5087 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

robertthebard wrote...
This is why we are sent to Mars.  Hackett, very brokenly:  way to stop the Reapers....possibly the only way.

Then later, after Mars:  He's wrong, dead Reapers are how we win this.

This is why we pursue the Crucible, to make dead Reapers.  We can overanalyze the presentation, but in the two games I actually finished, out of 12 that I've actually played to London and the beam, Destroy was the logical option.  I wanted to end the Reapers, I didn't want to let them win(Refusal), nor did I want to incorporate them into everybody else(Synthesis), and on my Paragon, I couldn't trust that I wouldn't end up just like SC eventually(Control).  I can't play the game with a 5th oppurtunity, because there is no 5th oppurtunity.  My other 10 games are, I suppose, a kind of 5th oppurtunity, and I just call it Ultimate Refusal, because I refuse to believe I could survive the laser blast to even get to the beam, let alone TIM's or SC's ravings.

If you have to do that (and it is very similar to what I did in a way), doesn't that already show how broken this ending is, how dramatically repulsive that we can't even face it? It seems to be so utterly bad that you even choose to voluntarily sacrifice your Shepard (against everything the story tries to tell) rather then walk into this situation. I believe an argument against the ending could hardly be expressed more strongly than that.

To me, saying Destroy is another way to agree with the SC is like saying that using a hammer to drive nails is wrong.  The Crucible is a tool that the galaxy created for one purpose, to stop the Reapers.  Claiming that one must agree with the SC in order to use the Crucible for any reason is a rationalization, like "just one more" for a drunk, or "I have to do drugs in order to feel" for a junky.  I disliked the endings, primarily for how they are presented, but I don't dislike them enough to fabricate a fiction that using a tool for what it's designed to do somehow justifies, or acknowledges SC.

I can see where you are coming from with the tool idea but I don't think I am over analysing in order to come up with my interpretation and I'd postulate that you rationalise more than I do (or at least just as much). To me, the incoherence of the whole situation sprang up as soon as I heard that dialogue for the first time back in March and again when the EC was released. And even if you want to ignore what you call fiction (I call it an implication by the way), you are stuck with a nonsensical ending choice.

If I could shoot the tube w/out talking to him, I would.

But you cannot. You cannot even abort that dialogue. You'd have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly to ignore what is said before Shepard gets to choose. If I were spiteful, I could now ask who is coming up with fiction to support their arguments.

EDIT: Oh, ok, we hadn't had songs for a couple of pages, so this one is dedicated to Shepard's frequent visits to the less dignified establishments of our fine galaxy ... and to lighten the mood . Cheers!

Modifié par MrFob, 10 août 2012 - 12:53 .

[NorDee65]

I've been lurking (again) for a while now, but I'd like to chime in a bit at this point in this wonderful enlightend and enlightening discussion.

I've been a roleplayer since discovering d&d in the early eighties (which proves that I am no longer exactly spring-chikkenish), and upon discovering Bioware producing great roleplaying games I was extatic, having finally found my little gamer's paradise as my taste in videogaming is extremely eclectic.

ME3 and especially the end (OC and EC) changed all that.

Roleplaying to me is all about intent and not nessesarily outcome (not that I'd complain if my choices would get me what I wanted, but that is not a prerequisite to enjoying a game).

With ME3 my Sheperd's intentions were:

as a paragon:

1. to protect the galaxy, symbolised by all known individuals, from destruction and death
2. by stopping the Reapers, and, if necessary, destroy them
3. survival

as a renegade:
1. protect the galaxy by stopping/killing the reapers
2. thereby protecting friends and allies
3. survival

(I am not saying that is the paragon or renegade playthrough, but mine)

With the EC, if I were to follow my intentions I'd automatically have to chose "control" or "synthesis" for my paragon and "destroy" for my renegade. Were it not for the SC! As the SC is the creator of the reapers, from which I have to deduce that it is controlling them, than any information I receive is false. It therefore becomes a mind-trap that I as a player as much as my Shephards have fallen into. The only logical way out is to "refuse"...

And this is where Bioware has failed (for me anyway), because the three endings cannot be chosen by intent, because my Shepard does and can not trust SC, but by outcome, which becomes a player's choice, thus disconnecting the player from the PC. And that should never happen in a "role-playing-game".

(As a player I would have chosen "destroy"(renegade) if the price had been our solar system (just to name an example), "control" with the option of flying the reapers and thus "myself" into the sun. And never "synthesis".)

And for me the perfect ending would have involved retaking the citadel (never mind retaking Earth, what emotional connection does Shephard have with Earth anyway? Either growing up in a slum or on another planet or as a "fleet-kid"), somehow disconnecting the citadel from the reapers, maybe breaking their indoctrination-techniqe, thus giving "conventional" means a chance.

But as it stands I have to agree somewhat with @robertthebard: the game ends in London, the end is open.

Modifié par NorDee65, 10 août 2012 - 02:20 .

[SHARXTREME]

First, like drayfish wrote, it is nice that discussion in this thread never tips over the boundaries of violence and that the discussion is of such quality insights. Some people can conclude, that because of the fact that there is no signs of violence here, that participants blindly agree with each other.
Synthesis is possible even without Green Beam? To actually overcome hate based on our differences?
Without common goal or without common enemy?(in this thread known as "the ending")

But to jump to something we all have suspected, but couldn't be sure. Leaked Mac Walter notes

Oxspit wrote...
Moral of the story being, it was now impossible to kid myself that I was in a story being handled by someone/some group who had the first clue what they were doing. Positing some weird act of narrative genius we were yet to see as an explanation for the ending violated Occam's razor rather jarringly. Somehow I'd been ignoring all of those other issues up until now, but here I kind of stopped.

Yeah, it's almost incomprehensible, that the explanation is so simple. But it mostly is.
Writer had the only intention to bring "lots of speculation". That's all.
In that note there is something very revealing: "But why did he (Shepard) have to die?"
It shows us the complete misunderstanding of how the players thought of Shepard in the story , and what that writer wanted to say.
It's almost insulting to rest of the writers and audience that it is that simple..
For me, Shepard is a non-factor in the story, situation is more important.Shepard is non-character, tabula rasa.

For the writer to think that most important thing in the game was Shepard and the reason he has to die? I just cannot ...

If I could shoot the tube w/out talking to him, I would.

BUT you wouldn't even know there is a tube, and that you must shoot it.
And you wouldn't know that "Catalyst controls the Reapers".
You cannot talk about ending end ignore the new info from Catalyst.
Catalyst controls ALL Reapers against their will
That's a game changer. Previously, the logic was that Original Reapers assimilated/harvested countless cycles and that somehow they are in consensus.
All options are losing options since that statement from EC, because Catalyst is the enemy.
And by Destroy you don't win against him, you just kill his slaves.Organics and synthetics.
Numbers don't matter.
Only one that is not losing option on personal and symbolical level is Refuse.
Only in Refuse Shepard can show that he knows who is the enemy( and then sadly lose).
But BW did made Refuse for all the wrong reasons, and in aftermath movies, so it's a even bigger loss when next cycle actually wins against Reapers using the Crucible.(as they said on Twitter)

About Destroy aftermath movie. What would people think when they would see how millions of Geth platforms are dropping dead and how EDI platform is dropping dead, how all civilizations enslaved in Reaper form are dropping dead?
Remember, Catalyst thinks that both organics and synthetics need to be exterminated and can't live together, which his ideal solution(synthesis) is clearly doing/showing Both organics and synthetics cease to exist in synthesis.
But the Catalyst never answers the question WHY. Why can't synthetics and organics coexist?
The answer is Catalyst. That's why.

And you cannot win against him, because BW didn't think when writing the ending, at all.
Ending shows just outer shell of consequences and all in "happy" manner.
"Shepard lives" scene. (all synthetics die never shown scene) . Yay.

BTW new definition of Art is speculation. Lots of speculation. From everyone.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 10 août 2012 - 12:38 .

[robertthebard]

MrFob wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
This is why we are sent to Mars.  Hackett, very brokenly:  way to stop the Reapers....possibly the only way.

Then later, after Mars:  He's wrong, dead Reapers are how we win this.

This is why we pursue the Crucible, to make dead Reapers.  We can overanalyze the presentation, but in the two games I actually finished, out of 12 that I've actually played to London and the beam, Destroy was the logical option.  I wanted to end the Reapers, I didn't want to let them win(Refusal), nor did I want to incorporate them into everybody else(Synthesis), and on my Paragon, I couldn't trust that I wouldn't end up just like SC eventually(Control).  I can't play the game with a 5th oppurtunity, because there is no 5th oppurtunity.  My other 10 games are, I suppose, a kind of 5th oppurtunity, and I just call it Ultimate Refusal, because I refuse to believe I could survive the laser blast to even get to the beam, let alone TIM's or SC's ravings.

If you have to do that (and it is very similar to what I did in a way), doesn't that already show how broken this ending is, how dramatically repulsive that we can't even face it? It seems to be so utterly bad that you even choose to voluntarily sacrifice your Shepard (against everything the story tries to tell) rather then walk into this situation. I believe an argument against the ending could hardly be expressed more strongly than that.

To me, saying Destroy is another way to agree with the SC is like saying that using a hammer to drive nails is wrong.  The Crucible is a tool that the galaxy created for one purpose, to stop the Reapers.  Claiming that one must agree with the SC in order to use the Crucible for any reason is a rationalization, like "just one more" for a drunk, or "I have to do drugs in order to feel" for a junky.  I disliked the endings, primarily for how they are presented, but I don't dislike them enough to fabricate a fiction that using a tool for what it's designed to do somehow justifies, or acknowledges SC.

I can see where you are coming from with the tool idea but I don't think I am over analysing in order to come up with my interpretation and I'd postulate that you rationalise more than I do (or at least just as much). To me, the incoherence of the whole situation sprang up as soon as I heard that dialogue for the first time back in March and again when the EC was released. And even if you want to ignore what you call fiction (I call it an implication by the way), you are stuck with a nonsensical ending choice.

If I could shoot the tube w/out talking to him, I would.

But you cannot. You cannot even abort that dialogue. You'd have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly to ignore what is said before Shepard gets to choose. If I were spiteful, I could now ask who is coming up with fiction to support their arguments.

EDIT: Oh, ok, we hadn't had songs for a couple of pages, so this one is dedicated to Shepard's frequent visits to the less dignified establishments of our fine galaxy ... and to lighten the mood . Cheers!

I'm not discussing from a point of all endings are bad but Destroy.  I'm coming from the viewpoint that all endings are bad, but Destroy is the intended function of the Crucible, from my perspective, and from dialog in the game leading up to that point, excluding dialog with TIM, who is obviously over the edge, even on Mars.  Actually, I'm going to rephrase that, but leave it for perspective; the ending is bad.  There may be 4 different results, but since they are all achieved the same basic way, they may as well be one.  I am primed, all through the game, to believe the Crucible does one thing, make dead Reapers.  While the whole concept of SC is bad, choosing not to Destroy just because of SC because you believe(generic you)it's part of the handwavey other options isn't logical.

On the lighter side, I was part of a Renaissance singing group that used to perform a "not safe for youtube" version of that song.

I hate the lack of multiquoting on this forum:

I shouldn't have to know about shooting a tube.  I should get to the platform, listen to TIM's rant, kill him, or make him kill himself, and push the glowy red button in the middle of the console that says Press Me on it.  Whether it's a design flaw, or intended by cycles before to prevent the Citadel from being a trap should it not kill all the Reapers when used, the Crucible should overload after firing and destroy itself, the Citadel, and me.  Depending on blast area, it may well take out some of Earth's population too.  With a high enough EMS, maybe somebody catches it if it's a design flaw, and fixes it so it won't, granting the "...and they all lived happily ever after" ending.  You could even get the Horizon ending:  Pick me up Joker, I'm tired of this place.

[MrFob]

robertthebard wrote...
I'm not discussing from a point of all endings are bad but Destroy.  I'm coming from the viewpoint that all endings are bad, but Destroy is the intended function of the Crucible, from my perspective, and from dialog in the game leading up to that point, excluding dialog with TIM, who is obviously over the edge, even on Mars.  Actually, I'm going to rephrase that, but leave it for perspective; the ending is bad.  There may be 4 different results, but since they are all achieved the same basic way, they may as well be one.  I am primed, all through the game, to believe the Crucible does one thing, make dead Reapers.  While the whole concept of SC is bad, choosing not to Destroy just because of SC because you believe(generic you)it's part of the handwavey other options isn't logical.

On the lighter side, I was part of a Renaissance singing group that used to perform a "not safe for youtube" version of that song.

I hate the lack of multiquoting on this forum:

I shouldn't have to know about shooting a tube.  I should get to the platform, listen to TIM's rant, kill him, or make him kill himself, and push the glowy red button in the middle of the console that says Press Me on it.  Whether it's a design flaw, or intended by cycles before to prevent the Citadel from being a trap should it not kill all the Reapers when used, the Crucible should overload after firing and destroy itself, the Citadel, and me.  Depending on blast area, it may well take out some of Earth's population too.  With a high enough EMS, maybe somebody catches it if it's a design flaw, and fixes it so it won't, granting the "...and they all lived happily ever after" ending.  You could even get the Horizon ending:  Pick me up Joker, I'm tired of this place.

Well, we can definitely agree on the 4 choices that feel like one. I see it that way as well.

And while I also agree that just getting rid of the star kid scene and skip right ahead to the destroy ending works much better (see the video in the "the ending we all wanted" thread (a thread title I don't like btw), I still think even that would be a clumsy and unsatisfying solution, mainly for two reasons:
1. (the lesser one): It makes mad TIM the final confrontation. Cerberus and TIM were always a threat on the side, a glorified second villain (at least in ME3, he wasn't even one in ME2, a role that fit him much better IMO). TIM is not the crux of the problem, he is not the one out last moments in the game should be about. He should get his little scene before the end but not right at it.
2. (the really important one) I know it is often argued (in this thread as well) that the reapers should remain mysterious and their motives and goals should never have been revealed. I do agree that this works very well for 99% of the series and I love(d) the shroud of mystique that hangs over them all this time. However, I have to ask myself, would it be satisfying to end the trilogy without ever knowing what it was all about? Would I sit through the credits with a sense of completion and accomplishment if I remained puzzled about my enemy until the very end, if I just stomped them in the muck in ignorance? The more I thought about it, the more abhorrent the idea became for me. It's like being a soldier in earth's army in Starship Troopers: Just destroy the bugs, who cares what they are all about!
When I first played ME1, I adored Vigil until the point when he sais "your goal lies in stopping them (the reapers), not in understanding them." This might have been very true in that particular context but in general this kind of thinking IMO is not only counter-productive and narrow minded but downright dangerous.
I think the threat of the reapers that we gathered information about and fought for three games does deserve some sort of explanation, better yet a revelation. And it certainly need a final confrontation of sorts, some grandiose moment in which all the cards are put on the table. Everything else would feel ... incomplete to me.
And yet again, I have to repeat, this should not be in the form that we saw in the games. If it is a talk, it has to be with an entity that Shepard can trust (or at least relate to). If it is a reaper (or their controlling mastermind-boy-AI-construct-thing), than it has to be a confrontation (not necessarily a fight but at least an adversarial conversation). It cannot, however, be the mix of the two, that just breaks the established plot and that is what these endings have done unfortunately.

[robertthebard]

MrFob wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
I'm not discussing from a point of all endings are bad but Destroy.  I'm coming from the viewpoint that all endings are bad, but Destroy is the intended function of the Crucible, from my perspective, and from dialog in the game leading up to that point, excluding dialog with TIM, who is obviously over the edge, even on Mars.  Actually, I'm going to rephrase that, but leave it for perspective; the ending is bad.  There may be 4 different results, but since they are all achieved the same basic way, they may as well be one.  I am primed, all through the game, to believe the Crucible does one thing, make dead Reapers.  While the whole concept of SC is bad, choosing not to Destroy just because of SC because you believe(generic you)it's part of the handwavey other options isn't logical.

On the lighter side, I was part of a Renaissance singing group that used to perform a "not safe for youtube" version of that song.

I hate the lack of multiquoting on this forum:

I shouldn't have to know about shooting a tube.  I should get to the platform, listen to TIM's rant, kill him, or make him kill himself, and push the glowy red button in the middle of the console that says Press Me on it.  Whether it's a design flaw, or intended by cycles before to prevent the Citadel from being a trap should it not kill all the Reapers when used, the Crucible should overload after firing and destroy itself, the Citadel, and me.  Depending on blast area, it may well take out some of Earth's population too.  With a high enough EMS, maybe somebody catches it if it's a design flaw, and fixes it so it won't, granting the "...and they all lived happily ever after" ending.  You could even get the Horizon ending:  Pick me up Joker, I'm tired of this place.

Well, we can definitely agree on the 4 choices that feel like one. I see it that way as well.

And while I also agree that just getting rid of the star kid scene and skip right ahead to the destroy ending works much better (see the video in the "the ending we all wanted" thread (a thread title I don't like btw), I still think even that would be a clumsy and unsatisfying solution, mainly for two reasons:
1. (the lesser one): It makes mad TIM the final confrontation. Cerberus and TIM were always a threat on the side, a glorified second villain (at least in ME3, he wasn't even one in ME2, a role that fit him much better IMO). TIM is not the crux of the problem, he is not the one out last moments in the game should be about. He should get his little scene before the end but not right at it.
2. (the really important one) I know it is often argued (in this thread as well) that the reapers should remain mysterious and their motives and goals should never have been revealed. I do agree that this works very well for 99% of the series and I love(d) the shroud of mystique that hangs over them all this time. However, I have to ask myself, would it be satisfying to end the trilogy without ever knowing what it was all about? Would I sit through the credits with a sense of completion and accomplishment if I remained puzzled about my enemy until the very end, if I just stomped them in the muck in ignorance? The more I thought about it, the more abhorrent the idea became for me. It's like being a soldier in earth's army in Starship Troopers: Just destroy the bugs, who cares what they are all about!
When I first played ME1, I adored Vigil until the point when he sais "your goal lies in stopping them (the reapers), not in understanding them." This might have been very true in that particular context but in general this kind of thinking IMO is not only counter-productive and narrow minded but downright dangerous.
I think the threat of the reapers that we gathered information about and fought for three games does deserve some sort of explanation, better yet a revelation. And it certainly need a final confrontation of sorts, some grandiose moment in which all the cards are put on the table. Everything else would feel ... incomplete to me.
And yet again, I have to repeat, this should not be in the form that we saw in the games. If it is a talk, it has to be with an entity that Shepard can trust (or at least relate to). If it is a reaper (or their controlling mastermind-boy-AI-construct-thing), than it has to be a confrontation (not necessarily a fight but at least an adversarial conversation). It cannot, however, be the mix of the two, that just breaks the established plot and that is what these endings have done unfortunately.

The explanation can then come in the form of DLC.  Such as the upcoming Leviathan.  Some people don't want, or need to know more about the Reapers, I'm not one of those, while some people do.  If it adds an explanation for their actions, and their origins, then the people that want to know more can get it, and those that don't don't have to, and it doesn't necessarily have to change anything about the end.

I can't think, the way the game plays out currently, of anywhere else you could encounter TIM though, unless we make a modification, and kill him on his base, instead of Kai Leng.  I'm currently working a Self Righteous Paragon Shepard through ME 2, on the way to ME 3, and the sheer volume of intel that I am forced to send to Cerberus, as opposed to having an option on where to send it is dismaying.  I have not read any of the books, or the comics, and my position on Cerberus is based purely on the games, and I don't like the organization, or TIM.  There are a lot of times when things are automatically sent his way that I can see him twirling his moustache.  Really sad since he doesn't have one.  So I didn't believe their actions in 3 were out of character.  TIM has always been about Cerberus first, hence the experiments in ME 1, and killing Alliance troops and an Admiral.  If we had been working for somebody else, Council or Alliance through ME 2, how many Thessia moments would we have had, if TIM's forces got there first?  Even if they didn't get away with all the data, such as on Mars, but did get there first, or at the same time?

Anyway, short of a minor rewrite or two to the main story, Leng's involvement, we face TIM pretty much where we have to.  It is not ideal, but it is at least forseeable in the way the story plays out.

[MrFob]

Fair enough about the DLC. It will tell people about the reapers but it's just like Javik, it is part of and should be in the main story.
As for TIM, the way things are now, he does fit where he is perfectly. He is right before the last confrontation. That's fine. It's that last confrontation I've got a problem with, not TIM. However, if you take that last confrontation away without replacing it, than it doesn't fit any more. Thus. Any DLC that explains the reapers would have to be an ending DLC, not a side story, shoved somewhere in the middle of the plot. The reapers are the main antagonist(s) after all and any ending should, no MUST involve them beyond seeing some of them fall under the might of the mysterious red wave of death.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Tallestra wrote...

All of your arguments are valid, and I'm happy that you've managed to find satisfaction in the game.
But these last lines are condescending, and demonstrate that you do not really understand why we here despise the endings . As drayfish wrote above it's not about hard choices, we are perfectly fine with these, it's about ethical message in these choices for us players. But I guess, not everyone is capable to see clearly these messages (see, I can be also condescending, and I apologize).

If you were offended, I apologize. I think you got me wrong though. Refuse, let's face it, is little more than a Game Over screen. Even those who choose it will say as much.

As for the next paragraph... I was basically acknowledging that this kind of ending is not for everyone's tastes. I understand that, really. But, I personally applaud what they were trying to do. I still think it has some issues though, and there are a lot of things there that I would do differently.


As far as the implicit ethical messages go, your mileage may vary. There are lots of times where I feel as though someone at Bioware has an agenda and wants to push an underlying message across to me. A big one is the geth-quarian conflict's rather obvious parrallels to the real-life Middle East. I don't like nor agree with what I believe they're trying to get across to me, but I don't have to agree with it, and it doesn't ruin the experience for me when I play.

But let me reiterate: YMMV. I'm not expecting everyone to like it, and understand why many do not.

[robertthebard]

MrFob wrote...

Fair enough about the DLC. It will tell people about the reapers but it's just like Javik, it is part of and should be in the main story.
As for TIM, the way things are now, he does fit where he is perfectly. He is right before the last confrontation. That's fine. It's that last confrontation I've got a problem with, not TIM. However, if you take that last confrontation away without replacing it, than it doesn't fit any more. Thus. Any DLC that explains the reapers would have to be an ending DLC, not a side story, shoved somewhere in the middle of the plot. The reapers are the main antagonist(s) after all and any ending should, no MUST involve them beyond seeing some of them fall under the might of the mysterious red wave of death.

I would put that fight right before the beam, which is where I figured it would be.  Instead of the Destroyer class Reaper we face, it could have been Harbinger instead, and as cliche as it would have been, it could have had the waves of Banshees and Brutes interspersed based on Harbinger's health.  Or, and this is occurring to me as I battle through insomnia, we could have had sets of thanix rockets set up, pretty much like we do now, and we fight waves to get from one set to the next, pretty much as we do now, only instead of missing with the first set, it takes multiple sets to get the job done.  This is also where our assets could have come into play.

As far as Javik goes, I don't see that he's all that essential to the story.  I bought the Digital Deluxe edition, so he came with it, and in my first game, I never talked to him, or used him much.  He has no useful information about the Crucible, and only serves to fill in blanks about the Protheans.  However, as he asks Liara when she starts plying the questions, what difference does it make, we are all dead?  It took me 10 games to figure out he had an unlockable power.  The way it plays out, it's pretty much done like a DLC character anyway.

[MrFob]

robertthebard wrote...
I would put that fight right before the beam, which is where I figured it would be.  Instead of the Destroyer class Reaper we face, it could have been Harbinger instead, and as cliche as it would have been, it could have had the waves of Banshees and Brutes interspersed based on Harbinger's health.  Or, and this is occurring to me as I battle through insomnia, we could have had sets of thanix rockets set up, pretty much like we do now, and we fight waves to get from one set to the next, pretty much as we do now, only instead of missing with the first set, it takes multiple sets to get the job done.  This is also where our assets could have come into play.

Hm, I would have preferred that these whole last 30 minutes deal with Harbinger (as an avatar of the reapers). No matter the details it could have been spectacular (my personal favourite would have involved a fight on Harby's outer hull as he takes off, see about 10 pages back). Not sure how to deal with TIM than but IMO, TIM should not come after the reapers but before.

As far as Javik goes, I don't see that he's all that essential to the story.  I bought the Digital Deluxe edition, so he came with it, and in my first game, I never talked to him, or used him much.  He has no useful information about the Crucible, and only serves to fill in blanks about the Protheans.  However, as he asks Liara when she starts plying the questions, what difference does it make, we are all dead?  It took me 10 games to figure out he had an unlockable power.  The way it plays out, it's pretty much done like a DLC character anyway.

Yes and see how loud the outcry of the fans already was for making this additional (though central) information a DLC (and right the fans were in crying out IMO). Now imagine what would happen if you put the explanation for the reapers exclusively into a DLC. It is possible to do it technically but it wouldn't work, not for the story and certainly not for the fans.

[robertthebard]

MrFob wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
I would put that fight right before the beam, which is where I figured it would be.  Instead of the Destroyer class Reaper we face, it could have been Harbinger instead, and as cliche as it would have been, it could have had the waves of Banshees and Brutes interspersed based on Harbinger's health.  Or, and this is occurring to me as I battle through insomnia, we could have had sets of thanix rockets set up, pretty much like we do now, and we fight waves to get from one set to the next, pretty much as we do now, only instead of missing with the first set, it takes multiple sets to get the job done.  This is also where our assets could have come into play.

Hm, I would have preferred that these whole last 30 minutes deal with Harbinger (as an avatar of the reapers). No matter the details it could have been spectacular (my personal favourite would have involved a fight on Harby's outer hull as he takes off, see about 10 pages back). Not sure how to deal with TIM than but IMO, TIM should not come after the reapers but before.

As far as Javik goes, I don't see that he's all that essential to the story.  I bought the Digital Deluxe edition, so he came with it, and in my first game, I never talked to him, or used him much.  He has no useful information about the Crucible, and only serves to fill in blanks about the Protheans.  However, as he asks Liara when she starts plying the questions, what difference does it make, we are all dead?  It took me 10 games to figure out he had an unlockable power.  The way it plays out, it's pretty much done like a DLC character anyway.

Yes and see how loud the outcry of the fans already was for making this additional (though central) information a DLC (and right the fans were in crying out IMO). Now imagine what would happen if you put the explanation for the reapers exclusively into a DLC. It is possible to do it technically but it wouldn't work, not for the story and certainly not for the fans.

Without a full rewrite, I'm not sure you can get TIM before the Reapers, since he's already on the Citadel.

Javik is about as central to the story as James.  The only thing that makes him special is that he's a Prothean, and frankly, that's really not all that.  The most pertinent information that comes to light is only applicable on Eden Prime, that the Cipher survived Shepard's death.  The outcry, that I missed since I didn't buy the game back then, not because of the ending scandal, but because I usually don't go for shooter type games, was more centered around BioWare having the audacity to sell it on the first day.  Prothean squadmate was just a good rally cry.  Like I said, he doesn't add that much.

However, you are likely correct about the outcry.  Hell, it's getting a lot of outcry now, even got me banned for 24 hours, because people were trying to sway others to not buy it.  It's still getting "it's pointless to release it" threads.  So maybe it just has to be added in, and made an optional quest.

[MrFob]

robertthebard wrote...

Without a full rewrite, I'm not sure you can get TIM before the Reapers, since he's already on the Citadel.

I don't know. Sure, rewriting large parts of the game would be best but it is not that difficult to improve on what we have. I mean, all I could do was to replace some sound files. That's it, Everything else stays the same, even the choices. All that happens is that they are put into a completely different context and that alone (at least for me) solves a lot of the problems (theoretically, if you wouldn't loose immersion due to the lack of proper voice actors). True, there is too much information squeezed into that little stretch of dialogue but if that were just spread out a little more over the game, if there were a few more hooks already in place, than I think it could work beautifully. As it is now, it just goes to show how isolated these last ten minutes are from the rest of the game.

[robertthebard]

MrFob wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Without a full rewrite, I'm not sure you can get TIM before the Reapers, since he's already on the Citadel.

I don't know. Sure, rewriting large parts of the game would be best but it is not that difficult to improve on what we have. I mean, all I could do was to replace some sound files. That's it, Everything else stays the same, even the choices. All that happens is that they are put into a completely different context and that alone (at least for me) solves a lot of the problems (theoretically, if you wouldn't loose immersion due to the lack of proper voice actors). True, there is too much information squeezed into that little stretch of dialogue but if that were just spread out a little more over the game, if there were a few more hooks already in place, than I think it could work beautifully. As it is now, it just goes to show how isolated these last ten minutes are from the rest of the game.

The thought process there was that in order to fight/argue with TIM before we got to the Reapers, we'd have to move him out of the Citadel, which would require a rewrite of everything from TIM's base on.

[MrFob]

Ah, I misunderstood then, sorry. Well, this is true.

Modifié par MrFob, 12 août 2012 - 11:01 .

[Foolsfolly]

But BW did made Refuse for all the wrong reasons, and in aftermath movies, so it's a even bigger loss when next cycle actually wins against Reapers using the Crucible.(as they said on Twitter)

I think they made it for the wrong reasons when I picked it, happily since I wasn't playing the Reaper's game and giving hope to another cycle... and then Shepard says "I can't make this decision."

NO!

NO! GODDAMNIT!

That's not what we wanted when we wanted a Refusal ending. It's not "I can't decide" it's "I decide your solutions are the problem." And if that means all free thinking lifeforms in the galaxy get snuffed out in the next two centuries of war... then so be it. But we stayed true to our belief that all beings deserve a chance to live and that diverse cultures are better than a singular stale dead Reaper merged non-culture.

It's a shocking lack of understanding by BioWare. One that goes even farther than I thought if they confirm the next cycle uses the Catalyst any damn way.

[Oxspit]

robertthebard wrote...

MrFob wrote...

@Oxspit: I'd say, that's pretty mich exactly what I wanted to convey (although said more clearly). Agreed.

@drayfish: Also, couldn't agree more. Those are exactly the grievances I have with the endings, That is why they are repulsive and that's why I chose to change them for my own experience and to get closer to the purple button, head cannon or not. (And if the franchise should ever expand on the EC endings with a sequel, they lost me as customer because for me, ME3 ended differently).

robertthebard wrote...
The option to Destroy exists because that's the intended function of the Crucible, not because SC handwaved it in.

I am sorry but I can't see that this is supposed to be the interpretation or even an implication of the final conversation or the ending. The star kid clearly has enough power over the crucible to stop Shepard if it desired. In the refusal ending, you can even see how it shuts the whole contraption down. This as well as the whole dialogue with the star kid indicates some degree of consent (which doesn't make sense at all but there it is). On the other hand, nowhere is it implied that the catalyst has any objections to Shepard destroying the reapers. In fact, it seems rather indifferent (which again makes little sense, given that it can be adversarial at low EMS and the refusal ending).
For me, destroy is the most confusing option, considering the catalyst's origins, it's motives and goals. I just cannot wrap my head around it at all (and I have considered and dismissed the whole "the crucible changes the catalyst itself" agument as well which has been discussed in this very thread a couple of pages back).

This series was built around the premise of hard choices. Few of them
actually are, and the ending is one of those few for this very reason.
It is inherently morally-problematic. A decision so hard it breaks its
players (by choosing Refuse, and basically losing the game).

But the thing is, the choices could still be hard without all the problems that come with it. In fact, if you change the context of the epilogues, it could be argued that they can be even harder, that the consequences are potentially more dire. In fact, that's exactly what I tried to accomplish in my version. The problem is not the severity of the situation in the end. The problem lies in the implementation of this situation that does not offer Shepard a hard choice, emerging from the causalities of previous actions but that is purely offered by the mass murdering entity that controls the antagonist and the sudden and unexplained inversion of morality in the consequences of any of these decisions. Combine that with logical incoherence and you got a narrative train wreck.

This is why we are sent to Mars.  Hackett, very brokenly:  way to stop the Reapers....possibly the only way.

Then later, after Mars:  He's wrong, dead Reapers are how we win this.

This is why we pursue the Crucible, to make dead Reapers.  We can overanalyze the presentation, but in the two games I actually finished, out of 12 that I've actually played to London and the beam, Destroy was the logical option.  I wanted to end the Reapers, I didn't want to let them win(Refusal), nor did I want to incorporate them into everybody else(Synthesis), and on my Paragon, I couldn't trust that I wouldn't end up just like SC eventually(Control).  I can't play the game with a 5th oppurtunity, because there is no 5th oppurtunity.  My other 10 games are, I suppose, a kind of 5th oppurtunity, and I just call it Ultimate Refusal, because I refuse to believe I could survive the laser blast to even get to the beam, let alone TIM's or SC's ravings.

To me, saying Destroy is another way to agree with the SC is like saying that using a hammer to drive nails is wrong.  The Crucible is a tool that the galaxy created for one purpose, to stop the Reapers.  Claiming that one must agree with the SC in order to use the Crucible for any reason is a rationalization, like "just one more" for a drunk, or "I have to do drugs in order to feel" for a junky.  I disliked the endings, primarily for how they are presented, but I don't dislike them enough to fabricate a fiction that using a tool for what it's designed to do somehow justifies, or acknowledges SC.  If I could shoot the tube w/out talking to him, I would.

Well, actually, for me I wasn't strictly that you're implicitly agreeing with the SC by picking one of those three options, necessarily. You could cast it as a kind of personal defeat for Shepard (which may or may not have a happy ending for the galaxy) in as much as you agree under sufferance that those are the only options you're actually going to get and you feel the one you went with was the lesser of the given evils.

But that's not quite how it happens, is it? The SC gives you his synthetics vs organics spiel and how the whole thing is a solution to that. Do you then get the option to say:

"Kiddo, that has seriously got to be the biggest pile of stupid I have ever heard. I want to talk to your father. He's not here? O.K. someone patch me through to EDI and, hell, why not some of the people who built this thing or something (they must have some freaking idea what the hell  they've built), let's see if we can't work out what's really going on here."

Nope. I actually recall, I think it was after the destroy option was given to me, that the SC goes on to say his "but then your children will build smarter toasters or something and the chaos will return", that Shepard auto-replies with "But there has to be another way" - which, in context, seemed to me like he was saying "Yes, I see how this problem you're trying to solve is a completely valid concern - there must be some other way to solve it!".

I mean, maybe I'm misremembering it, but the tone I remember really wasn't one where you had an option to violently disagree with the SC and trying to force his hand or reason him into giving you other options (which is something I have a hard time believing can't have existed) or anything like that. Instead, you have a mostly civilised discussion with the little moron then you calmly walk over and push one of his three buttons, or refuse to and get a game over screen.

And, yes, the galaxy is building this thing to stop the reapers... but it's an act of desperation. There's really no clues given as to what it will actually do. Some people express hopes, but there's no reason to believe any one thing against another. The device is in fact presented as not having to display any kind of internal logic at all. It is quite literally a "do anything the writers want it to do" device. The choices you are given make neither more nor less sense than any others would have. They're not a hard choice for any good reasons established in the story, they're just hard by contrivance. The starchild may as well say  "The authors desire that the ending be one of the following three options, for reasons best known to themselves, so if you could just kindly go and press one of those three buttons and pick one that'd be great. Kthnx".

I don't necessarily mind that Shepard might have to make a hard choice to kill a friend to save others, or sacrifice himself - but the more difficult the decision is that he has to make, the better the reason why that has to be so needs to be. The options we are given are pure independent contrivance right at the end. There is no real reason given why those are the three reasons this 'do anything device' is restricted to at the end other than the SC just saying so.

[robertthebard]

Oxspit wrote...

Well, actually, for me I wasn't strictly that you're implicitly agreeing with the SC by picking one of those three options, necessarily. You could cast it as a kind of personal defeat for Shepard (which may or may not have a happy ending for the galaxy) in as much as you agree under sufferance that those are the only options you're actually going to get and you feel the one you went with was the lesser of the given evils.

But that's not quite how it happens, is it? The SC gives you his synthetics vs organics spiel and how the whole thing is a solution to that. Do you then get the option to say:

"Kiddo, that has seriously got to be the biggest pile of stupid I have ever heard. I want to talk to your father. He's not here? O.K. someone patch me through to EDI and, hell, why not some of the people who built this thing or something (they must have some freaking idea what the hell  they've built), let's see if we can't work out what's really going on here."

Nope. I actually recall, I think it was after the destroy option was given to me, that the SC goes on to say his "but then your children will build smarter toasters or something and the chaos will return", that Shepard auto-replies with "But there has to be another way" - which, in context, seemed to me like he was saying "Yes, I see how this problem you're trying to solve is a completely valid concern - there must be some other way to solve it!".

I mean, maybe I'm misremembering it, but the tone I remember really wasn't one where you had an option to violently disagree with the SC and trying to force his hand or reason him into giving you other options (which is something I have a hard time believing can't have existed) or anything like that. Instead, you have a mostly civilised discussion with the little moron then you calmly walk over and push one of his three buttons, or refuse to and get a game over screen.

And, yes, the galaxy is building this thing to stop the reapers... but it's an act of desperation. There's really no clues given as to what it will actually do. Some people express hopes, but there's no reason to believe any one thing against another. The device is in fact presented as not having to display any kind of internal logic at all. It is quite literally a "do anything the writers want it to do" device. The choices you are given make neither more nor less sense than any others would have. They're not a hard choice for any good reasons established in the story, they're just hard by contrivance. The starchild may as well say  "The authors desire that the ending be one of the following three options, for reasons best known to themselves, so if you could just kindly go and press one of those three buttons and pick one that'd be great. Kthnx".

I don't necessarily mind that Shepard might have to make a hard choice to kill a friend to save others, or sacrifice himself - but the more difficult the decision is that he has to make, the better the reason why that has to be so needs to be. The options we are given are pure independent contrivance right at the end. There is no real reason given why those are the three reasons this 'do anything device' is restricted to at the end other than the SC just saying so.

Just for clarity's sake here, this discussion isn't centered around me thinking that the only obvious choice is Destroy.  I dislike the whole concept of how the Crucible was implemented.  This is, to me, the lesser of the evils presented, and although my Brutal Renegade chose it due to that was what she intended to do from the outset, so it made sense, the only other time I went that far, out of 12 games, I chose it strictly because it was the lesser evil.  I knew I was destroying the Geth, that I had just recently brought around to "true" sentience.  I understood that I was killing EDI, and understand that, on this playthrough, this was the first time I'd managed to broker peace between the Quarians and Geth.  It was a hard choice, but given the moral viewpoints of this Shepard, Destroy was preferred to everything else.  Note here that I wasn't sure if my EMS was high enough for the Breathe scene, since I dabble in MP, but I'm not very good at it, so I don't spend a lot of time with it.

I end my games at the Beam in London.  I can't get myself, for the most part, past the contrivance of surving a blast that rips Cruisers in half, while running like an idiot for the beam.

[scampermax]

Nyoka wrote...

So I've been trying to find some excuses for people to exterminate the geth by picking destruction and feel like at least it was for something.

It was for something - the reapers are dead.

Killing the geth for what they did versus who they were won't mean a thing if the galaxy is determined to see Shepard as a war criminal for sacrificing the geth for the greater goal of killing the reapers. All endings have their unpalatable parts and no amount of headcanoning is going to change that.

[drayfish]

Well, it certainly seems that things are slowing down in here, but the material is still rich nonetheless...
 
I completely agree with that sense of railroading during the endgame, oxspit. Wonderfully described:
 

oxspit wrote...
 
The device is in fact presented as not having to display any kind of internal logic at all. It is quite literally a "do anything the writers want it to do" device. The choices you are given make neither more nor less sense than any others would have. They're not a hard choice for any good reasons established in the story, they're just hard by contrivance. The starchild may as well say "The authors desire that the ending be one of the following three options, for reasons best known to themselves, so if you could just kindly go and press one of those three buttons and pick one that'd be great. Kthnx".

That's such a perfect encapsulation of that totally arbitrary end. It taps right into the heart of my confusion with the author's choices, because you're absolutely right: nothing says conclusion has to be the result of this narrative. It's a premise intentionally designed to funnel into an outcome that the writers could shift and control however they saw fit (something within which interpreters like Film Crit Hulk have recently found much poetry). But it is an ending that they nonetheless specifically chose to engineer with arbitrary ghastly drawbacks.
 
Sure, conventional victory is apparently off the table, but I don't know why that immediately means any victory has to make you feel ill both for yourself and the universe you leave in your wake. 
 
It is almost as if the writers were attempting some kind of paradigm shift in the notion of heroism and agency in the tale...
 
In a really intriguing conversation on another forum (http://awtr.wikidot.com/) the issue of villainy and heroism is being discussed, and it occurred to me when reading the posts there, that this may in part be at the heart of many of my problems with the end of Mass Effect: that there was a forced ironic shift in the delineations between heroism and villainy, and attempt to get us to sympathise with our enemy, and even embrace his goals.
 
At the end of the game Shepard is forced to choose an action that morally compromises her (one might argue that this is simply a larger version of the very decisions that have been playing out throughout the entire game, but it has certainly never been perpetuated on such a scale until this point); while in contrast the most 'Mwoah-hah-haaaah' evil presence of the series is revealed to be (*gasp*) a 'hero', trying to 'save' everyone (like you can 'save' frogs in a blender), proving himself to be most insanely perverted philanthropist in galactic history. 
 
The Castanet is doing 'evil' for the sake of 'good', burning down the library so no one will be in danger of getting a paper cut; and Shepard too, in order to 'save' the universe must likewise sacrifice the very principles that made her care about the universe in the first place. Become the 'bad' to do the 'good'.
 
I can see how, stripped of all context, this premise would be intellectually enticing, but I must say, I don't think the end of Mass Effect – a universe propelled by inclusivity and biodiversity, a vision of the future that celebrated freedom from persecution (at the very least on the Paragon side of things, but I would argue across the spectrum of players) – is really the point at which to throw all that away in order to 'win':
 
'What do we want?'
 
'To give birth to a universe of freedom!'
 
'When do we want it?'
 
'After we've performed an act that utterly undermines the very freedom we want to cherish!'
 
'...Um, yeah. We want it then!'
 
That kind of leap into sympathising with the villain can only really occur if the world you're depicting truly is corrupted and twisted and broken beyond traditional repair. In such a circumstance the bad guy can appear sympathetic, and perhaps we can seek to help them enact their scheme. Think V for Vendetta: that dude, in any other context would appear a fanatical, dangerous maniac who must be stopped; but in that specific dystopian landscape, he is a cleaning fire, tearing down the corruption that is a far greater sin.
 
In some ways I think that might have been what the Mass Effect writers were planning in the infamous final ten minutes, a sundering of the old in order to make way for the new – except that in their case, the Mass Effect world wasn't broken. It was beautiful. A universe of majesty and grace, one to be esteemed and protected. And to be told that it had to be fundamentally unmade (burnt down, brainwashed or purged) in order to be saved, felt artless and crass. 

[NorDee65]

drayfish wrote...

Well, it certainly seems that things are slowing down in here, but the material is still rich nonetheless...
 
I completely agree with that sense of railroading during the endgame, oxspit. Wonderfully described:
 

oxspit wrote...
 
The device is in fact presented as not having to display any kind of internal logic at all. It is quite literally a "do anything the writers want it to do" device. The choices you are given make neither more nor less sense than any others would have. They're not a hard choice for any good reasons established in the story, they're just hard by contrivance. The starchild may as well say "The authors desire that the ending be one of the following three options, for reasons best known to themselves, so if you could just kindly go and press one of those three buttons and pick one that'd be great. Kthnx".

That's such a perfect encapsulation of that totally arbitrary end. It taps right into the heart of my confusion with the author's choices, because you're absolutely right: nothing says conclusion has to be the result of this narrative. It's a premise intentionally designed to funnel into an outcome that the writers could shift and control however they saw fit (something within which interpreters like Film Crit Hulk have recently found much poetry). But it is an ending that they nonetheless specifically chose to engineer with arbitrary ghastly drawbacks.
 
Sure, conventional victory is apparently off the table, but I don't know why that immediately means any victory has to make you feel ill both for yourself and the universe you leave in your wake. 
 
It is almost as if the writers were attempting some kind of paradigm shift in the notion of heroism and agency in the tale...
 
In a really intriguing conversation on another forum (http://awtr.wikidot.com/) the issue of villainy and heroism is being discussed, and it occurred to me when reading the posts there, that this may in part be at the heart of many of my problems with the end of Mass Effect: that there was a forced ironic shift in the delineations between heroism and villainy, and attempt to get us to sympathise with our enemy, and even embrace his goals.
 
At the end of the game Shepard is forced to choose an action that morally compromises her (one might argue that this is simply a larger version of the very decisions that have been playing out throughout the entire game, but it has certainly never been perpetuated on such a scale until this point); while in contrast the most 'Mwoah-hah-haaaah' evil presence of the series is revealed to be (*gasp*) a 'hero', trying to 'save' everyone (like you can 'save' frogs in a blender), proving himself to be most insanely perverted philanthropist in galactic history. 
 
The Castanet is doing 'evil' for the sake of 'good', burning down the library so no one will be in danger of getting a paper cut; and Shepard too, in order to 'save' the universe must likewise sacrifice the very principles that made her care about the universe in the first place. Become the 'bad' to do the 'good'.
 
I can see how, stripped of all context, this premise would be intellectually enticing, but I must say, I don't think the end of Mass Effect – a universe propelled by inclusivity and biodiversity, a vision of the future that celebrated freedom from persecution (at the very least on the Paragon side of things, but I would argue across the spectrum of players) – is really the point at which to throw all that away in order to 'win':
 
'What do we want?'
 
'To give birth to a universe of freedom!'
 
'When do we want it?'
 
'After we've performed an act that utterly undermines the very freedom we want to cherish!'
 
'...Um, yeah. We want it then!'
 
That kind of leap into sympathising with the villain can only really occur if the world you're depicting truly is corrupted and twisted and broken beyond traditional repair. In such a circumstance the bad guy can appear sympathetic, and perhaps we can seek to help them enact their scheme. Think V for Vendetta: that dude, in any other context would appear a fanatical, dangerous maniac who must be stopped; but in that specific dystopian landscape, he is a cleaning fire, tearing down the corruption that is a far greater sin.
 
In some ways I think that might have been what the Mass Effect writers were planning in the infamous final ten minutes, a sundering of the old in order to make way for the new – except that in their case, the Mass Effect world wasn't broken. It was beautiful. A universe of majesty and grace, one to be esteemed and protected. And to be told that it had to be fundamentally unmade (burnt down, brainwashed or purged) in order to be saved, felt artless and crass. 

Bioware has been known to write wonderfull stories with surprising turns
of events, eg. Baldur's Gate (1), where the protagonist is revealed a
spawn of evil, Kotor (1) where the protagonist turns out to have been
the most hated (and feared) person in the galaxy, Jade empire, where the
kind teacher hatches a wicked plot which spans a generation.

But
it could not have worked in ME 3 for the following reason: the writers
dithered on how to end it, wether it was to be Dark Energy or whatever (and add that they wanted to cater to new audiences...),
but to create a turn-about of such epic proportions with no hint of it
(in all other games there were subtle hints, even if in the first
playthough nobody would catch on). One could argue that the only hints
they gave came in ME2 and these have not really been followed up in ME3.
If they had followed up what they had written in ME2 and hinted at with Dark Energy, it could have indeed been Shepard who - though unwittingly - has become the villain by trying to stop the Reapers. That could have worked (I think), and would have made for an interesting Finale, but they didn't.

And never mind Dark Energy, if they had written a story where Shepard could have turned
indoctrination off and suddenly one is confronted by confused and
traumatised Reapers, that would have been an interesting turn-around,
but to create something out of the hat at the last minute? Bad writing
and bad Quality Control.

[GodSentinelOmega]

@Dreyfish

Once again you and others succintly point out the problems i have with the ending.

I've been replaying the ME games recently. Partly to gain more submissions and partly to see if having the story fresh in my mind would help me reason out Casperlyst and the new logic for the Reapers. Which has further been compounded be the Leviathon dlc because that seems like it is in part a play by bioware to retroactively justify their endings, their catalyst and their compromising choices.

Sadly though, going over ME1 in particular, i can't help but miss the unknowable malevolence of Soverigns contempt for organic life. Life that exists because the Reapers allow it and will die because they demand it. I miss the ominous threat of the Reapers impending arrival and the games rousing ending, with Anderson stating that a uniting galaxy would find a way to fight them and force them back into darkspace.

Fastforward to ME3 and the reapers have become a mindless horde, the mecha equivalent of a cleansing fire according to glowboy. And their great unknowable purpose? Preserve life! So casperlyst is a cross between a really dumb version of Brainiac from DC and V'Ger from Star Trek The Motion Picture. Ie life must be 'preserved' in reaper form, or at least the essence of advanced life anyway.

I just can't see the connection between Soverign and Harbingers obvious contempt for organics and the new dispassionate reaper motivation espoused by the catalyst program thingy.

And on the topic of hard choices. I expected nothing less for the end of the saga. But the choices given by the very essence of the reapers are not hard choices in my eyes. They are just bad options with forced compromise along with transhumanism pseudo-philosophy about techo hybridisation being the pinnacle of evolution. And is it me or are all the choices apparently aiming to ensure that no continuation of the ME series is possible?

[SHARXTREME]

Hello again, thematically revolted and otherwise revolted gang.

I didn't post here a while(like most of others too), but hey, why not analyze new angle that Leviathan DLC brought to the ending.

I knew that they would effectively change the ending without actually changing the ending, but the extent and implications are rather interesting.

I'll admit, I watched the Leviathan on youtube like I said I will after EC debacle.
So. few things are 'clearer' now.(wink, wink).

I thought(according to now unreliable and wrong first leaks of Leviathan DLC) that they would change the story in such manner that would make the synthesis that much more unattractive, but they managed to actually kill of the Destroy option entirely even for people that were prepared to close both eyes on "petty morality issues"..

According to this new part of the story, Shepard would be stupid to destroy the Reapers, since Reapers are the only ones that are (capable of) keeping the real bad guys in check. Their infamous creators.
Who are not ashamed to tell just how bad they are and were straight to Shepard's face and Shepard is still begging them for their help.

Sadly, again, Shepard seems to just ignore that signs, it just isn't that clear to him with what kind of "people" he's making an alliance. That lack of focus on part of authors is rather strange.

They want to tell the story and finish it with players compliance on one hand, on the other they are still not sure how to make the player to understand what he is actually "supposed to do" now. With this changed story.

The Problem that Reaper creators introduction in the story bring to the already messy table is that they(the Leviathans) are a race that use(d) others like they saw fit, controlling other, weaker, species for their goals. Until Catalyst messed with their plans in such manner.
With Reapers gone in Destroy, nothing will be able to stop the Reapers/Catalyst Creators. I wonder what Leviathans would think of next with Reapers gone.

So, what's left for the poor, desperate Shepard who is determined to bring the Leviathans to the Reaper killing party?
Refuse?
Control?..
And Synthesis?!
wow, that's a real tough one now.
We are now dealing with two, equally evil enemies and poor, genetically and technologically inferior species of the galaxy in the middle.
Shepard can choose to make a pact with one devil(Catalyst) in Synthesis, other devil(Leviathan) in Destroy and his own devil AI in Control. or choose to ignore it all and accept that some things cannot be changed and that some kinds of peace are just much more wrong then a endless, non winable war.

Again, I seriously doubt that writers intentions(or grander plan) in this whole mess, was to story to "end" in such manner like I described above and how I personally think of it now after watching the Leviathan DLC on YT.
I will admit, I stopped caring for ME after high expectations and baaad delivery, but most of all after author's silence about critiques brought by critics and fans alike and after strange and contradictory statements via Twitter and other means of thought transportation.

Now, after this, for me at least, is perfectly clear that they didn't had any plan for this story, or ditched real plan in the last moment. And about their intentions, who cares. Like most of people here on BSN say when defending their end-choices "Intentions don't matter, results do" I say it too, results matter.
But that's their problem now.
Like some say, with some distance everything is that much clearer and that much further from the heart, so you can see it with that much more objectivity.

I will probably not write here anymore and I would like to thank all wonderful, insightful, smart and dedicated people here for lots and lots of most intelligent and creative thoughts presented in such plain good and open manner.

Goodbye and take care(if anyone still reads this topic). It was an honor and privilege to meet you all here of all places.

(and sorry for somewhat too dramatic exit if someone perceives it that way. That wasn't the intention )

[Devil Mingy]

The call of Leviathan has brought me back. While I have not personally played it (nor do I have any intentions to), I have watched a handfull of playthroughs with different squaddies to get the story. I can't comment on the gameplay, though I personally thought it looked rather repetetive. I've never considered combat to be Mass Effect's strong point, even for the improvements made in Mass Effect 3. 

A lot of people seem very impressed by the direction Leviathan is going in addition to the Extended Cut. The Catalyst is now an AI gone mad whose logic is clearly meant to be intentionally flawed. A lot of people seem to like this development because it allegedly gives us back our villain. It's a nice development, but it's a diversionary tactic at best.

Leviathan and the Extended Cut can add whatever twists and turns to the Catalyst that they wish, it doesn't change the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING as far as the endgame is concerned. Each of its solutions (and the Extended Cut makes it pretty clear that they're his added solutions to his problem) fulfills its purpose and leads to a happy ending. Its views on synthesis being perfect are shown to be completely correct. Even the Leviathans themselves, who are directly opposed to the Catalyst and its Reapers, are forced to admit  that it's doing a good job. Making the Catalyst crazy or evil just further emphasizes that the story should not make us cooperate and agree with it.

And none of this changes the fact that the final moments of Mass Effect 3 do not resolve the conflict with the Reapers as much as they nullify it by revealing the entire struggle to be to a complete waste of time. Drew Karpyshyn, when commenting on Mass Effect 3's ending, said that he wanted the finale to be all about the Reapers and the Mass Relays. It's a shame that we get farther and farther away from this idea from the ending and with every subsequent DLC. The Mass Relays don't have anything to do with it as all beyond a handwave explanation for how the Crucible can affect the entire galaxy (and as a really dumb symbolic gesture for "winning" the game in the original cut of the ending), and the Reapers cease to be important to the story the moment the Catalyst reveals its purpose. The Reapers are just a cudgel, the best solution to a problem the Catalyst was presented (amazing that a group as powerful as the Leviathans couldn't give him more to work with). Thanks to the Crucible, now just a battery (way to ruin the space magic, Bioware. How do a whole group of scientists building it not figure that out?), it now has three more things to try to solve his stupid organics vs synthetics problem:

Destroy: You'd think that "kill all synthetics" would've been something the Catalyst would've tried before. I guess it takes a lot of power to do it without blowing everything up, though. While the Catalyst even admits it's a short-term solution, it's a nice touch. It's a shame he loses his Reapers in the process, but they're hardly important to this whole thing anymore.

Control: Slightly more difficult is replacing the Catalyst with someone new. It's not a direct solution, but sometimes a regime change can do a world of good. This at least still has relevance to the story that was told before the Star child appeared, though it's very clashing. It's like if Lord of the Rings ended with Frodo claiming the ring as his own... and then everything turns out okay and everyone lived happily ever after.

Synthesis: I have nothing to say about this ending that hasn't already been said. I suppose I can't really fault its perfection. Everyone is completely happy and cooperative and nobody is at all concerned about sharing their lives with zombies and giant killer cuttlefish. Even EDI says that it made her truly alive... which she also said before the final push on London, but you can't trust those damn synthetics before they got their green eyes.

I'm not even going to get into the logical holes that Leviathan adds to the series (except for one). I mean, come on, the Reapers let their original creators escape to live as well as at least one Prothean. It's a good thing the whole tech singularity thing is complete crap; I'm sure a hyper-intelligent AI could easily hide from these morons. Remember when the Reapers were cool? It seems like so long ago.

Or how about the fact that the Leviathan doesn't actually affect anything beyond a few more war assets and a conversation with the Catalyst (that basically comes down to Shepard mentioning them and the Catalyst saying "okay, cool"). I guess it's with us in spirit.

In another topic, Nyoka mentioned that Mass Effect 3's ending is a story driven by ideas, which retroactively made the entire game about ideas. Where Mass Effect 1 gave us nice worldbuilding and a stronger plot and Mass Effect 2 gave us strong character stories, Mass Effect 3 gives us ideas... and few of them are good. Bioware truly seems to have misunderstood the source of joy for many players. Curing the genophage was an interesting story arc because of the characters and the setting, not because of some abstract desire to "break a cycle within a cycle". Mordin's death was a great moment because it fit with his character arc, not because of the abstract idea that "sacrifice is glory". When I was doing the sidequests and gathering war assets, I wanted their support so I could get help and defeat the Reapers in order to save the characters and setting that I enjoyed, not because I simply enjoyed the idea of unity. Then, the ending tells me to care about the abstract idea of "life" instead of the characters that I know and love. It encourages synthesis as a perfect ending not because synthesis fits into the story or because it truly convinces me that it would help stop the Reapers, but rather because synthesis represents of the idea of progression.

Well, I've said my piece. I loved reading through this thread these last few months. I'll return after I youtube the DLC for Omega whenever it comes out.

Modifié par Devil Mingy, 03 septembre 2012 - 07:54 .

[3DandBeyond]

It's just occurred to me that the kid thinks anything that is something he suddenly knows is possible is inevitable and so it becomes something he must work to achieve.

He knows killer robots are possible so it's inevitable they will occur so he must create them (reapers).
He knows about synthesis so it's inevitable (ugh) that it will occur so he must make it happen.

I wish for him to see that the destruction of the reapers is possible so it's inevitable and voila!