5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

I don't want to do some well-thought out essay. I don't want to write a kind of dissertation on my approval of the endings.

As I experienced the endings, I made notes as they progressed. In this post, I will be paraphrasing those notes here. Stuff in italics are my thoughts, expanding on those notes.

- The extra scene before the beam was a nice touch. I think though, that it might have been more appropriate for Shepard and the love interest to say goodbye BEFORE the Normandy arrives. It kind of ends up sitting there while Harbinger doesn't shoot at it.

- A pretty neat scene of the Crucible approaching, and Hackett finding out that someone made it onto the Citadel.
I guess they detected some kind of energy surge from the beam?

- Shepard gets ejected into the Citadel now.
Pretty funny. Reminds me of the Mako's ejection into the Presidium, so maybe the beam was some sort of mass relay technology? Makes its designation as the "Conduit" rather fitting.

- Nothing new in the scene with TIMmy. A shame, but understandable.
Also, did the original elevator have a shaft of light around it? Because if it did, it no longer appears for me.

- Did the original Crucible docking footage have dialogue? I don't remember it being there.
"Ten seconds to docking" and the like.

- Hoo, boy. The Catalyst. Here we go.
I found it an interesting wrinkle that when Shepard asks if it can help us defeat the Reapers, its response is "Perhaps". Doesn't seem like much, but might imply a whole bunch of things.

- It explains what the Crucible is. Turns out it's a massive power generator/ amplifier, which turns the Citadel into a massive beam projector.
I actually like the idea that organics were able to conceal the plan for all this time, making the Reapers think it had been erased from history. "Clearly, organics are more resourceful than we realized". It lent creedence towards its realization that its solution wasn't working anymore.

- It explains the creation of the Reapers. It's intent, while seemingly good, was executed in a terribly misguided way because of its flaw in logic. As relations between its creators and the synthetics of the time broke down, it decided to preserve these progenitors in Reaper form.
Again, I understand its good intentions, but its logic was very flawed. Despite its efforts, synthetics and organics have not gotten along. So, the Catalyst, a synthetic, decides kill the organics and transform them into massive, frightening machines. Where does the misguided part come in? Well, it believes it's helping preserve these races. In fact, it even mentions that its creators didn't like having to become Reapers, which means it acted on its own. As such, I don't find the Catalyst funny as everyone else seems to, but horribly misguided. And whether or not Shepard can call it out on this flaw in logic doesn't matter, since we're already hip deep in the consequences of its decision, which touches on one of the main themes of the game in a weird way. Pointing out the flaws in its logic won't change anything, the Reapers still have to be stopped.

- It explains its purpose: to act as a liason between organic and synthetic life.
It even implies that it tried this over multiple generations, trying to act as a warning beacon of sorts. As mentioned before, its attempts to create understanding between the two types of life, a theme strongly portrayed in the Quarian/ Geth conflict, failed. So, it misguidedly went the Reaper route, deciding on a cycle of prevention rather than non-interference.

- It talks more about the choices:

DESTROY
- While the Crucible is quite advanced, it's not advanced enough to send out an energy beam that will discriminate between synthetics and the Reapers.
I like that it's now warning us that other synthetics will go down with the Reapers, instead of the manipulative line, "you can wipe out all synthetics if you want". The re-wording of this went a long way with me.

- Technology will be "affected", but can be rebuilt by those who survive.
By using the general statement "technology", the Catalyst implies that the Geth and EDI can be repaired/ rebuilt. It doesn't say explicitly, though, so that might not be enough. Also, there's still the moral quandry of offering them up for sacrifice in the first place without their knowledge or consent. But, if they are able to be restored, and subsequently are, was it a sacrifice to begin with? If it was wrong at the time, does restoring them make up for that? Interesting moral questions here.

CONTROL
- Same as before, explained with some extra stuff that probably doesn't matter to anyone.
The idea of Shepard's consciousness replacing that of the Catalyst is quite interesting, but as people have already demonstrated in the original thread, they all just think that Shepard's going to turn someday. But that is only SPECULATION.

SYNTHESIS
- Allows both organics and synthetics to achieve their ultimate goals: Organics want to be perfected through technology. Synthetics want to be perfected through "understanding".
Understanding what? Emotions? Friendship? Family? Reproduction? I actually think it's all of these things. As for how it occurs, I don't know. But does it really matter at this point?

- The Reapers will become connected to us and be able to share the thoughts, memories and experiences of all the civilizations that comprise them.
Corny, to be sure. Does that mean then, that Synthesis achieves peace by turning us all into a galaxy-wide hive mind?

- Each exploration allows for refusal of the idea. You can refuse in two ways, one of which was drayfish's method - Shoot the bugger. The other is via the dialogue wheel: Upon presentation of each choice, we can respond questioningly to it, or we can reject it. Rejecting the last choice brings you to what amounts to an "Are you sure?" prompt. If you choose to go with the choices, things go on as before. You can still back out though, by shooting the Catalyst.
I thought that this was smart game design, allowing for all the choices to be present at every moment of this scene, once control is finally restored back to us.

- Onto the ending sequences themselves (Keep in mind that I went with a Paragon Shepard, highest EMS I could scrounge up and no MP):

REFUSAL
- Very hopeless feeling as the Catalyst turns off the lights and leaves. Would have been nice for this to be longer, so we'd at least get to see Shepard fighting to the last. Doesn't come off as an attempt to troll, but rather to encourage the RGB endings. It still could have been done to add more to the end of the narrative, however.
This ending doesn't explicitly say that the next cycle wins, but I think it's implied that it at least happens at some point thanks to us, which I still think is a victory on our part. I was hoping for some more details leading to our defeat, but oh well. This actually feels more like a sequel set up, now that I think about it.

SYNTHESIS
- New "Fall back" scene.
Joker's struggle and emotional response to this goes a long way for me. I still don't like that he left, but at least he doesn't either. In fact, this rather profound sympathy between Joker and the player is probably lost on everyone at this point.

- Husks are attacking, the beam hits and it's like the husk has regained intelligence. In fact, it almost seems fearful of the human nearby at first.

- Mass relays break, but not totally. At least they don't explode.
See My Final Thoughts at the end of this post for my notes regarding this.

- The Reapers leave the homeworlds
The green eyes were weird, but probably vital for creating context in these scenes.

- "New Retreat", where Joker seems a lot more depressed and rueful about leaving Shepard behind. Still goes a long way for me.

- The stranded theme is the same, though the Normandy is a lot less damaged.
This creates the question of why it crashed, however. The original movies showed us the Normandy being damaged, which explained to us why it landed on a planet. A more fitting replacement might have been to have Normandy damaged somewhere in between, where the wing/ engine doesn't come off, but we see consoles exploding and shipwide malfunctions, then emergency landing.

- EDI summarizes the results of choosing Synthesis. While it's mostly riddles and metaphysical stuff, I find it quite satisfying in that it touches on the major theme brought forth by the Quarian/ Geth conflict: the struggle for artificial life forms to understand what it is to feel and think like organics.
This, I believe is what the Catalyst was trying for. We corrected its misguided attempt, and achieved true peace throughout the galaxy. Furthermore, EDI's words make it feel like what we did was actually a sacrifice - "Shepard died so we could have this gift". As for the idea that peace can only be achieved through sameness, that issue is still there. So is the issue of forcing the change on everyone in the galaxy. I also wanted to say that this much more emotional, expressive EDI was awesome for me. It spoke a lot to me about how the gap between organic and synthetic was bridged.

- Shows everyone going home under Synthesis context.
This part is the same no matter which ending is chosen, though it's apparent that your decisions influence whether or not certain little inserts are present, which I think is nice and reflective of our choices.

- The Memorial Wall scene was an emotional moment.
I cried. My only sticking point is that I would have loved to see my character's first name on the little plaque the love interest sticks up there. The first time we really see Shepard is at the end of the character creation screen, where their name is prominently displayed. Hell, the first step of the creation process was choosing their name. I thought that putting that full name on the memorial plate would have made a nice bookend for that.

- Normandy lifts off.
This actually made me feel the "brave new world" vibe when I saw it.

- Buzz Aldrin remains. His scene is still pointless, but I don't think it detracts as much from the ending anymore.

My thoughts (Not from the notebook):

Synthesis still needs a bit more explanation, but not as much as before. I can understand people's impression that BioWare seems to be pushing Synthesis on us, but I think that if you look at each ending on its own, they end up having equal merit and emotional payoff as this ending does. It may be a little too "sunshine and rainbows", but what I focused on was EDI's determination to not let this gift go to waste. It seems to me that others had already decided on the message they were getting from this ending and just left it at that.

The message I got? That whatever Synthesis is, it's allowing for something really big and really great, and Shepard gave his life to help us achieve that. I'm going to do everything I can to realize that gift in honor of Shepard's memory.

CONTROL
- The Catalyst watches and fades away.
I think that particular shot was there before, but it only became clear to me once the Catalyst explained that Shepard would be replacing it.

- Joker leaves, albeit very reluctantly.
See my notes on this above.

- The husks just back off from killing the marine.
Not sure what it's saying here. Waiting for orders from Shepard? Realizing new role as servant?

- The Citadel isn't destroyed, but closes.
Since Shepard is the new Catalyst, this makes sense. However, what his plans are for the Citadel and the people on it kind of needs to be explained. If he's keeping it as his flagship, something about the people being kicked out should be shown.

- The mass relays break, but don't explode. I didn't see an energy beam fire from the Citadel after it closed, though. Did I miss that?
See My Final Thoughts at the end of this post for my notes regarding this.

- The Reapers leave the homeworlds.

- The "New retreat" scene with a more contemplative Joker.

- ReapShep summarizes his intentions. As a paragon, he plans to use the Reapers as guardians and servants. He plans to watch over the galaxy and keep it safe from outside threats, because he loves his friends, including those that died so he could get as far as he did.
It's been brought up that at some point, Shepard might suddenly just realize that he's above everyone else and kill them, whatever the logic is for that (seems based more on science fiction tropes than logic). While it's true it could happen, there's no indication here that it will, and it feels to me like reasoning on par with that of the Catalyst - "Even a 1% chance means it absolutely WILL happen!". It's just speculation at this point.

My thoughts (Not from the notebook):

While it still left some small questions, I felt that things were pretty well wrapped up here. Not only are Shepard's intentions clear, but he follows through with them, like Legion and the Geth did when we united them with the Quarians. It feels like a question I asked a long time ago in this thread was answered: Shepard was the catalyst after all.

DESTROY
- The Reapers fall dead as before.

- Where before the husks were struck in awe of the humans next to it, this time the beam vaporizes them.
Small detail, but important nonethelss.

- Relays break, but don't fully explode.
See My Final Thoughts at the end of this post for my notes regarding this.

- The Reapers fall dead all across the galaxy.

- "New retreat", "new crash".

- Hackett summarizes that while everyone was set back a little bit, everything can be rebuilt.
I liked the flickering lights on the starships here. It shows that not just synthetics and the Reapers were targeted, but technology as a whole. It also implies, to me, that synthetic life can be restored, even if it's as silly as taking a wrench and some high-quality twine to get EDI up and running again.

- Shows Citadel rebuilt.
I found the shots of the wrecked Citadel interesting to be able to see. The subsequent shot of its restoration helps me to believe that the Geth and EDI can be restored. Would they be angry at us, or understanding? Would we be able to make things right between us?

- Emphasis on rebuilding, things are recoverable.
This ending really hits us over the heads with this idea. However, it allows me to believe that restoring synthetics is possible. Tradeoff?

- Memorial wall, Normandy lifts off.
This scene, in the context of destroy, almost brings up the question of how they repaired the Normandy, but Hackett and the Catalyst's speeches fix this by telling us that technology will only be "affected" and not necessarily destroyed. Furthers notes in the final section below.

- Shepard breathes.
Hey! I got the scene without having to play multiplayer! Great! It still brings up a lot of questions in regards to whether or not this is really Shepard, and if so, what he has to answer to in the wake of this decision. Will he stand trial? Will he be hailed a hero, despite the losses? Will anyone believe him when he tells them what happened? Now that I think about it though, does it really matter at this point?

- Buzz Aldrin still here.
Sadly, this scene still has no point other than to tell us that a story just happened.

Final thoughts:

- Re: The relays break but don't explode
While the game shows us the relay's breaking and not exploding, Control seems to imply that they later end up in a few big pieces in the end. I personally think it's not that much of a reach to think that the races of the galaxy can put them back together, since they're not disintigrated into tiny pieces anymore. Instead, it's kind of a matter of putting them back together from what's already there, just with a few seams made of glue and duct tape showing.

- One thing I think helped massively with this was Shepard being able to vocally refuse each choice. Of course each choice is an atrocity in its own way, and that doesn't change even in light of the consequences of each chociei. But, we are allowed to vocally refuse it in the game, so it quickly comes down to a matter of "if you don't believe in it, don't choose it". You'll be refusing it, and your Shepard will be refusing it right along with you, which I think helps people recapture a lot of the Shepard they'd come to believe in.

- Something that helps me a LOT in terms of "forgiving" BioWare: The "Buy more DLC" blurb was replaced by a heartfelt message from the dev team. Short, but infinitely better than what it was, so that deserves some points.

- Did I enjoy the endings? Yes. There was much closure to be had, and what I felt to be the important themes of the game, like unity, sacrifice, defiance in the face of adversity, friendship and love were touched upon. However, I felt that these themes might have needed to be touched on a little less subtly. They shouldn't have gone with the concept of Synthesis if they didn't understand it, which it certainly seems that they didn't. I also think that a few more shots of what our friends were doing after leaving the crash should have been inserted. That said though, this ending was much more clear than its original incarnation, and we got a little more time to say goodbye to the Mass Effect universe, which was good.

- Were the endings thematically revolting? No. The choices still are, absolutely. The endings though, through their various clarifications and attempts at closure, actually end up touching on, and reinforcing, these themes rather well, so as far as thematically revolting goes, I think the ending sequences are now divorced from the choices in and of themselves.

Questions still left:
In Destroy, how were the mass relays rebuilt? Were they destroyed as badly as in the scene from Control where the Reapers are putting the relay back together? It it as simple a matter as that for the galactic species?
The gigantic pieces of the relays at least seem to imply that this is possible. Control implies that in the two situations where the Reapers are left alive, they rebuild the mass relays for everyone. Since they're helping rebuild in Synthesis, they probably account for this too.

In Destroy, did the Catalyst say that synthetic life would be utterly and irrevocably destroyed while other technology would survive? If technology could be rebuilt, couldn't synthetics as well?
I choose to believe it's possible, though that still doesn't make throwing them up on a sacrifical slab a good thing. Also, I imagine Shepard would have a lot to answer to, and that this would likely lead to rather cold relations between synthetics and organics, at least at first.

In all the endings, what do our friends do when they rejoin everyone else? Shots of the Normandy crew would have gone a long way here. Seeing Daniels and Donnelly finally give in and kiss each other, Joker and EDI working together in some capacity, all that stuff.

So, there you have it. My thoughts on the endings. Not quite as caustic as most people here, I know. Hopefully as time goes on, I can elaborate further on my feelings regarding the EC. Thanks for your attention, all.

[KitaSaturnyne]

M0keys wrote...

reject isn't a victory, either. the very next cycle chooses the crucible and doesn't rebel against the starchild.

Where does Refusal tell us this?

Also, where does it say that following cycles used the Crucible? Is this in tweets? Because out-of-narrative text really shouldn't factor into this.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 27 juin 2012 - 05:49 .

[Divitiacus]

delta_vee wrote...

Okay, I'm late and duplicative, but here's the textwall:

On Pyrrhus

"So be it."
- Catalyst, Mass Effect 3

We are still left with ashes and madness, but at least the ashes are in neat little piles and the madness has its place.

Both the sledgehammers and the chisels were brought to bear. (I lost track of how many times "synthetic" and "organic" were mentioned, especially in the Synthesis voiceover.) As a mechanism to ensure the intent of the author was conveyed, it was quite the success. The Catalyst is shown for the spinning little logical loop it is, trapped in its memories of an eons-old war. Every possible effort was made to dissuade us from believing the various worst-case scenarios, to convince us we hadn't in fact destroyed the galaxy we meant to save. And it was made as clear as beryllium glass that nothing was a trick, or trap, or ambush.

All three of the previous options were still thematically revolting, though. Control leaves us with arrogant benevolence or inevitable malevolence. Destroy still carries genocide as the price, and that price goes surprisingly unremarked. Synthesis brings us all glowing eyes, skin-mounted circuits, and peace between man and - husk? (Oh, and still carries implicit mindrape as a delicious side dish.) The colors of the Ending-O-Tron are still ugly to my eyes, but the shades are better-matched. All still felt like the answers to Someone Else's Problem, though. It still feels strange to witness the utter conviction behind the synthetic/organic conundrum, despite its distance, its orthogonality, to the rest of the series.

The singular triumph of the Extended Cut is to bring us the fourth choice, the refusal, which many of us asked for.

"It was an honor."
- ELIZA, Deus Ex: Human Revolution

There were four choices at the end of DXHR, as well. Three of them were arguments - answers to the central question asked by the game over and over of what, if anything, should be done about the drive and capacity to make humans into something new. Regulate, Ban, Set Free. All relied inherently on the mechanisms and machinations of established power. All represented an acquiesence to someone else's view, someone else's position, someone else's faith. The men who were those "someone else" were gathered under one (remote) roof; the options were given and explained by a virtual woman who'd helped you in your quest earlier. Her voice was, at least, familiar.

The fourth choice was to bring that roof down upon all their heads. To leave the world outside intact, to leave the decision in the hands of everyone instead of dark men in darker rooms. It was an opportunity to disagree. It was, in my view, the proper culmination of the text. It was also the option DXHR's predecessor and sequel, Deus Ex, tragically lacked at its final triparte crux. We knew how DXHR's world progressed - or rather regressed - and we knew our choice could not, in the end, prevent its course. Thus the final decision could be nothing more than a statement of intent. But still, it had meaning.

There is semiotic power in that refusal. It is an acknowledgement of the limitations of the construction of any problem, and of any attempt to arbitrarily limit the possible responses. It allows for a search for other, newer solutions, outside of the scope of those who frame the question. And it fundamentally admits that no set of answers is complete.

It is a form of humility.

"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
[They make a desolation and they call it peace.]
- Tacitus, Agricola

Terminus* was the Roman god of boundaries and limits. The phrase engraved on the boundary stones associated with him carried the phrase CONCEDO NULLI - "yield no ground".

When the delicately-termed controversy surrounding the endings first emerged, the irruption** seemed to make Bioware not just cringe, but stiffen, and steel their resolve. It was weeks before they acquiesced to change, to improvement. The general gaming media reaction - with a few, quite notable, exceptions - was to decry the specificity of the common complaints and their focus on the Ten Minutes. If you think the endings destroyed the game, they said, then don't play it. Reject the whole work, not just the final moments. There seems to be an idea amongst the burgeoning critical classes that the mere consumer could only express their concerns in the basest of binaries: buy or do not, love or despise, accept or reject.

Once the decision was made to revisit and expand the endings, we were faced with the combination of an open text and open wounds. When Bioware spoke of "closure", I think that the implications of that word should be fully understood. It means not only that the unresolved concerns are laid to rest, but that a boundary, a terminus, can be placed upon the text, and we might evaluate it as a whole.

I am among those who believe the ending could never be salvaged. The thematic kidnapping of the Ten Minutes was too blatant, too problematic, too dissociative. The game should've ended at "best seats in the house", and no investigation options would be enough to satisfy. That it didn't prompted me to reevaluate the entirety of the game - and I found it wanting. That damage is done. And until the EC was released, I couldn't let go, not fully, not until I'd made quite sure they didn't pull some miracle from their collective posteriors.

That they chose to retain that horrid divergence was expected. That I would still be less than satisfied with both the ending and the narrative as a whole was also expected. What that fourth option did, that ability to refuse not only on a textual level but a metatextual one, was to allow me to reject the game itself within the game itself. It was an admission by the creators that, for some, their vision was unacceptable. It was a subtle form of humility, masked though it might be by the distorted, petulant exclamation by the Catalyst at my decision, and it allowed me to act with the finality I desired. I no longer wished to be a part of this story, so twisted and unrecognizable.

I was allowed to draw a line. I took them up on their offer.

* One of the few deities in Roman mythology which had no direct correlation to a Greek equivalent.
** No, not "eruption".

That was magnificent. But why not find this rejection a slap in the face as others do? You avoid the choice only to hear the next generation does use the diabolus ex machina as the dev gods wished.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

ssa ym ssiK
Yes No

hehehe

[delta_vee]

@Divitiacus

Thanks!

As to your question: because it gives me a means to disengage. If preserving some semblance of the setting I was involved with for three games required me to acquiesce to that nonsense, then I wanted out - and they gave me one. I didn't really care if they threw one last taunt at me on the way.

[jbauck]

delta_vee wrote...

@Divitiacus

Thanks!

As to your question: because it gives me a means to disengage. If preserving some semblance of the setting I was involved with for three games required me to acquiesce to that nonsense, then I wanted out - and they gave me one. I didn't really care if they threw one last taunt at me on the way.

And this is how I made my peace.  I actually feel ... relieved ... by the EC.  It's not that I really love any of the endings, but Refuse is good enough, if only as a stand-in for my refusal to take part in this twisted narrative anymore.

But on its own merits, I find it rather poetic and fitting.  I refuse to believe the triumphant cycle used the Crucible, citing the Law of Conservation of Trolling, which simply states that Negative Troll Energy cannot be destroyed, but can be converted to warm fuzzy rainbow puppies dancing in the dewgrass by simply ignoring the intent of the troll.

No one says specifically, in the game, that the Triumphant Cycle used the Crucible.  Hologram Liara says that the Crucible didn't work.  Real Liara says she put everything about the Reapers, the war, their cycle, their civilization in the her time capsule data pod thingies.  I choose to put these pieces together in such a way that the next ascendant civilization has 10,000 years to improve upon the Thanix Cannon, and they go all "say hell to my little friend!" on the Reapers, screaming "For The Shepard!" in one galaxy-spanning voice all the while.

But for me, the real appeal of this ending goes back to Mass Effect 1, which I briefly mentioned (possibly in parentheses like these) a few pages back.

Vigil, the Prothean VI on Ilos, tells the story of the Prothean Scientists working on the Conduit - the super-secret Prothean project to duplicate the technology of the mass relays.  One of their prototypes is on Ilos, the other on the Citadel.

They've lost their cycle.  They all know it.  The Reapers win.  But they've got one last thing they can do - one last act of defiance against an implacable enemy who demands their total destruction: they can leave a small spark of hope for the next cycle, by making a trip through their experimental relay, sabotaging the keepers so they don't "hear" the signal the Reapers send, so the keepers won't open the Citadel Relay and give the Reapers a clear shot to the seat of galactic civilization from dark space.  Their fate is unknown, but clearly, they succeeded, because when Sovereign signalled, the keepers did nothing, and Shepard had a chance to delay the Reapers and buy some time.

Vigil theorizes that these scientists, alone on the Citadel, the last of the Protheans, died of starvation.

So what does that matter if Shepard's cycle ultimately is destroyed?  The extra time those Protheans gave to this cycle was the time Liara needed to create her data pods ... to add some kindling to that spark of hope.

We lost this cycle.  Shepard knows it.  The Reapers Win.

But Shepard gave the next cycle a chance, to win on their own terms.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@jbauck

That's what I got from the Refusal ending. I'm glad I'm not alone in that.

[ToaOrka]

I...I think your professor just turned me gay for him. Seriously. Yet, despite this, I still believe destroy is the best option, and the most moral, despite the genocide of an entire race.

...Wow, it's sad when the most moral choice is genocide.

[Hawk227]

@jbauck

I agree on all points. I think its quite possible BW intended to troll, but it failed because their troll was the ending I needed. It's thematically appropriate, and genuinely poetic.

[trembli0s]

delta_vee wrote...

@Divitiacus

Thanks!

As to your question: because it gives me a means to disengage. If preserving some semblance of the setting I was involved with for three games required me to acquiesce to that nonsense, then I wanted out - and they gave me one. I didn't really care if they threw one last taunt at me on the way.

Too bad you weren't writing the last act/ 

[delta_vee]

@jbauck

I'm totally with you on the Vigil comparison. And I'm also going to dismiss any tweets, posts, interviews, or other rank paratext in regards to the Victorious Cycle using the Crucible. Instead, I'm going with CGG's image of Yahg armed with Thanixes (Thanixi?) and Cains.

[M0keys]

But Shepard gave the next cycle a chance, to win on their own terms.

except, again, they literally didn't. it's a shaggy dog story. they used the crucible.

[trembli0s]

Am also in agreement that the Reapers were never indestructible in past cycles simply due to being Reapers but due to a lack of preparedness.

In the next cycle, you could have simply had the current races just rig a relay to explode as the Reapers begin their initial departures. Boom. Fleet crippled.

[KitaSaturnyne]

trembli0s wrote...

In the next cycle, you could have simply had the current races just rig a relay to explode as the Reapers begin their initial departures. Boom. Fleet crippled.

Not just a fleet, but an entire solar system.

[cyrexwingblade]

ToaOrka wrote...

I...I think your professor just turned me gay for him. Seriously. Yet, despite this, I still believe destroy is the best option, and the most moral, despite the genocide of an entire race.

...Wow, it's sad when the most moral choice is genocide.

Agreed. Word for word, almost *laughs*

[BigglesFlysAgain]

@KitaSaturnyne

I considered the possibility that the extent of destruction of synthetics is meant to be an "interpretation" thing, after all if you don't see the bodies... however it seems inescapable that the quarians future is geth free (and suited) in destroy, and all jolly and "all you need is love" in synthesis, I could just about headcannon that they did survive/ were reactivated eventually but its really not worth my time considering there's not really a proper reunion scene.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@BigglesFlysAgain

Agreed. It's strange how these new endings provide closure and clarity, and yet still leave much room for personal interpretation. The flaws in its execution are apparent, sure, but the intent was surely there.

[BigglesFlysAgain]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@BigglesFlysAgain

Agreed. It's strange how these new endings provide closure and clarity, and yet still leave much room for personal interpretation. The flaws in its execution are apparent, sure, but the intent was surely there.

Then again I just looked at destroy again and EDI is clearly on the death wall, I doubt they would write her off so soon if she was just inactive, sadley it seems she may even been vapourised like the husks or criticaly internaly damaged by the explosion.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 27 juin 2012 - 10:01 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

I had been lying in bed letting my thoughts settle when the following occurred to me regarding the Refusal ending.

In it, of course we lose the war because the Reapers are too powerful. Then, we get the scene where Liara says that we failed and the Crucible didn't work. But, here's what occurred to me: It could serve as a warning to future cycles NOT to use the Crucible. This could cause the denizens of future cycles to start thinking up alternatives, other ways of beating the Reapers. And, as evidenced by the new Stargazer scene, the Reapers are defeated without having to resort to the same situation Shepard was presented with.

Thus, we get our major victories: We stick to our principles, the Crucible is never used on the Catalyst's terms and the Reapers are defeated.

Speculation I know, but quite strongly supported by the text.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 27 juin 2012 - 10:02 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I had been lying in bed letting my thoughts settle when the following occurred to me regarding the Refusal ending.

In it, of course we lose the war because the Reapers are too powerful. Then, we get the scene where Liara says that we failed and the Crucible didn't work. But, here's what occurred to me: It could serve as a warning to future cycles NOT to use the Crucible. This could cause the denizens of future cycles to start thinking up alternatives, other ways of beating the Reapers. And, as evidenced by the new Stargazer scene, the Reapers are defeated without having the situation

Thus, we get our major victories: We stick to our principles, the Crucible is never used on the Catalyst's terms and the Reapers are defeated.

Speculation I know, but quite strongly supported by the text.

Well I would prefer it that way, but bioware have gone and said that the next cycle does not even get to a war with the reapers, they find the very same crucible that was lying around and use it.

So in effect we don't stop the three choices, we just fob responsiblity to somone else down the line.

[KitaSaturnyne]

BigglesFlysAgain wrote...

Well I would prefer it that way, but bioware have gone and said that the next cycle does not even get to a war with the reapers, they find the very same crucible that was lying around and use it.

So in effect we don't stop the three choices, we just fob responsiblity to somone else down the line.

Indeed, but tweets from the dev team should be taken with a grain of salt anyway. What matters is the events of the narrative proper.

EDIT: As for EDI on the memorial wall, yeah. That sucks. While it doesn't necessarily mean she can't be recovered at some point, it does underscore the cost of choosing Destroy.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 27 juin 2012 - 10:08 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...


Indeed, but tweets from the dev team should be taken with a grain of salt anyway. What matters is the events of the narrative proper.

Well since this is really the end the end the end, and its obvious they can't continue without choosing a cannon end it is probably fine to go on interpretation again, becuase if they are not going to seroiusly expand on it its safe to come to any conclusion you want...

I do like the idea they managed to win without the crucible, but I still can't choose it over any of them due to the fact everyone you fought for is screwed. Ironicly control seems the best option to me now, sure it makes no sense given everything that has gone before, but it probably turns out the best if extreemly creepy.



Edit... about EDI on the wall... I'm going to go with the idea that she was just inactive and joker spent the rest of his life trying to bring her back to life, maybe he succeeds maybe he doesn't, I mean they were about to put your name on the wall and they have not even got off the planet and actualy looked for you at this point so they are a bit quick to jump to conclusions perhaps...And maybe only local geth forces were destroyed, perhaps some of them on Raanoch survived,

Control seems to give the impression that the geth and the quarians go their seperate ways, they are not pictured in the same frames, So I;ll say its possible some of them would survive.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 27 juin 2012 - 10:17 .

[MrFob]

Hey guys, how is it going?
It is a pleasure to see this thread is still alive and although I know that I am late to the party, I just wanted to share a few thoughts on the EC. I wanted to avoid a wall of text (which obviously failed) and I am sure I duplicate a lot in here but maybe someone can pick something worthwhile out of my rumblings and even if not, I think this is an appropriate place to get some thoughts off my chest. Anyway, here we go:

First and foremost, I think it is important to compliment BW on the EC, no matter what one might think of the actual content. They put a genuine effort and probably a lot of money into it and that is commendable.
Also, I think the execution was once again (almost) flawless. The images and the VO are gripping and the scenes have a lot of weight to them. The music is again excellent as well.

BUT this is not why anyone was looking forward to play the EC (be it in anticipation or scepticism) . The interesting aspect is if and how this piece of programming impacts the issues of the original endings that were laid out for BW by the fans.
Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, they missed the target in that regard and they did so by miles.
Yes, the EC gives more exposure to the aftermath of your decision and yes, it does expand on the consequences of your final decision but that is all that it does.
Before I continue, I should probably add, that I only saw all 4 endings with more than 5000 EMS points. Thus I have only seen the “best endings”.
Also, the next three paragraphs, while containing points that are important to me may be considered nitpicks by some. Feel free to skip and go straight to the biggest issue in the last long paragraph.

So for the three original endings, did we get more closure? Well, in part we do, we see some more of the future of the universe but the fate of our friends and companions remains completely unknown. We now know that the Normandy is being repaired but nothing else. Even worse, the infamous breath scene stays untouched. Clearly the intend here is to keep a door open for future products but it is not the closing end to this story and these characters that we all hoped for. In fact it very much looks like yet another desperate attempt to keep as many doors as possible open to ensure the possibility of milking the franchise further. But, ok, I am willing to give them half the mark for closure because it is c certainly improved when compared to the original.

Do we get an impact of our decisions? I am not talking about the 4th ending yet (I’ll get to that one) but for the three original endings, we see how our final decision plays out. Only, there is no effect. Oh, there are cosmetic changes and superficial differences but at least with enough EMS, there is no impactful effect. We always end up with virtually the same situation in each case which basically boils down to a happily ever after. No matter what you do, your decision is railroaded into the best possible outcome. Impact on the universe: Huge. Impact on the narrative: Negligible. Even worse, when I watch the EC endings, it feels very much like they tried very hard to do as much damage control as possible (again to keep doors open for the future?).
If you make a grim and dark ending in the frst place, at least have the guts to stick with the implied consequences.
Or was this their original intent? Was the message of the endings before the EC supposed to be “everything will be all right in any case”? If so, they did a more horrible job with the vanilla endings then I thought and if not, they through their artistic integrity out the window in any case and might as well have rewritten the endings entirely.

Does the EC take care of the plot holes? It takes care of some minor ones and it tries to take care of some bigger ones but in so doing it creates new ones. Take the extraction of the squad mates as an example: Yes, now we see them extracted; only it makes no sense whatsoever. The whole scene was cringe worthy beyond belief. How many times do people say “this is it” (Liara) before the run to the beam, how many times is it stressed that “there is no retreat” (Anderson), how many times are we reminded that “if we are not willing to die, we are already dead” (Shepard)? How often did my squad mates go down injured in battle before? How often did I have to sacrifice potentially everything to succeed? And now, that push comes to shove, that we are at THE final objective, that we are under the heaviest fire we have ever encountered from Harbinger itself for crying out loud, what does Shepard do? He recalls the most advanced warship from the desperate battle to defend the Crucible (and the name should really say it all) to extract his still conscious squad mates! WHAT? Not only that but in the middle of this hell hole, this warzone of warzones this centre of the black hole, he idly lounges around the ramp of the Normandy to have a little chat with his companions before they leave. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s a touching good bye (although it feels like the 3rd by now) but it is just so inappropriate that it hurts.
And this is just one example, there are more. All in all, the worst case scenario happened: BW tried so hard to stick to elements that just didn’t make any sense that they had to come up with the most ridiculous explanations. In fact, I was probably wrong earlier, there are really no new plot holes as such but there are situations now that are so silly, that they kill the suspension of disbelief as surely as any plot hole would. Sometimes the cures is worse than the disease. While that may not exactly be the case here, I’d say it is just as bad.

But now for the most interesting part to this thread, are the endings still thematically revolting? Yes, yes in my opinion, that did not change and was not even diminished by the EC. The whole citadel segment and the star child part in particular were not improved by the EC. The explanations of the star child are well intended but they don’t really shine new light on things. They just spell out some information that already was implied in the original cut for those who might have been too dense or uncaring to see it or they are entirely irrelevant. Even worse, some actually put a stop to very interesting theories that might even have improved the endings in some peoples head cannons (like the crucible-test idea). The little outlooks on the endings during the star child’s explanation of the choices is equally irrelevant and does not add anything significant. The fact that the child now spells out oh how benign the control and synthesis endings are (in an attempt to convince the player apparently) should make Shepard (as a character) even more suspicious. In the end, we are still left with three horrible choices and the fact that control and synthesis get railroaded into happy endings does not help the narrative at all since Shepard at this point in time can’t make decisions on an ex post facto basis. So this only serves to further disconnect the player from the character. The only choice Shep is then left with is the destroy ending and thus with a genocide. So as far as these three options are concerned, we are in the same situation as before the EC.
But wait; now we do have the option to refuse! Just a day ago, I was sure I’d rejoice at hearing this no matter what. Well, it turns out the “what” matters after all. It’s astounding how BW could do such a great job in executing rather irrelevant new content in the EC but at the one point where the content and the presentation really matter, they fail in the implementation.
If Shep refuses and sacrifices this whole cycle, his friends and loved ones and everything he has fought so hard for three games to preserve, it must be an awe inspiring moment, a real jaw dropper. It is in fact the ultimate twist. Shepard makes a stand, s/he denies the commander of the reapers who has just offered a way out! Shep HAS to explain why s/he does this! A grand speech is in order here, telling the star child and the audience why the terms are not acceptable, why what is asked of Shep is so morally wrong that it is worth sacrificing a whole galaxy full of civilisations for. Hand in hand with this, s/he would have to make a last ditch effort to convince the star child to stop this. It is a futile attempt of course but even in the EC Sheo doesn’t ever try this in more than 1 (one!) sentence.
Then, when everything is said and done, when the star child’s flaws in logic and the immorality of its solutions and the presented choices is utterly established, THEN we can sacrifice the galaxy. We certainly can not do it by shooting the kid in the face like an 8 year old child throwing a tantrum or “doing it for the lulz”.
Now of course, the player knows why s/he is doing this but the narrative has to evolve around the characters, not the audience (with some rare exceptions, none of which are applicable here). That is why IMO although the 4th choice is well intended and exactly what I asked for, it manages to disappoint and leave us with a somewhat sunken heart and a feeling of emptiness.

In general, I am really ambivalent on the topic of the EC. It offers some nice thoughts and intentions but it is a far cry from a satisfying solution and only barely an improvement. Thus, despite their best efforts, BW did a better job of rubbing salt in the wound rather then cheering me up and although, I am somewhat relieved that we can now be sure that the ME universe is not utterly destroyed, I can’t help but still morn an incredible story that will never get the conclusion it deserved and I do not think that I want to spend more time in there, given that the people who now create and evolve it seem to have a very different set of priorities than I do when it comes to story telling.

Modifié par MrFob, 27 juin 2012 - 02:45 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

When it all comes down to it... the moral and theme of the Mass Effect ending is appeasement, acquiesence, and horror.

The moral of the story is that you can't be free, you can't make anything better, the best solution to any problem will always be unavailable. Decisions don't come from the minds of the creative, the strong, the hopeful, or the brave. They're handed down by the insane, the evil, and the stupid. Denying that or trying ot make anything better is nothing but foolishness.

Its their world, and we have to live in it. All we can ever hope to do, the best we can achieve with our lives, is to collaborate with evil in the least harmful way. Just shut down the part of your brain that once dreamed of a happy ending, shut down the part of your soul that feels that something about this is wrong and collaborate with evil.

The end.

It's not logically inconsistent.

But I hate stories like that. Hate hate hate them. I think they're responsible for a huge number of the problems in society - for apathy, lack of hope, and a willingness to hurt anyone just to get what's yours. If the system is corrupt and we can't win, well then we might as all be blighted selfish sociopathic pragmatists, mightn't we?

Crow is happy, at least.

Yes they've made the results of your various collaborations with evil more interesting and emotionally resonant, and yes they've given you the ability to refuse, but that refusal is just another opportunity for them to say "no, collaboration with the evil was the right way to go. Thinking that personal morality means anything at all is laughable in this grimdark world of the future." 

Whatever. That's their moral. That's the story they wanted to tell.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 27 juin 2012 - 11:28 .

[thisisme8]

I saw you guys talking about the reject ending, so I thought I'd copy and paste what I posted on another thread here:

The reject ending actually has the merit of being the "heaviest ending." Even though the other endings are all fine since you "win," different people will have different views of their price, since that price is almost entirely defined by morals.

The reject ending, however, tells the story of the last complete cycle. So basically, you have three whole games where you try to defeat the reapers, but you learn at the end, you aren't the hero of this story, somebody in the next cycle is. A really powerful message.

Granted, this all depends on speculation of how the next cycle wins. From my own interpretation, the next cycle was able to win without the Crucible, and without the 3 decision dilemma (this is gathered from Liara saying they built the Crucible, they were united, but they still couldn't do it), but still very dependent on something you did. So, you aren't the hero of the story, but the "hero of old" that the current hero seeks for guidance as he stares off into the sky with Liara's recording in hand, wondering what he should do next.

Very clever, BioWare. Very clever.

Modifié par thisisme8, 27 juin 2012 - 11:35 .