A great many people are still dissatisfied with the endings. A great many other people are content, at least after the EC. No matter if you hate or like the endings, there's no real argument against some issues they have.
Knowing myself and the less than ideal tone I have often used against the developers after the release of ME3, I would like, for once, to explain to BioWare what I think is wrong with the endings in a way that hopefully will not be found insulting to the developers who took their time to craft this game.
DESTROY
What happens: Shepard uses the Crucible to destroy the Reapers at the cost of all synthetics.
The issue: My take on this is that BioWare was trying to avoid the laser-precision IWIN-gun syndrome of other superweapons by giving the Crucible a pretty juicy and painful side effect. Pre-EC, we lost all technology in the entire galaxy - even the cybernetics in Shepard's body. They actually achieved what they were going for by allowing the Crucible to achieve victory at a high cost. The problem is that the cost is too great and the ending is way too bitter to be emotionally rewarding.
The EC changed this to make Destroy more emotionally rewarding and at the same time keeping the sacrifice part of the deal. However, now the Crucible has become a laser-precision IWIN-gun against synthetics. While intelligent, synthetics are made of wiring, electronics and other components found in regular, every-day technology. Some people head-canon this by saying the Crucible only targets Reaper Code, which makes a little sense considering the Reaper Code used in EDI's anti-Reaper cyberwarfare functions and the code used to upgrade the geth to true intelligence.
The problem here is that the Reapers are the only synthetics who needs Reaper Code to stay operational. EDI's primary/basic functions does not use Reaper Code, only her anti-Reaper functions do. Getting hit with the Destroy beam would pretty much only amount to her losing her ability to stand toe-to-toe with Reapers in cyberwarfare (which is made moot point by the Destroy beam, anyway).
As for the geth, they do not rely on Reaper Code to function either. Getting hit with the Destroy beam would render them as dumb as they were before being upgraded, but it wouldn't destroy them.
The issue, then, is that EDI, the geth and synthetics are killed not because it makes sense, but because the plot requires them to die.
This exact problem is present in another game - Fallout 3. For those who have not played Fallout 3, the player is required to activate a water purifier at the end of the game which will save the Washington DC wasteland and provide clean water at the cost of the player character dying from very quick radiation poisoning inside the purifier's central chamber.
The issue with Fallout 3's ending was that the player character could be accompanied by two characters who were immune to radiation (and healed by it, as a matte of fact). One of them, Charon, is a ghoul - a mutated human turned into what looks like a living zombie who is healed by radiation. Asking Charon to take the radiation hit instead of the PC resulted in him refusing. This made some sense, as ghouls exposed to high levels of radiation suffer brain degeneration until they eventually become feral.
The other character, Fawkes, is a super mutant - another form of mutated humans exposed to a virus responsible for all the post-war animal and human mutations. Unlike Charon, there is no logical reason for Fawkes to refuse taking the PC's place in the irradiated end-game chamber. He is completely immune to radiation (super mutants can survive over 4000 rads per second in-game for an indefinite amount of time... the player can only suffer 999 rads before dying).
That was because the plot called for the PC choosing between giving his/her own life, sending a main plot NPC to her death in the PC's place or idling outside the chamber and allowing the water purifier to explode, killing them all and condemning the DC wasteland to a slow and grim death. The consistency of the plot was ruined by the plot itself.
This was eventually changed in a DLC addon because Bethesda listened to the feedback to the original ending. The DLC changed it so both Fawkes and Charon could take the PC's place in the chamber with no ill effects. Not only that, the PC no longer died from entering the chamber him/herself.
This is something BioWare should have considered. There was no real logic behind synthetics being killed by the Destroy beam. Sticking by one's artistic vision cannot be justified if the consistency of the plot is ruined by the plot itself. Ideas that seem good on paper are often the ideas that need to be removed for the good of the story - "Killing your darlings". My opinion is that BioWare's writers did not kill enough of them in the writing process of the endings.
CONTROL
What happens: Shepard gives up his/her life to merge with the Reaper consciousness and become the new Catalyst.
The issue: The first and foremost problem with Control is that it is an 11th hour solution that was never really considered as a legit solution in the first 10 hours. Most characters, Shepard included, ridiculed TIM for even considering the notion of controlling the Reapers.
From the first second of ME1 to the last before the conversation with the Catalyst, Shepard's primary, unchanging goal has been the destruction of the Reapers. For some reason, this changes not five minutes after the conversation where Shepard convinces TIM to kill himself because his plan to control the Reapers is doomed to fail.
Here, the consistency of the plot is once more ruined by the plot itself. I can understand BioWare's reasoning. Multiple endings are a BioWare staple, and there's not that many flavors to Reaper destruction. Unfortunately, the solution does not actually solve the problem - if anything, it introduces more of them.
It could have been mitigated by actually giving Shepard a chance to support Control as a legit alternative to the "Kill Reapers"-plan present throughout the trilogy. As that never happens, Control feels tacked on - and probably is.
SYNTHESIS
What happens: Shepard jumps into the Crucible beam to bridge the proverbial gap between organics and synthetics through what is presumed to be nanoscopic cybernetics of some sort.
The issue: Besides being, frankly put, scientific nonsense, Synthesis also presupposes that a lasting peace between organics and synthetics is, 1) Impossible without cybernetics and software, and 2) requires cybernetics and software. Logically, peace would be achieved through societal changes and diplomacy... like we saw at the end of the Rannoch arc.
The consistency of the plot is ruined by the plot itself.
I honestly don't know what the writers thought here. Transhumanism has never been a theme in Mass Effect. Never. The Lazarus Project was the only thing coming even remotely close to having transhumanism themes, and it was forgotten after the first mission in ME2. Cybernetics have always been kept in the background of the Mass Effect universe unlike, for example, Deus Ex, where it's intricately woven into the main plot and where transhumanist endings like both of Helios' endings are justified.
Another problem with Synthesis is that unlike Destroy and Control, it has no negative side effects besides Shepard dying and also required the most EMS to achieve. This has led fans to believe that BioWare are shilling the ending as the best ending (and it was even named such in the leaked game script), whereas others speculate and invent negative side effects that have no real basis in what we see in the game.
Ultimately, the consistency of the plot is ruined by the plot because the writers were so attached to the Merge-idea that they could not cut it out.
REFUSE
What happens: Shepard refuses to use the Crucible, condemning the current cycle to a slow, grim death and forwarding the responsibility of stopping the Reapers to the next cycle.
The issue: People asked for the opportunity to refuse using the Crucible because they didn't want to win on the Catalyst's terms. Yet the next cycle's victory is explained with them having used the Crucible to win, which makes Shepard's (and the player's) defiance completely moot.
Another issue with Refuse is precisely that it isn't a legit ending where Shepard can win without dying. If it was, there would be zero incentive to pick the other three endings. That makes Refuse a redundant choice, fuelling the notion among fans that it was included as an insult to the people who disliked the Crucible and the Catalyst as plot devices.
THE CATALYST
What happens: When Shepard attempts to activate the Crucible, the leader of the Reapers appears to offer Shepard three different solutions to the Reaper problem.
The issue: If the leader of my sworn enemies came to me and gave me three options to destroy him and his army, would I believe him? The answer is naturally no. The endings of Mass Effect requires me to answer yes for them to work. If Refuse was a legit ending, no one would pick the other three endings, making them redundant, which is probably why Refuse is a no-win ending.
Lorewise, Shepard has absolutely zero reasons to believe the Catalyst is speaking the truth. It's the leader of the Reapers. Shepard has mouthed off to both Sovereign and Harbinger before without trusting a word they've said. So what's the difference with the Catalyst?
The Catalyst is a plot device required to make the desired plot work, and Shepard trusting the Catalyst is also required for the plot to work.
Once more, the consistency of the plot is ruined by the plot itself. The idea of the Catalyst was probably so well-liked among the writers that they failed to see the effects it would have on the plot.
BATTLE FOR EARTH
What happens: With TIM's help, the Reapers claim the Citadel and moves it to Earth so they can beam up humans to be processed into a Capital Ship Reaper.
The issue: Anyone familiar with the plot of ME1 will remember that the Citadel controls the Relay network. From the Citadel, one can shut down the entire network, stranding individual star systems or species. The Reapers have used this to make the harvests easier by compartmentalizing the enemy resistance.
The endings begs the question, "Why didn't the Reapers just shut down the Relay network to prevent Shepard from bringing the Crucible to Earth?"
Because if they did, the Battle for Earth would be impossible and the Reapers would win. In order for the plot to work, the Reapers had to forget they could shut down the Relay network from the Citadel.
The consistency of the plot is ruined by the plot itself because the writers were so attached to the idea of the final battle taking place on Earth that they couldn't let it go (or EA insisted on it so they could use Take Earth Back as a marketing tagline...).
SUMMARY
Writers, both professional like the people at BioWare and amateurs like myself, can become so attached to ideas we like that we fail to see how badly those ideas will mesh with the rest of our writing. Our attachment also prevents us from objectively scrutinizing our own work or allowing others to scrutinize the ideas for us. To produce good writing, we have to kill our darlings - our best ideas.
I hope the writers at Montreal will stay aware of this and do their best to scrutinize their own work and get rid of the ideas they love the most that will cause the most problems in the plot.
The writers of ME3 should have killed their darlings
Débuté par
Guest_Arcian_*
, mars 08 2013 08:40
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 08:44
CronoDragoon
-
- Members
- 10 408 messages
Arcian wrote...
SUMMARY
Writers, both professional like the people at BioWare and amateurs like myself, can become so attached to ideas we like that we fail to see how badly those ideas will mesh with the rest of our writing. Our attachment also prevents us from objectively scrutinizing our own work or allowing others to scrutinize the ideas for us. To produce good writing, we have to kill our darlings - our best ideas.
This is why I tend to believe that the ending had no group feedback, as per that one "officially declared fake" post on Penny Arcade. It's hard to identify and kill darlings by yourself; usually it takes an editor and/or writing group to point out to you exactly what needs to go to make a story work.
#3
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 08:44
mumba
-
- Members
- 4 997 messages
I'm sorry. I was too busy looking at your profile pic, what did the OP say?
That honestly is the BEST profile pic I have ever seen in my entire life.
That honestly is the BEST profile pic I have ever seen in my entire life.
Modifié par Mumba1511, 08 mars 2013 - 08:44 .
#4
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 08:49
SpamBot2000
-
- Members
- 4 463 messages
Mumba1511 wrote...
I'm sorry. I was too busy looking at your profile pic, what did the OP say?
That honestly is the BEST profile pic I have ever seen in my entire life.
The OP said the writers were too attached to certain pet ideas to see how bad they were for the whole of the work.
It is a possibility, but it seems to me they snuck their Deus Ex ABC into the game in secret because they had some idea of how it was going to be received. It would take an entire beach of cocaine to develop the megalomanic tendencies necessary to feel like this rip off torch job was some stroke of genius.
Modifié par SpamBot2000, 08 mars 2013 - 08:53 .
#5
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 08:56
Edolix
-
- Members
- 2 663 messages
I didn't read it all, but I love your dissection of Destroy and Control. Didn't bother reading Synthesis as we all know how derpy that nonsensical rubbish is anyway.
#6
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:00
Village_Idiot
-
- Members
- 2 219 messages
A well written post OP, and one I agree with for the most part.
Your discussion of the whole synthetics/Reaper code argument is one I particularly like. The whole "Synthetics are targeted" notion seems bizarre given that the label "Synthetic" is hardly cut and dried. Even the Reapers themselves are defined as "Synthetic-Organic constructs".
Your discussion of the whole synthetics/Reaper code argument is one I particularly like. The whole "Synthetics are targeted" notion seems bizarre given that the label "Synthetic" is hardly cut and dried. Even the Reapers themselves are defined as "Synthetic-Organic constructs".
Modifié par Shadrach 88, 08 mars 2013 - 09:06 .
#7
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:04
Big Bad
-
- Members
- 1 714 messages
Excellent post, OP! The thematic inconsistencies created by the ending are BY FAR my biggest complaint the game.
#8
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:08
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
I think the underlying racism and war crime worship are far bigger issues for the ending...
Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mars 2013 - 09:10 .
#9
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:12
Village_Idiot
-
- Members
- 2 219 messages
Bill Casey wrote...
I think the underlying racism and war crime worship are far bigger issues to the ending...
In all fairness, people are being forced to make do with what they've got. All the endings are abhorrent, I'd never delude myself that any of them are completely free of some very morally questionable concepts. But as of now, it's all we have, MEHEM notwithstanding.
Modifié par Shadrach 88, 08 mars 2013 - 09:12 .
#10
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:18
TODD9999
-
- Members
- 455 messages
Nicely written. Personally, I found the entire ending to be a thematic misstep, where the overall theme of "success against the odds" (whether by renegade or paragon means) as seen in all three games was suddenly supplanted by the intermittent B-theme of "organics vs. synthetics" (a theme which can be directly contravened in-game by the geth/quarian and EDI plotlines). The Reapers were synthetics, but they were not the enemy because of that. It was their goal of galactic annihilation that was the problem, a goal that could have been held by organic, synthetic, or hybrid life.
#11
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:19
WarGriffin
-
- Members
- 2 666 messages
You're pretty much spot on.
It's very much why Nyreen dies in Omega... Cause The plot needs to get rid of her.
The sheer fact The Fall of the Citadel you know something that would be the single most important event in the War.
IS OFFSCREEN'D , is for me, the definiton of lazy writing and is almost downright insulting.
It's very much why Nyreen dies in Omega... Cause The plot needs to get rid of her.
The sheer fact The Fall of the Citadel you know something that would be the single most important event in the War.
IS OFFSCREEN'D , is for me, the definiton of lazy writing and is almost downright insulting.
Modifié par WarGriffin, 08 mars 2013 - 09:26 .
#12
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:24
Reorte
-
- Members
- 6 594 messages
I don't know about Omega (not played it) but there is an awful lot of "we want this to happen because we've read somewhere that following this tick list achieves this emotional response and we couldn't care less whether or not it makes any sense or not" in ME3.WarGriffin wrote...
You're pretty much spot on.
It's very much why Nyreen dies in Omega... Cause The plot needs to get rid of her.
#13
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:25
BigEvil
-
- Members
- 1 201 messages
An excellent post, I only wish I had something as eloquent to add.
Thinking of the Battle for Earth and the Relay network, the only thing I've heard mentioned by people trying to argue that the Reapers couldn't shut it down was this: That the file that Vigil gives Shepard in ME1 to take control of the Citadel temporarily changed things or did something which prevents the Reapers or even the Catalyst from shutting down the Relay network. Rather weak, but it might be something people want to consider.
Thinking of the Battle for Earth and the Relay network, the only thing I've heard mentioned by people trying to argue that the Reapers couldn't shut it down was this: That the file that Vigil gives Shepard in ME1 to take control of the Citadel temporarily changed things or did something which prevents the Reapers or even the Catalyst from shutting down the Relay network. Rather weak, but it might be something people want to consider.
#14
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:26
corporal doody
-
- Members
- 6 037 messages
WarGriffin wrote...
You're pretty much spot on.
It's very much why Nyreen dies in Omega... Cause The plot needs to get rid of her.
Nyreen is FAR from a Woman in the Refrigerator!
#15
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:27
BSpud
-
- Members
- 1 040 messages
corporal doody wrote...
TL;DR...
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
?
if u noe gud @ reeding, mebbe u shuld nawt yooz internets
?
#16
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:27
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 631 messages
Arcian wrote...
While intelligent, synthetics are made of wiring, electronics and other components found in regular, every-day technology. Some people head-canon this by saying the Crucible only targets Reaper Code, which makes a little sense considering the Reaper Code used in EDI's anti-Reaper cyberwarfare functions and the code used to upgrade the geth to true intelligence.
I would locate the problem in a slightly different place. Bio carefully set up their universe so AIs would be killable (they've never liked what raising the dead (easily!) can do to plots; even when they were playing in the FR they would just ignore or handwave resurrection.) Shut down the blue box and the AI is dead even if you can reactivate a different AI on that equipment later. That would have worked fine in Destroy. The problem is that the geth were established as not working like Citadel AIs.
Also note that while letting the geth live would have made the balance between the endings even worse than it is, Destroy could have been rebalanced around the issue of relay repairs. AIs don't die, but the relays won't be repaired for hundreds of years. Tali doesn't live to see Rannoch again. The turians and quarians stay in Sol system living off the liveships (unless the quarians are dead in which case the turians just starve). And so forth. I think this was Ieldra2's suggestion a few months back.
Most characters, Shepard included, ridiculed TIM for even considering the notion of controlling the Reapers.
Note that in a conversation with Hackett Shepard is permitted to wonder if TIM's right., at the player's discretion
The major problem is not being able to have this attitude during the TIM conversation on the Citadel. This was the second-most annoying bit of autodialogue in the entire game for me (#1 is Shepard wanting to stay on Earth and fight).
Modifié par AlanC9, 08 mars 2013 - 09:27 .
#17
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:30
CronoDragoon
-
- Members
- 10 408 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Also note that while letting the geth live would have made the balance between the endings even worse than it is, Destroy could have been rebalanced around the issue of relay repairs. AIs don't die, but the relays won't be repaired for hundreds of years. Tali doesn't live to see Rannoch again. The turians and quarians stay in Sol system living off the liveships (unless the quarians are dead in which case the turians just starve). And so forth. I think this was Ieldra2's suggestion a few months back.
I've suggested it as well. It's both more logical and less morally problematic than what happens now, while still giving people who aren't dead-set on an ending (ie, those that the EDI/geth dying were meant to sway) enough pause to consider Control and Synthesis.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 mars 2013 - 09:31 .
#18
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:30
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 631 messages
BigEvil wrote...
Thinking of the Battle for Earth and the Relay network, the only thing I've heard mentioned by people trying to argue that the Reapers couldn't shut it down was this: That the file that Vigil gives Shepard in ME1 to take control of the Citadel temporarily changed things or did something which prevents the Reapers or even the Catalyst from shutting down the Relay network. Rather weak, but it might be something people want to consider.
I've also heard that the prothean scientists sabotaged the controls.
#19
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:34
corporal doody
-
- Members
- 6 037 messages
BeefheartSpud wrote...
corporal doody wrote...
TL;DR...
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
?
if u noe gud @ reeding, mebbe u shuld nawt yooz internets
?
the TC is a year late with this and the OP is made by someone claiming to be an amateur writer..... eloquent words belie the discontent that has been ever present.
wah post no matter how long or snazzy is wah post.
me r no reed guud
Modifié par corporal doody, 08 mars 2013 - 09:50 .
#20
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:34
WarGriffin
-
- Members
- 2 666 messages
corporal doody wrote...
WarGriffin wrote...
You're pretty much spot on.
It's very much why Nyreen dies in Omega... Cause The plot needs to get rid of her.
Nyreen is FAR from a Woman in the Refrigerator!
But there was no logical reason for her to kill herself to defeat those adjuncts,
#21
Guest_Arcian_*
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:34
Guest_Arcian_*
Guest_Arcian_*
-
- Guests
I've only heard that they sabotaged the Keeper signal, preventing Sovereign from opening the Citadel Relay remotely.AlanC9 wrote...
BigEvil wrote...
Thinking of the Battle for Earth and the Relay network, the only thing I've heard mentioned by people trying to argue that the Reapers couldn't shut it down was this: That the file that Vigil gives Shepard in ME1 to take control of the Citadel temporarily changed things or did something which prevents the Reapers or even the Catalyst from shutting down the Relay network. Rather weak, but it might be something people want to consider.
I've also heard that the prothean scientists sabotaged the controls.
#22
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:35
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 631 messages
CronoDragoon wrote...
I've suggested it as well. It's both more logical and less morally corrupt than what happens now, while still giving people who aren't dead-set on an ending (ie, those that the EDI/geth dying were meant to sway) enough pause to consider Control and Synthesis.
I would have liked it fine.
Another option would be to have the Citadel Relay instantly detonate when the Catalyst is killed by the Crucible --(other relays aren't intelligent so their control systems don't break down when the Crucible fires). Hackett's fleet FTLs out with Normandy, but Earth, 90% of the human race, all the ME2 squadmates, and Shepard are incinerated. (I guess that means the "Shep lives" ending would have to be Synthesis?)
#23
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:35
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
UNESCO's international bioethics committee would consider synthesis an extremely serious war crime...
The Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery would make enslaving the Reapers a war crime...
The Principle of Proportionality would make Destroy not a war crime, which disturbs me more than if it was. I wish I hadn't learned that...
The Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery would make enslaving the Reapers a war crime...
The Principle of Proportionality would make Destroy not a war crime, which disturbs me more than if it was. I wish I hadn't learned that...
Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mars 2013 - 09:35 .
#24
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:36
corporal doody
-
- Members
- 6 037 messages
WarGriffin wrote...
corporal doody wrote...
WarGriffin wrote...
You're pretty much spot on.
It's very much why Nyreen dies in Omega... Cause The plot needs to get rid of her.
Nyreen is FAR from a Woman in the Refrigerator!
But there was no logical reason for her to kill herself to defeat those adjuncts,
her fear...their numbers....she is by herself....HER NEED TO PROTECT CIVILIANS (emphasized MANY times in her dialogue)
#25
Posté 08 mars 2013 - 09:37
CronoDragoon
-
- Members
- 10 408 messages
There's also the case of why the Catalyst can't do it. Vigil's file would have had to accidentally corrupt the Catalyst's ability to control the relays, since the protheans didn't know about him. Which in turn raises the question of whether or not the Catalyst can control anything on the Citadel, and if not, why he can't control something that he built and is a part of him UGGGGGH.
