not people do is a very personal and subjective thing.

For myself, Shepard displays that he's not 100% online with the Catalyst's reasoning when he says "Maybe" in response to The Catalyst's assertion that the peace won't last.


I am okay with the idea of refusing the choices presented to you, though I don't think people would have liked my outcome hahaha (This would have been my Reapers win outcome).

As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both, and I'm also think that it shouldn't have been possible to get through the Suicide Mission flawlessly.  I think once you can get through things flawlessly, it makes the choice less impactful, in my opinion.  I see the outcome of ME2 to be more of a reflection of "did you play well enough" as opposed to making tangible choices.  Different results because I "chose" not to fully experience all the content is less interesting to me.

I obviously have some leeway in this though, as I found brokering peace between the Quarians and Geth amazing.  Especially since I was thinking "Stop fighting you fools we have bigger fish to fry!" the whole time!!  Mixing up the player's ability to have ideal outcomes and to have to make choices can probably also be argued from a psychological perspective.


I guess it might be important to state that while I like choice, my preference is typically "mutually exclusive choice."  I love it when games tell me "You have two tasks, but choosing one means the other fails."  It adds replayability and makes those choices more significant in my mind.  Unfortunately mutual choice is pretty rare

[Allan Schumacher]

Visserian99 wrote...

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I agree with parts of it myself, particularly the love for the Rannoch and Tunchanka parts. I am forced to disagree with your assessment on the ME choices being superficial. While on a meta-level you can definitely argue that they are, on the more personal level they don't feel like they are, and thats why I loved to make sure I did them anyway. Sure letting Samara die for instance, doesn't influence much, but on a personal level I liked her story and her sense of tragedy and pushed me forward to make sure she and eventually her daughter survived. 

As you point this out, superficial may not have been the best usage of the word ever.  I absolutely think that these types of choices should still exist in the game, because even if the game doesn't particularly respond to it explicitly, it does still affect the player.

[Allan Schumacher]

T-0pel wrote...

Great response Alan. I am just doing my second playthrough after a month of not being able to replay the single player. And I agree, the best parts of this game are Curing the genophage and quarian/geth peace. It is just handled perfectly from every angle imaginable. It takes desecions from this and previous games to account, it is very emotional, music is beyond perfect (especially Future for the Krogan track, that one is insane) and while there is always a sacrifice, in the end it makes me feel it was worth it.

I looooooooove ME's music.  Maybe I'm just a bit of a nihilist, but I actually found some of the "bad" outcomes of those two scenes possibly even more powerful.  Mordin was in my game, and his scene of sacrificing himself to atone was fantastic.  However, the scene where he refutes Shepard and says "Only saw big picture.  Big picture made up of little pictures!" is as powerful as Legion's "Keelah se'lai."  Then when Shepard shoots him (WHO CAN DO THIS?!) he bravely and valiantly pushes towards the control panel.  I only watched it on YouTube, but I was hoping he would still make it just to spite Shepard.  The same goes for listening to Tali's sobbing as the Quarians were destroyed.  Felt awful just watching it :S

Only thing really great about the ending is music, again...

Soooo much agree.  I actually have a playlist at work that has the two slightly different versions just play on repeat... >.>

[Allan Schumacher]

Stygian1 wrote...


Can I ask you this though? Did you have any problem with the explanation of the Reapers and the Star Child's motives? I mean the Star Child blatantly states that Synthetics and Organics cannot co-exist, yet every example we have of Synthetic/Organic relations has been one that has (or can be) turned positive.

First off, unless I'm mistaken I think the two examples we have are the Geth and EDI right?  I don't think I missed any >.>

I would have preferred if the reaper's motivations were never really made apparent (I also would have preferred to never show Tali's face at all).  I think it's difficult to truly understand exactly what the Catalyst means by his explanation and as it stands, is the crux of what I probably find jarring about the ending.  As for the Catalyst's claims, part of what I found interesting is that he states something that you have an example that may prove his theory wrong.  This is why I really liked Shepard's "Maybe" in response.  The unfortunate thing about the Catalyst's claims is that it's not falsifiable.  When dealing with a timeline that might as well be eternity, any event with a non-zero chance of occurring will eventually occur, so in that sense I don't really find it a contradiction.  All that the Geth-Quarian peace and EDI do is serve as examples that "it's not happening right now."

At this point, even if we think it's an evitability (assuming the Catalyst is infalliable), there's really no timeline on when such an event may occur.  If it takes 47 billion years for an organic to finally create a synthetic that destroys all organic life, then the Catalyst's statement is still correct, but I see this has being a significantly better situation than getting harvested every 50,000 years.  I feel that because my Shepard was able to see that Synthetics and Organics could co-exist, I was willing to give them that chance without Reaper intervention.

Did you find this theme misplaced? Also, did you feel as if the entire "strength through diversity" theme was dragged through the mud? Because I certaintly felt so, especially with the synthesis choice tacked on to an ending that I already felt contradictory to the rest of the storyline's central themes.

I don't think the theme was misplaced.  I found it thought provoking, but maybe there are details that I've assumed that others haven't which make it a bigger issue for them. 

As for the strength in diversity, I don't think it's covered as well (or really at all) in the ending compared to the rest of the game.  Part of my resistance to the synthesis choice in my playthrough is that I don't entirely understand it (which makes me a bit of a hypocrite, as I still ended up choosing the merge with Helios in the original Deus Ex.  Maybe I just though the other endings were less acceptable?  Haha).  I can sort of conceptualize organic life becoming more synthetic, but the opposite made me go "buh?"  I have also seen others feel that it was forced evolution which didn't feel right.  I can agree with that.  I think the strength in diversity could have been better maintained if the ending had more explanation/reactivity to the player choices.

Again thanks, any response would warm my heart full of internet fuzzies. 

My entire motivation for responding! 

It's difficult to answer as it's mostly just me stating my interpretation.  I'm not really well equipped to provide any better explanation than some of the others that have broken it down, unfortunately.  But if you're willing to give me the Ravel treatment and not care if it's the "right answer" but rather just that it's "my answer," there you go

[Allan Schumacher]

Aramina wrote...

At the risk of sounding too much like someone who shall not be named here, I always felt that in the previous ME games, it was the journey that really mattered. I'm a hardcore RPG fan (I grew up playing Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale), and I love being able to make a game my own story, but I also recognize that at some point I do have to get back to the "real" story, especially in a game with a sequel. As awesome as it would have been in Baldur's Gate if my char could have just "Screw it, I'm on the first boat to Maztica," I knew that my own ideas about how the story should be still had to mesh with the story the writers wanted to tell.

This is a good point.  Someone else mentioned illusion of choice and all CRPGs are going to have to ultimately come down to illusion of choice to some capacity, because players can only do what has been put in there!

I promise I do have a point to this While I know that the ending of a game all about choices has to be one that ties in a bunch of different playstyles, it is ultimately everything I did up to that point that make the ending truly unique. Keeping the Baldur's Gate example:  the end of ToB lets you become a god if you want to, or turn down the power and live as a mortal. On the surface, it seems like these are just two choices that have nothing to do with anything I did earlier. I could play a supervillain or a paladin and get the same two choices. But wait! <snip for space>

I agree that the journey is important too.  It's actually where I struggle with some of the disappointment people have, because I find it difficult to comprehend the perspective of someone that feels the entire game (or series) is meaningless and they aren't able to play it.  I can understand from a logical perspective, but since it's not a perspective I share on a personal level, it's impossible for me to completely understand that perspective the same as those people.  It's certainly unfortunate and I wish that that wasn't the case.  I did enjoy the epilogues to TOB too.

I have a question for you if you don't mind answering it. You said you don't mind ambiguous endings. Is there a "sweet spot" of ambiguity/closure that you like? Wether it's cutscenes, BG/DA stye epilogue slides, a mix of both? Personally I prefer epilogue slides over cutscenes. It lets me have a sense of what's happening, while leaving it open enough to add my own spin on things. Cutscenes are always appreciated, but it's so easy to make them too ambigous (I'm looking right at you, ME3), and instead of some closure with room for interpretation I get confusion.

If you were to make me choose, probably text style epilogues are what I'd like.  I like them from an imaginative perspective, but understanding the business I see them as a way to provide more varied feedback for lesser cost.  But yeah, confusion is bad, and I can understand that people are confused about parts of ME3's ending.  I guess it's probably more of a non-answer, but I am probably ambivalent towards the precise sweet spot for closure (as I'm a journey guy too I think), in that I'd have been okay with ME3 providing more closure.  The one caveat for that is that I do frown upon epilogues that state what my character does after the game.  The more open ended the story, the more I frown upon it.

I think it would have been a very difficult balancing act to ensure that people were satsified with the epilogues for the love interest without removing too much player agency.  I think it's just as bad to go "Oh... My Shepard wouldn't have done that!" when reading up about how Shepard decides to give Tali a Mako for her birthday because he loves her SOOO much 

Anyway, just curious as to your personal opinion on what makes a good ending.

I separated this because I found it interesting and a bit separate.  For me, and this really goes for any plot point I guess, if I had to break it down it'd probably be "one that illicits an emotional response."  The response has to be within the game, of course.  If I'm going "I'm so mad because the ending had a giant bug in it!!! " that's not a good thing.

Though I don't even know if the type of emotion is necessarily important.  I can love the ending to Throne of Bhaal, and it's decidedly happy and quite explicit (I think my Viconia bugged out though IIRC...), while I can love the ending to Planescape: Torment even though I find it quite sad, while I can love the ending of Fallout because the Overseer makes me SO ANGRY!!!  It wasn't for years that I learned it's actually possible for him to get his due with particular traits

But yeah, if a game can illicit an emotional response within the context of the game, I find stuff like that powerful.

[Allan Schumacher]

Orkboy wrote...

I'm still trying to work out what the whole point of the war assets was?

I take the long way and do everything there is to do - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

I do the barest minimum - pick Destroy and everyone dies...

How the hell is what comes before, in anyway important?

To be fair, what you see happen on Earth is quite different, in my opinion, depending on your EMS score.

It doesn't seem to me that everyone dies with the destroy ending regardless of the EMS, but I suppose that depends on whether or not one feels are the consequences of the relays being destroyed.

[Allan Schumacher]

BlueDemonX wrote...

How nice of you to share your thoughts with us!!

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said, especially with the effect of choices when they have to be made.
At the same time though, I think the option of destroying all synthetics is a bit...exaggerated? (dunno how to put it...) I mean, why destory all Synthetics if you could only deactivate/destroy they Reapers? That´s what the Crucible was meant for, the Reapers are more than "just" Synthetics, they´re closer to Synthesis between Synthetics and Organics....

I've actually had this discussion with a few friends so hopefully my answer is a bit more sensical that some of my other ones hehe.

The reason why I have no problem with this is because the Crucible is an unknown entity.  Say what you will about it as a plot device, but it's what ME3 goes with, and Hackett even has a conversation with Shepard stating that we're uncertain what it will do, and how to harness it.

Given that the Crucible is essentially our cycle's "last hope," as everyone agrees the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, I have no issues if there are consequences to firing the Crucible that we weren't anticipating.  If you look at the results that occur if low EMS, it seems evident that there's issues with harnessing it's power as it ends up disintigrating everyone on Earth.

So while I can agree with you that the writers could have easily written it so that not all synthetics were killed, with what we are provided in the game I feel the current outcome of the destroy ending can also be justified.  The best justification I can think of for not killing the Geth is that it makes this ending less of a downer, but ultimately not any more or less plausible given the things that we have been told.

[Allan Schumacher]

Beldamon wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


As for modifying the choices, I think there are times that it's good that people can't.  I think it would have cheapened Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifice if there was a way to actually save both

Hmmm...much like how choosing to save the Rachni Queen or destroy her might have been cheapened if a writer had decided the reapers wold 'magic' the Rachni back into existence even if said player had decided to destroy the queen....

Oh, wait!

HAHA.  I have been meaning to look up how that played out based upon whether or not the Queen was killed.  I was curious how it would play out since I saved the Queen in my playthrough.

[Allan Schumacher]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Alan,
Seeing that you work for Bioware, Even though not with the Mass Effect series.
Do you think were actually going to get closure with this new DLC and how long do you the content in it will be.

Just to make things clear, this is something I am so far removed from that I have literally no idea what the ME team is planning for this.

[Allan Schumacher]

M0keys wrote...

Actually, the destroy endings annihilates Earth in one of the outcomes.

Sorry that's what I was trying to say.  With low EMS score the ending is certainly OMGBBQ bleak.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 01:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Bathaius wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
 For me, and this really goes for any plot point I guess, if I had to break it down it'd probably be "one that illicits an emotional response."  The response has to be within the game, of course.  If I'm going "I'm so mad because the ending had a giant bug in it!!! " that's not a good thing.

That was kind of how I felt when the ending of the Mass Effect game finally happened.  I've never complained about an ending to a video game before (or about anything, for that matter), but I was so befuddled by this seeming inconsistent plot device that made no sense in the actual story that I had to go onto the forums and find out what it was all about.

That's fair, and it's why I made sure to explicitly state it.  Simply having an emotional reaction isn't good if it's not for appropriate reasons, and many have made it clear that they are upset for reasons beyond simply what the story/game provided.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well I seem to have "caught up" to the end of the thread (interviews with Patrick appear to trump me... LOL).  Thanks for the conversation everyone.  Apparently our board moves quite quickly, but I'll stop by and maybe chime in if I have any thoughts in other threads.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Allan

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Allan Schumacher]

kimuji wrote...

Allan, I have a question, the crucible is able to merge all synthetics and organics all over the galaxy (even plants!), which is quite a feat given the complexity of that kind of process. I don't see any rational explanation for this, but as you said we don't know how the crucible work so let's assume that's possible. How something more simple like killing the Reapers alone, who are different from the Geth and standard AIs, would be impossible for a device capable of much more impressive feats? The only explanation that comes to my mind is that the writers thought it would make the ending more dramatic, well I can understand that but you can't just use artifical tricks like this just in order to make things more dramatic, it has to make sense and be properly justified.

I have nooooooooooooooo idea what the synthesis process actually is hahaha.  The same way I don't really have any idea what it means for JC to merge with Helios at the end of Deus Ex.  It's has a fantastic element that makes it hard to really understand since it's something we've never really done.  This goes for any sort of transcendence in any game at all actually IMO.

And in fact I have another question ^^ What do you think of thes two ideas in order to "fix" the ending, these are suggestions for the upcoming free DLC:

Don't take this the wrong way but I am a bit hesitant to make commentary about ideas for how things should be changed or elaborated upon in the upcoming DLC, mostly because I have no idea what the team is planning, and while I think it's great that people are hopeful that the new DLC, I'm not really qualified to make a lot of comments and don't want to make anyone feel yay or nay because I wouldn't champion my writing abilities haha.  Especially since on the whole, I'm probably less upset about the ending than a lot of other people.

Sorry

Edit: Damn I've been too late 

Never too late!  Haha.

[Allan Schumacher]

@kimuji

Regarding DX ending that's a bit different and easier to "explain", JC
is already full of nanites and "cyberstuff" (he  even has some knind of
equivalent of a wifi modem in his head, maybe he already has an USB port
^^) so you can imagine that you just have enhance some of his existing
hardawe to allow Helios using him as a vessel and merge counciousness
with him. Plus he merges with Helios and they become one unique entity,
the ME3 green ending is different, people don't merge with anyone else,
organics become part synthetic and vice versa

That's a good point. JC is a merge (and equipped to merge because of his augmentations). I think the description many have used for synthesis is appropriate: forced evolution. Ethical considerations aside, it's "forced" in that an outside force has causes the DNA to evolve at a significantly accelerated rate. Mutate really I guess.

No, I still can't explain what this really means for the people that have been changed though... lol.

My best hypothesis is that we become the best of both worlds. My assumption is that organics create VIs to make their lives easier, and given enough VIs, eventually one becomes a true AI. Maybe the idea is that as a hybrid, the desire to create VIs in order to free up our spare time, make things easier, and so forth is less prevalent?

What are our demands for food/sustenance now?

I'm not sure. It's still the ending I'm less certain about what happens past the ending.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 03:38 .

[Allan Schumacher]

That's the porblem i have with it. What in god's name makes the red beam able to suddenly not harm Earth because of EMS? I mean lets just put gameplay mechanics aside here. Regardless of your EMS, how is it possible for the r4ed beam to destroy Earth, but at the same time leave it and the humans on it without any form of damage in a different ending? Does the beam actually follow any form of logic, or does it just do **** because it can? What about the ramifications of a destroyed Earth? This would mean that the beam destroys any form of life if it can destroy Earth and it's inhabitants. You just destroyed the entire galaxy and it's inhabitants. It's the only thing we can assume.

This is my problem. There is no logic applied to the beams. They just do whatever without ramifications because that's how it's written. Going from a scientifically plausible universe to one that can circumvent any form of logical process in the last 5 minutes does not sit well with me, and will never sit well with me unless this magic is explained and follows a consistent process; not just destroy some inhabitants without destroying others just because it's magic. 

Rockpopple touches on this in the following post, but it seems to me that the EMS score applies more to the ability to create/protect the Crucible than the ability to fight off the reapers.  The way that the endings deviate based on EMS verify this.  It's just not as clear as it could have been.

Hackett alludes to this when he talks about how we're not sure what the crucible does, or how to even guarantee it will only target the reapers.  To me this makes consistent, logical sense.  The only point of contention is what the EMS value really represented.

It isn't very suitable for an AI because it's a drastic solution only based on a probabilty, a speculation.

I'm not sure.  Depending on how significant the probability is, and especially if the Catalyst isn't infalliable, it may be making decisions with imperfect information.  Shepard is the first organic to ever meet the Catalyst, which the Catalyst points out as being noteworthy... it changes things.  It's possible that synthetic/organic wars have occurred on a more routine bases, maybe even along the lines of how the Quarian-Geth war started out, and it's ended poorly.

Maybe Shepard has already done something that the Catalyst didn't predict (reaching the Crucible), and it's added an unknown variable that the Catalyst cannot anticipate.  Or maybe it has, but it still doesn't make his conclusion incorrect.

[Allan Schumacher]

Tunrda wrote...

Allan,

You talk about moral dilemma and liking how the destroy ending gives you that. Wouldn't then the control ending be the best as there is no real down side there? Sure the reapers exist but Shepard controls them, isn't that good?

I think this comes down to a bias of approaching the Citadel with the mind that the Reapers had to be stopped.  In other words, I was already heading into the Citadel with a plan in mind.  This would bias me to maintaining that plan unless some heavy duty cognitive disonnance came in to convince me otherwise.  As it is, I only got some medium duty cognitive disonnance


I don't remember my entire thought process 100% for why I felt the Control decision was inadequate.  I think the ME team did a good job of placing queues to help slant me away from that choice, though, leading up to it.  My Shepard was decidedly Paragon and always responded to The Illusive Man by talking about how controlling the reapers wasn't the answer.  They also (for some reason... I'm curious by it as well!) had the imagery of The Illusive Man when the Catalyst was describing that choice.  I wouldn't be surprised if it helped influence me since my Shepard definitely didn't agree with the Illusive Man's perspective on things.

I also didn't 100% trust the Catalyst.  Should something go wrong and the Reapers continue to run free unchecked, then it was all for naught!  Granted, you can run with this and feel "If I didn't trust the Catalyst, how could I trust that it'd destroy the Reapers."  So I don't really think I don't trust the Catalyst in that he's outright lying to me, but rather I have doubts about the certainty of his suggested outcomes.  I'm skeptical that it will necessarily play out the way he suggests, and if Shepard somehow loses himself while controlling the Reapers, well then that's bad!


Having said that, assuming everything plays out perfectly based on what the Catalyst says, I'd agree with you that controlling the Reapers is the best decision.  Heck, Shepard can use them to help rebuild, help mediate, etc.  Hmmm, maybe I was worried that that would affect the self-determinism of the various species too.  HAHA.

[Allan Schumacher]

kimuji wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My assumption is that organics create VIs to make their lives easier, and given enough VIs, eventually one becomes a true AI. Maybe the idea is that as a hybrid, the desire to create VIs in order to free up our spare time, make things easier, and so forth is less prevalent?

That's pretty much my idea, though I remember the Starchild saying: "the created will always rebel against the creators", he uses it as a justification for the Reapers actions. But this is a false statement, the AIs don't rebel for no reason, like you said we use VIs like tools to make our life easier, and so did the Quarians, if these VIs become sentient then they are no longer tools they are slaves. The Geths rebelled against the Quarians because the Quarians tried to wipe them out, not just because the Quarians were their creators. As I said in another thread if the Quarians had never tried to destroy the Geth but the Turians had, then the Geths would have attacked the Turians and not the Quarians. The created only rebel against the creator if the creator makes him a slave or tries to kill him when he become sentient. The rebellion is only inevitable if you give your creations valid motives to do so.

This is a good point, which I think might impact why I think the Catalyst is not truly omnipotent.  It is somehow imperfect in its analysis. 

If we want to get more philosophical, while you and I can come to the conclusion that the created will always rebel against the creators for no reason is false, but it doesn't necessarily make the statement "the created will always rebel against the creators" false.  I wouldn't be surprised that it's because of mistakes that the organics make that cause this conflict to happen, not because of an innate desire for synthetics to destroy their creators.  The Catalyst is simply describing an outcome, not the causes that lead to such an outcome.  He might not even entirely understand the causes.

Hmm, and I can see how such a thing could interrupt the cycle, since the
prime motivator for creating Sythetics in the first place is to do the
work of Organics.. but now, you could just fragment off a segment of
your own code to serve as a temporary VI in a chassis. You don't have
the risks, because in a sense, these VIs are *you*

The situation becomes additionally complicated if they end up getting a Geth-like Hive mind as well

[Allan Schumacher]

pikey1969 wrote...

It doesn't neccessarily make his conclusion correct either.

Absolutely! 

Two, is on a more meta-scale. If I read the conversations with the Catalyst correctly, he's the outcome of a technological singularity. Anything beyond the Technological Singularity is just as much a realm of the unknown outside the bounds of science, perhaps even more so than the origin of the universe. Now, unlike many, I really appreciated the introduction of the catalyst, even in the last 5 minutes of the triology, because of the fact that Technological Singularity was introduced as the root cause of all of the 'reaper hassle'. But the options he offers, rather the options offered to the player as a conclusion seemed to rather trivialize this concept, barring the Destroy option, which is basically a 'cop-out' for hoping for the best nature of organics, an acceptable solution given the uncertain nature of the concept of 'Technological Singularity'.

Interesting.  I hadn't thought of it quite like this.

That said, given the 'flawed' nature of the Catalyst's logic, would/could it not have been within the realm of possibility that Shepard could have simply asked the Catalyst to back off?

Meh, I dunno, maybe it's that inner 'unicorn/happy ending lover' in me that doesn't want to kill off the Geth, but alas.

Possibly.  What we would have liked in the ending is going to influence our perspective, but with the entire plot being about buying time to prepare the Crucible, I think I would have been disappointed is it turns out we were able to win with just our fleet.  I think it undervalues how threatening the Reapers actually are.

I'm okay with the fact that we could have chosen to tell the Catalyst to pike off (the same way I'm okay with telling The Master that I'm okay with his super mutant plan).  Ultimately though, I would have only liked the idea if it resulted in the Reapers eventually winning (maybe low EMS is just outright defeat, while higher EMS is organizing the crucible plans, and Liara's memento, and shooting it off for the next cycle to find).


Also, for everyone... Be nice to poor Deraldin.  He's just mad because my Adept totally roflstomped his crappy little Engineer in Multiplayer.   My back was tired of carrying the load!

[Allan Schumacher]

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :\\

[Allan Schumacher]

pavi132 wrote...

I wish I could have refused to even entertain anything the Starchild threw at me. I would rather have sat my ass on the Citadel ignoring the Starchild while looking out at a galaxy united fighting the Reapers. Maybe everyone would be wiped out and maybe the cycle would continue. But you know what? At least the entire galaxy would die together as one, not compromising who they were, not turning to sacrifice each other as in the destruction ending. I played through the game with two major goals, 1) broker peace and unite the people of the galaxy, and 2) never compromise who I was for anything or anyone. The way the endings are, no matter what I chose, those were ripped from me as destruction would destroy the peace I had worked so hard to accomplish and control or synthesis would go against who my Shepard was. He would not force synthesis on people and would definitely not allow the threat to remain in any capacity by following through with what TIM wanted, which was to control the reapers, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the endings took that away from my Shepard entirely.

I just want to comment that I don't think it's fair to yourself to think that the peace itself was destroyed.  Assuming you don't believe in outright galactic destruction due to the relays exploding, I think that the ramifications of the Geth-Quarian conflict will still be felt by many.  Especially the Quarians.  In fact, I really hope that they have a scene to reflect this in the ending DLC.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think showing Quarians mourning the sudden loss of their new allies on Rannoch would be magnificently poignant!

Aside from that, I understand the rest of your post and it's too bad that that's the way it played out for you.  Hopefully the new DLC will help in that regard.

Allan, in my own "headcanon" I controlled the Reapers only to command
them to self-destruct or dive into the nearest star. In this way, I was
able to destroy the reapers without sacrificing the Geth. Do you think,
as an inside Bioware man, that such an idea would be a...possible
loophole for this? Or will Bioware say "No, you can't force the Reapers
to destroy themselves" or something?

First... I have to facepalm myself for not considering that!  LOL.  I'm not sure how it will play out.  It's one of the reservations I have about providing closure.  Maybe in this regard, we don't really show what Shepard does with the Reapers to allow the player to maintain that type of agency.  I don't really have anything to offer as an "inside man" though, unfortunately.

[Allan Schumacher]

Last Vizard wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

I have seen both of those videos and would prefer to not go through them again if I can help it.  Can you give the Coles notes on how it relates to the question you responded to?

[Allan Schumacher]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

To be honest, the game sets you up to believe you're going to beat the Reapers no matter what, especially with Javik's bit about how the unified galaxy is something never achieved in his time. Throw in that Thanix cannons are standard issue (when they weren't in ME1) and I think an ending involving ignoring the Catalyst would have been feasible enough. The Catalyst/Crucible having the three magic buttons that it does barely makes any sense in the first place, and I'm still really frustrated with the three choices we were presented with.

Hmmm, I don't know if I necessarily got the vibe that we were going to beat the Reapers no matter what.  Although it's true that Hacket estimates that our odds are "even" but I don't know if he's factoring in the potential effects of the Crucible into his estimate.  One bad thing about not requiring the Crucible's use is that it makes the Crucible irrelevant.  It truly becomes a MacGuffin and I think weakens other aspects of the story.

It would have been better, imo, to have "Destroy" be the only ending, but the level of destruction would be determined by War Assets/EMS. Low enough, the Relays, Earth, Shepard, and all Synthetic life are all gone. With more EMS, the beam is able to precision target, saving more of those things at each stage. This would have echoed the style of ME2's ending somewhat, which is honestly what I assumed would be the case up until the Catalyst made his appearance.

I was expecting something more along this lines when I made it to the end.  Not an ostensible choice to be made, but rather the reapers defeated with our past decisions and war score playing their part in the resolution afterward.  Much more inline with the ME1 and ME2 endings that really didn't provide any choice, either.

Udalango said....

I would have been yes.  I dont understand why Shepard would give in to the options at all.  
I
would have actually enjoyed the Reapers win ending.  Im not saying I
wouldnt try to fry all those dudes up but I feel like giving in to him
so easily without at least TRYING to find another way was 100% lame.  I
think his entire character was lame though and that sours me on
everything regarding him

Cool.  I think that RPGs could stand to have some "meaningful" epilogues about fail cases, especially towards the end.  My favourite "imagined" ending is one where Shepard realizes that the Crucible has failed and frantically works to preserve what this cycle has learned so the next cycle can be more prepared.  I think it could be a very powerful scene!


Others have posted similar responses and unfortunately I'm not able to reply to all of them individually, but thanks for the feedback on it.  I did read them 

pikey said...


How would you feel about Technological Singularity-esque explanation being introduced to Dragon Age?

Imagine
if one of the later missions involved Hawke discovering an advanced
alien race (or previously extinct human civilization) and learning that
'magic' was really a form of biotic powers? Think back to the temple
scene in Thessia, and how the ancient Asari culture was revealed to be
embedded with subtle uplifting of the Protheans (I do hope they gave you
free copy of the Javik DLC ).

When outside the realms of sci-fi, it's a pretty scary concept to consider from a story-telling point of view. ;P

I'd have to do a bit more reading up on it I think to fairly comment.  My first response is that it might work better if the Dragon Age universe was a bit more steampunkish where tech plays a more prevalent role.  I've enjoyed the DA setting as being kind of a gritty fantasy setting.  Magic is prevalent, but exists in a way that terrifies people and is influenced by the fade and whatnot.

Although your suggestion totally does work for DA/ME crossover DLC!!!!! \\m/    Bwahahahaha.