Eire Icon wrote...
First off OP I feel your pain. My Xbox also decided to pack it in just a few days before the release of ME3 and I was forced to go out and buy a new one. Thankfully I was in a position to take the financial hit and it didn't affect my plans for the end of the greatest trilogy in video game history
My thoughts on the original ending were that it was incomplete, lacked closure and raised more question then it answered. The extended cut I felt addressed these issues to my satisfaction. Below are a few points (just my opinion) on some of the major complaints you and others have voiced over the endings
"My choices didn't matter"
For me, the ending of the ME trilogy was not the last 10 minutes of the game, it was ME3 in its entirety. During the course of the game there were conclusions given to major story arc's of the ME series. Most notably of these were
- The Genophage
- The Quarian Geth conflict
- The role and motivations of Cerberus
- The unification of entire races
Taking the first two, these are major themes throughout the trilogy. Shepard has the power to free the Krogan of the Genophage curse, or doom the species to fight a war under the guise that it is cured, which as a result could well lead to their eventual extinction.
The Quarian and Geth conflict has been there from the start of the series. Shepards decisions can doom either race or in turn unify them to work together as allies. Again Shepards involvement in these issues have monumental consequences to the universe
I simply do not get how, bearing the above in mind, anyone can make the statement that their choices do not matter in ME3
"Why should I accept the Catalysts logic"
Shepard does not have to accept the Catalysts logic. Lets take a look at the endings
Destroy - This option point blank rejects the Catalysts logic. The Catalyst asserts that the created will always rebel against their creators. If Shepard accepts this, destroy is not a viable option as it destroys the beings created to control the chaos. If he believes it is inevitable for Organics and Synthetics to be at war Control or Synthesis are better options. Destroy is only postponing the inevitable if Shepard believes the Catalysts logic
Control - By controlling the Reapers Shepard must sacrifice himself but he is not forced to sacrifice anyone further. By ascending, Shepard can control the Reapers, ensuring that if the "Chaos" returns the galaxy has some ready made defenders. Shepard is now a guardian safeguarding the Galaxies future. The most frequent argument against control seems to be that this would prove the Illusive Man right, and Shepard had earlier said humanity was not ready for control. My take on this is that firstly TIM was obviously indoctrinated, Shepard knew this, and he believed that control was not an option available. Yes Shepard can say we are not ready for it, but he does not have to say that. He can also say something along the lines of "So what are you waiting for, do it. You can't can you, they won't let you". The other point is that Shepard said humanity is not ready for that kind of power, but as the Catalyst points out, he would no longer be human
Synthesis - I think this is possibly one the most misunderstood of all the endings. Firstly just because this is the preferred option of the Catalyst does not make it the wrong option. I've also seen people alluding to the fact that Synthesis takes away diversity in the galaxy. That is not the case. Everyone is altered at DNA level, evolving Organics and Synthetics into a similar DNA structure. This does not mean anyone loses their individuality nor personality. A Krogan is not the same as a human just because they are both organic. They still have their own unique identities. Another statement I've read is that this is what Saren wanted/suggested. That is incorrect. Saren was indoctrinated by Sovereign, he was a slave, a pet of the the Reapers. That is not Synthesis.
"Conventional Victory Should be Possible "
No it shouldn't. Conventional victory against the Reapers was never presented as viable throughout the series. In fact the theme of the series constantly reinforces the fact that it is not. At the 11th hour to introduce this as a possibility, invalidates the course Shepard has always taken. It makes him wrong, it makes the Alliance wrong, it makes everybody wrong. It also diminishes the Reapers as a threat, and also calls into question how the most advanced beings in the galaxy could make such a gross miscalculation. To allow a conventional victory would be going against the theme of the series and THAT would be poor and sloppy writing
Conclusion
My own view is that people have problems with the endings because Shepard is made to make a difficult choice with no clear "Right choice" available. No matter what you choose their are moral issues associated with the choice. I can understand why people want that "Right" choice where everything is wrapped up in a nice little package and everyone is saved etc. I do understand that, but the fact that it isn't an option does not make the endings bad, or badly written. "A choice without consequence is not really a choice" and there are huge choices for Shepard to make at the end of ME3. Shepard has always just been able to influence the ME universe, he has never been able to dictate its fate.
In response to the boldened parts,
1. That's great for you, but if everybody felt that way, there would be a lot less complaining about the ending. However, we are not talking about Mass Effect 3 as a whole, that is a whole different conversation, and an off topic one.
2. These are not themes. The former is the cause of animosity betweem the Krogan and the rest of the galaxy, and the latter is as you said, a conflict. The theme of the war betweem the Quarians and the Geth is Organics vs. Synthetics.This has existed throughout the Mass Effect series, but it wasn't made a major focus until we got to the ending, when the Catalyst reveals his creators' logic.
3. I wouldn't understand that statement either, but that's because you're taking it out of context. On a side note, let me just say this: Only in Mass Effect 3 is there actually an option for the game to make your decisions for you, not to mention the dumbed down dialogue interface. The choices you make do matter, but only on a subjective scale. Do you want me to go over how much we were flat-out lied to about the game?
4. Wait, what??? If Shepard believes that synthetics will always rebel against organics and try to kill them, then Destroy is not viable because it kills the 'synthetics' who were made by organics to kill organics so that they won't be killed by their own synthetics? I can't even tell how badly mind-f***ed I am right now.
5. You're still confusing me. The Reapers represent "Order" and advanced organic life represents "Chaos." But Shepard isn't safeguarding the galaxy's future. Shepard is assuming control of the single strongest "Military Police" force in the galaxy's history. "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few." Coming from a Reaper, that doesn't sound like a very promising future for such a diverse galaxy. Shepard isn't even the one controlling the Reapers, it's an AI with Shepard being the blue box. You know what else Shepard said? "I'm going to win this war, and I'll do it without sacraficing the soul of our species."
6. There are a lot of things wrong with Synthesis. Its thesis is "If you can't beat them, join them," which is exactly what Saren believed. While Saren may have been indoctrinated, Sovereign was sentient. Saren didn't just find Sovereign, hijack it, and then become indoctrinated while cruising around the galaxy. He helped Sovereign because he genuinely believed that organics should join the Reapers, live with them in harmony, prove their usefulness, because it would be their best chance at survival. The space magic that is Synthesis, turns everyone into Reapers, in technicality. You said no one loses their individuality or personality, but I don't buy that. So everyone in the same galaxy that was fighting a brutal war with the Reapers is just completely fine about being buddies with Harbinger, and are okay with the fact that one person got to make the decision to alter the DNA and identity of hundreds of billions of people? It may be up to Shepard, but no one else in Mass Effect in their right mind would support Synthesis as opposed to Control, Destroy, or Refuse.
And ultimately, all of the end choices support the Catalyst's, and Dungeon Masters Hudson and Walters' logic. The Catalyst believes that Synthetics and Organics will always be at war, and trying to kill each other. Destroy solves this by destroying Synthetics, Control solves this by giving Shepard control over the Reapers to destroy synthetics if they ever get out of line, and Synthesis merges organics and synthetics into one identity, so there wouldn't be anymore conflict.
7. "No it shouldn't. Conventional victory against the Reapers was never presented as viable throughout the series. In fact the theme of the series constantly reinforces the fact that it's not.
I really hope your joking. When was there ever a sense of
"Negative. This is it. There can be no retreat. No retreat and no stepping back. No progress forward and no defeating the Reapers."
"The first sign of any trouble f*** em' all."
"Negative. No defeating the Reapers. Repeat, no defeating the Reapers. Innocent people die."
"And if they don't?"
"SAY AGAIN!?"
"..."
"EXACTLY."
(Anyone who remembers where that's from gets a cookie.)
Admiral Hackett's "There's no way we can beat them conventionally," defeatist talk is hardly evidence, and he said that when the Alliance was fighting the bulk of Reaper forces in the Sol system. Up until this point the game (and series) had the player believe that they were going to defeat the Reapers (I made a post that give a good pile of instances). That is another reason why people hate the ending, the last ten minutes are so anticlimactic. Do you know what is even sloppier writing? Having an enemy that is invincible.
8. I hope you understand why people don't like the endings. Try to justify them all you want, they are insulting, out of place, unfulfilling. They are nonsensical, and go against Shepard's character. Fans were promised that all their actions through all the games, and acquiring all those war assets would affect the ending in a meaningful way, but then they realized just how much bull**** they were being fed when they completed Mass Effect 3. I've been getting PMs from several people telling me that they agree with me, so if you want to know why (atleast some) people don't like the ending, and still don't, re-read my thread.
Retour en haut
