Damanique wrote...
I wrote a huge rant about this in another place, so here's my take on it:
---
I finally got around to play the extended cut ending DLC and now of course THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS.
Expecting only a new addition to the ending sequence, it really messed with my head when some new content slipped in before that. And in the way my memory works I'm now not sure if some of the conversation with the Catalyst AI kid was already there or not.
On what happens at the beam
I think BioWare patched this plothole up a bit, but not by much. You get to see how your squadmates escape using the Normandy, but Shepard stays behind. Before I headed out towards the final battle I doubted whether to take Liara or not - I wasn't sure what they were going to do with the new ending, and they might've just decided that your entire squad gets wiped out except for Shepard, no matter who you put in your team. But instead, they are rescued - and because I put Liara in my team after all, she and Shepard share a heartfelt goodbye. That was really something I was missing from the previous ending.
However, the Normandy still shows up out of nowhere as soon as Shepard calls for it, when they were in the middle of running amongst Reapers and explosions and everything. I like the fact that the squad got saved and it explains why they show up on the Normandy later on, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense.
On what happens after the beam
Nothing has changed here - the Illusive Man still blathers on, leading to a slowdown in the story to have some boring conversation. BioWare had initially planned to have boss fight with a monstrous Illusive Man (perhaps much in the way of the Dragon Age 2 ending) but scrapped that. However... an RPG just doesn't feel right without a boss fight. There's a reason Marauder Shields is a meme: it's because a generic enemy shouldn't be the last enemy your main character fights. But then again, Mass Effect is hardly anything like a traditional RPG.
On what happens with the Catalyst
BioWare added a lot of extra dialogue here to explain the Catalyst's origins and the consequences of the choices you make. At least I *think* they did. It blended in naturally with the rest so my memory got confused.
One of the major things that stood out to me was the Catalyst explaining it was once created as a sort of diplomatic AI to negotiate between its organic creators and their synthetic creations. This takes away a lot of that mystical god child nonsense - although still doesn't explain why the kid appears as the kid. The only explanation for that is that Shepard is indoctrinated, because there's no other way the Catalyst would know the importance of the child to Shepard. Some theories argue that the child was a hallucination brought forth from Shepard's PTSD, and that doesn't entirely seem unlikely because nobody else sees the kid, and Shepard keeps dreaming about him. The boy symbolizes all the people Shepard couldn't save and all people she had to sacrifice along the way. Whether the boy was real or not, that symbolic meaning doesn't change. And the only way the Catalyst would know that is if it was in Shepard's head.
But back to the origins of the Catalyst. When it explains its own origins, it becomes (at least to me) crystal clear what it is: a rogue AI. They intended it to come up with diplomatic solutions but it kind of drew the wrong conclusions, It's similar to other plots with intelligent machines in pop culture - in particular, Isaac Asimov wrote about how an artificial intelligence took control of humanity for humanity's own good. It was programmed to make sure no harm could come to humans, and when it saw humans harming themselves and their world, it drew the 'logical' conclusion that humans must be protected from themselves.
The Catalyst is similar. It was programmed to solve a problem: make organic and synthetic life co-exist. Eventually, exhausting all of its options, it came up with a solution that seemed logical - it would take control of both, restoring its own understanding of 'order'. It destroyed its own organic creators against their wishes, turning them into a Reaper. And then it kept doing that for millions and millions of years.
But its logic is flawed. It has only the experience of its organic creator race and their war with their synthetic creations, but based on this, it assumes that this conflict is doomed to repeat itself forever. Even though Shepard proves that this assumption is wrong - by making peace between the quarians and the geth - the Catalyst blatantly ignores that. It still believes its decision to create the Reapers was the right one. But Shepard standing in front of the Catalyst presents a new factor in its logic - it states as much: "You are a new variable."
Whilst EDI shows to be able to reason with a sense of individuality and free will, and even make jokes, the Catalyst is not that advanced at all. Shepard is a new variable in its logical equation and it tries to fix this by coming up with new solutions.
Of course, from a human player perspective, all of this is damn annoying. Because we are Commander Shepard, and we don't listen to what some AI tells us to do. (Although Vigil and the Prothean VI sure helped.)
That's what I thought, too.
On the new choice
So there Shepard stood again, faced with the same three choices. Frustrating. I knew BioWare had said to support the original artistic vision or whatever, but seeing it again agitated me. So for the hell of it, I turned around and shot the Catalyst.
Turns out you're not supposed to do that.
It went "WELL SCREW YOU" and next thing I know I'm looking at Liara's beacon telling me that humanity's cycle was wiped out.
So BioWare gave us a fourth choice. It didn't really help much, but at least we got to shoot the damn kid.
On closure
When I first played the ending I chose Synthesis, but that was before I knew about the easter egg (when you choose Destruction and have 100% readiness through multiplayer, you see a clip of Shepard's armor moving, drawing a breath, after the credits.) So this time, despite my gut feeling saying that Synthesis was still the best solution, I chose Destruction again because deep down I really really want Shepard to live.
Everything else following that was everything I'd hoped for. BioWare changed - or 'clarified' - the effect of the Crucible on the mass relays. They don't go supernova thus not destroying all the star systems. Instead, they kind of break down, and the Catalyst previously stated 'the damage can be repaired'. We see everyone who lived through ME2 still being alive, and depending on our choices during the game, different cards and cutscenes. (They did leave out Ashley though, I mean, huh?) And we see the Citadel being rebuilt. One point of confusion is that I saw quarians on Rannoch still wearing their helmets, but whilst writing this I came across an EC screenshot of a quarian with her helmet off. Sooooo... I guess I missed something somewhere.
My favorite part was the team putting Shepard's name plaque on the memorial wall. The wall was a very important part of my ME3 experience. I would often go to it and simply stand there, looking at the names. People in videogames typically run from quest to quest, shooting this and levelling that. But it was a moment in the game where I became fully immersed in the story, being Shepard, standing there remembering those that died. So seeing that memorial wall showing up again... that was a really good moment.
And the easter egg was still there. Shepard still drew a breath, somewhere in the rubble...
On after the credits
I had hoped they'd taken away the ridiculous old-man-and-kid epilogue. They didn't. Sigh.
I'd also hoped they'd taken away the silly pop-up that told me Shepard was a legend, but they didn't. They did add some text to it, though - thanking the team and the fan community. It's not much, but it's a nice gesture.
Finally
Overall, I'm pleased with the Extended Cut. It didn't give me the epic ending I'd hoped for. What I'd hoped for was a big boss fight with the Illusive Man and Harbinger, and the Crucible just being a big effing bomb with the Citadel being the trigger without any of the choices. That's right - those three choices weren't even necessary. ME1 and ME2 ended in the same linear way. I did like learning about how the Reapers really came about - an AI using flawed logic - but at that point, activating the weapon to destroy the Catalyst and the Reapers shouldn't be a choice under the Catalyst's control. Facing the AI, Shepard should have been able to arm and fire the Crucible without having to comply with the AI's rules. The Catalyst should've freaked the hell out when Shepard appeared at its command centre, able to destroy it and destroy the Reapers.
I thought about it some more and realized that that is exactly what the Catalyst is doing: freaking the hell out. The Control and Synthesis choices are choices that allow the Reapers to continue to exist. They're solutions that the Catalyst approves of, because they solve the problem it was programmed to solve. In Control, Shepard becomes the Reapers, thus uniting organics and synthetics. Whatever Shepard does afterwards does not concern the Catalyst, because it considers its programmed problem to be solved. The same goes for Synthesis - it is a friendlier solution, but it still unites organics and synthetics in a new form. The Catalyst thinks this is the best solution to its problem. It tries to convince Shepard to choose Control or Synthesis, and it tries to discourage her from choosing Destruction by arguing that eventually synthetics will destroy organic life then.
But Destruction is the only choice that is out of the Catalyst's control. It presents it as a choice, but it's more likely that it knows Shepard will destroy everything if it doesn't try to convince her. It has no means of stopping Shepard once she arrives at what I assume to be the Catalyst's command centre, and it knows she'll blow it all to hell if she can. But... that doesn't explain the new fourth choice, where the Catalyst is able to simply deactivate the Crucible. I think it might be bound by its own logic to allow Shepard to destroy it, and that if she refuses to abide by those three choices the Catalyst has an override mode. (As a software programmer I'm thinking about this as an if - elseif - elseif - else way -- the Catalyst cannot access its routines to disconnect the Crucible until Shepard has rejected the three previous choices.)
This is why Destruction is the choice that shows the easter egg of Shepard breathing - because that choice leaves Shepard's mind and body mostly intact and it is the choice the Catalyst - the Reapers, the enemy - does not want. Any other choice is complying, compromising. And throughout the game, Shepard has to make these kinds of choices over and over and as a Paragon Shep you keep compromising. This is the one time you can't compromise, which is something Javik has hinted at over and over. Just like Shepard destroyed over 300,000 batarians, now she has to destroy all of the geth and EDI to free the galaxy from the Reaper cycle. If she chooses Control, the Reapers win. If she chooses Synthesis, she takes away people's freedom to decide the nature of their own existence.
Finally, I think this line of thinking might be what Casey Hudson was going for in the first place. And because I do like this sort of analytical approach to the organic/synthetic dilemma (which is why I practically absorbed all of Asimov's books years ago), I think I get what he was trying to do.
But he didn't realize that the Mass Effect fanbase isn't all analytical thinkers who would like that kind of analytical explanation for everything. We became invested in the characters, the people; the friendships and lovers, the wars and alliances, the losses and the achievements. We didn't just want a logical explanation, we wanted emotional closure. And with the original ending, we didn't get that, and it was almost heartbreaking to have to be with all those characters for years and not have any answers, not being able to say goodbye, not knowing what happened. And I think the Extended Cut at least provided in that a little.
We're shown that the mass relays aren't fully destroyed, that the quarians go back to their homeworld, that the Citadel is rebuilt. Before, it felt like everything was destroyed anyway and there was no point. Now, it really does feel like Shepard saved the galaxy. And that's a good ending.
That's how it was supposed to be in the first place.
Couldn't agree with you more. I personally choose Control because I simply hated the idea of EDI and Geth dying, but then your reasoning simply reflects how those players that hated the EC aren't thinking when they complaining.
Against an army such as Reapers that managed to wipe the galaxy out over and over, you can't really expect a happily ever after ending. It takes the whole galaxy fleet just to keep the Reapers busy so that Shepard can infiltrate the Citedal and allow the Crucible to dock. Another thing to remember is that the Crucible is some kind of "low-tech, low-resources" last-resort weapon that is being designed out of desperation in earlier cycles, and ALWAYS while the Reapers are already attacking. So you can't expect it to be perfect. A damaged Crucible can distorted it enough to even wipe organics out on Earth. It's already a miracle that it could be used to perform Synthesis.
As for the Catalyst, I totally understands it's existance unlike most players that just reject it outright. In order for all Reapers to do the same thing, they must be some kind of central connection, hence the Catalyst. Although it claims that he controls the Reapers, it does not have DIRECT control of the reapers. He simply maintains their functions, not unlike a voltage regulator.
That is why all Reapers have self-conciousness, Harbringer and Sovereign particularly. That is why Shepard couldn't simply say "Hey your solution doesn't work anymore. I made peace between quarian and geth. I get along with EDI. Now take your Reapers and get lost.". Think logically for a minute. If the Catalyst has full control of the Reapers and he concluded that peace could now be achieved by self-detonating all of them, he will do just that. He wouldn't have needed the Crucible. He's an AI remember. AI doesn't know the word "stubborn".
That is why he allows Shepard to fire the Crucible. He knows the Reaper solution no longer works. He knows that if the current cycle could held the Reapers at bay and complete the Crucible, the Reaper's victory is no longer a 100% guarantee in the next cycle. Yes the Crucible isn't perfect since it can't just destroy all Reapers and Shepard go home in one piece (which i believe is the ultimate ideal goal of the person who designed this thing), but it'll have to do.
The Catalyst isn't that big of a character for players to complain about. He is simply an AI that regulates the Reaper's everyday functions as well as a central connection for Reapers to communicate. He can neither stop Shepard from firing the Crucible, nor it can stop the Reapers from continuing their mass murder even though he knows that they no longer meet the Catalyst's goal. He is, to put in his words, a "collective intelligence", and not a controller.
Thats why the Catalyst informs Shepard of the possibility to control the Reapers. By taking DIRECT control of the Reaper fleet, he could use them as he see fit. That is why Shepard use the word "I" in the end, since all reapers are basically him, and that is why the Catalyst use the word "we" since he and the Reapers are different conciousness all together.
For me I see the Destroy firing mode as flawed. It should be able to destroy only the Reapers and leave everything else alone, however thanks to limited time and resources and perhaps thanks to incomplete design specifications left behind by the previous cycle (can't blame them, Reapers are everywhere), it destroys all synthetics, and if your EMS is low and it got damaged, it even destroys organics. I can't bring myself to choose it when I know the Crucible is built during the war and thus it doesn't work as it should have been.
As a weapon to stop the Reapers, it makes sense for it to have Destroy and Control firing modes, however the Synthesis firing mode is quite out of place. Again, think about it. When you're at war with the Reapers, you naturally want them dead or gone, thus you think of ways to do just that. Who the hell would at this moment would think "Hmm lets make a device that will allow me to merge with a machine at the genetic level". It just isn't logical.
Thus, the answer to this plothole is that the Crucible is never designed to fire that way. The Catalyst analysed the Crucible and found out that it could be fired that way even though it's never the device's intention. Thats why Shepard has to jump into the beam instead of interacting with a control panel. That's why the Catalyst think's its the best solution, since unlike the Destroy and Control, the Crucible is being adapted to achieve his goal, rather than make do with the Crucible's primary intention.
Many players like the new "Refuse" option, however I see it as the very definition of "stubborn". Players who choose this ending seem to forgot one very important fact: the Crucible is designed and improved by countless people who sacrificed themselves to the Reapers over many cycles. By choosing not to use it, you had disregard their sacrifices and allows the Reaper to win once again, simply so that you don't have to listen to the Catalyst. This is no longer the matter of paragon or renegade. This is outright stubborness.
The Extended Cut DLC really has presented the endings properly. It's not perfect, but they did their best. I, for one, acknowledge their hard work. Well done.
Retour en haut
has the highest EMS requirement, is still treated as little more than an easter egg. Would it have been too much trouble to dispense with the "implications" and "speculation" and show Shepard actually rescued? Is Bioware that eager to have Shepard die they can't be bothered with the one Shepard lives ending?
