@ OP: Stopping at that point might have worked except it's the ending of a trilogy. It needed a boss ending of some sort or equivalent or Better. It would have been anti-climatic and a huge let down. TIM was an annoyance and not enough of a big player (IMO) to carry the ending.
I think when the platform rose I was sooo excited. full of glee. I so didn't expect to see the little boy walking up to Shepard. I have to say that was a big shock. and what came next was... well... yawl know.
One of the things that peed me off about the Catalyst the most was that you couldn't fast forward through the dialogue/scenes. That was how I found out about the 'refuse' ending. I was so p.o.ed that I started shooting at the Star Kid,
And I still say they should've shown the Turians and Krogan celebrating on Palaven. I mean they did Earth, Thessia and Tuchanka.
So why not Palaven?
Yeah but the explanation for the Reapers is given by Leviathan.
He tells you exactly who the Reapers are, what their purpose is, why they were created, who created them and why they started harvesting lifeforms. Given this knowledge, the catalyst adds nothing new.
Right. If you own Leviathan.
What if you don't?
I don't know if the existing ending minus the Catalyst would constitute a good ending per se (too abrupt, perhaps?), but I think it would definitely be preferable to what we got. Maybe I'm just more used to stories where key mysteries are left unsolved, but I didn't really need much of an explanation of the harvest (something like simple self-interest would have sufficed for me). In fact, I was dreading it: The harvest is just kinda dumb if you think about it: What rational justification could there be for wanting to kill all intelligent life on a 50,000 year basis?
It was plainly obvious to me from the beginning that the basic setup of the harvest wasn't constructed with some great scifi concept in mind but more as a way to move the story along: The Reapers wait 50,000 years because otherwise the setting wouldn't be possible, they want to destroy all organic life because that gives Shepard a reason to oppose them no matter how sociopathic he/she is, etc. Within these constraints, I was extremely pessimistic that you could construct an interesting after-the-fact rationalization for why the harvest actually kinda-sorta makes sense, and the whole Catalyst sequence confirmed all of those fears for me.
In a way I would of preferred it. It leaves the reasons for the reapers a mystery and allows for the series to move on from a single point. It also allows for more information about why the reapers did what they did to be sprinkled through other games. Some of it being contradictory would be fine, sort of how dragon age has the mysteries of its gods. Giving out knowledge on exactly whats what regarding the gods would really spoil the setting and the speculation that's built up around them. That kind of speculation regarding the reapers would've been interesting to see.
After a year or so I'm just checking back to see what's new. Oh my, how surprising. The same people are still discussing the ending of the game endlessly. Well, have fun and see you a year later.
ps.: Where's iakus? I can't see any posts of his here, yet he is an ending-enthusiast. Give him my kind regards when he joins the discussion. See ya!
I wouldn't want that. I don't like the conversation or Anderson. I usually have TIM kill the guy.
Wow, I think this is the first thing I've ever disagreed with you on Mike!
I love the 'best seats in the house' scene and can't really imagine it playing out any other way. I always enjoyed the paternal relationship that Anderson has with Shepard and found this to be a very moving conclusion.
That being said, I wouldn't want it as the ending. The endings are questionable enough as they are but at least there's a semblance of choice.
I didn't like him calling femshep child when she's not. Why couldn't he just say "you did good Shepard"? There are other reasons, but for that scene, him saying child I didn't like.
Actually I could have done without everything from the beam run simply because first run through I was so confused. This was before the Extended Cut or Leviathan DLC.
I didn't realise that no matter what I did I would be hit by the beam, so when I was, I thought I'd messed up and the next bit with the husks and marauder is what happens to you if you do. In fact the first time I let myself be killed so the automatic re-load would happen and I could do it again right. Instead I seemed to loop back to facing the husks again, so realised I had better do something.
Then came extreme puzzlement how Anderson and TIM got up there. Still got through that bit and I have to admit the "best seat in the house" was a great line. Would have loved to see the weapon somehow immobilise the Reapers rather than simply destroy them, allowing all those combined forces I'd brought together a bit of a showcase blasting the suckers. I had had a visceral hatred of them ever since my conversation with Sovereign, which hadn't been improved by Harbinger's constant trolling of me in ME2.
Shepard dying for me wasn't a problem. There had been so many hints in conversations during the game and in fact I was convinced Shepard was the Catalyst. In a way I was right since it was necessary for Shepard to make a choice and in two of them sort of integrate with the enemy technology for anything to happen. People had insisted for so long that we couldn't win conventionally that even when offered Refuse, it seemed a bit pointless taking it.
First time through I was so befuddled by the late hour, following on from a marathon playthrough on getting home from work, and the constant odd occurrences, plus the holocat, that I ended up taking the middle way, mostly because of the bright white light that reminded me of my last encounter with Liara. Then I saw Joker's eyes and freaked, convinced that the Reapers (writers) had tricked me into a Reaper victory. Following morning a reloaded and took Destroy. Not totally happy with the collateral damage but at least the EC gave me some closure and rather unexpectedly the possibility that Shepard had actually survived.
The main difference between the ending of ME3 and the other two is how it left me feeling. Not elated, not grinning like a idiot, not triumphant. Just pleased and satisfied that I had got to the end and those damned Reapers had gone for good but a little melancholy as well and not just because I knew that was it for the series. It ws okay but I much preferred the end of ME2. I got through with my whole party intact and my crew rescued and I knew it was because I had made the right choices to achieve that. There was the great end sequence and wonderful stirring, uplifting music to accompany it. It might be clichéd and it might be predictable but that's how I liked it.
I didn't like him calling femshep child when she's not. Why couldn't he just say "you did good Shepard"? There are other reasons, but for that scene, him saying child I didn't like.
Right. If you own Leviathan.
What if you don't?
A question worth putting to the developers even as is, to be had: there is such crucial story-content, why not pack it into the main-game? Same argument can be made about the From Ashes-DLC.
Ultimately in agreement with what osbornep said (whose idea to better tie in the Lazarus-project as to Shepard's irreversible death definitely is something worth a thought when looking at the game entire and not just the finale, but I digress). An abrupt end perhaps with question marks as to the PC's survival or death, but just as valid a point to let an epilogue run along which BW should have done in the first place.
A question worth putting to the developers even as is, to be had: there is such crucial story-content, why not pack it into the main-game? Same argument can be made about the From Ashes-DLC.
I agree, my first playthrough was with the Leviathan/From Ashes/EC DLC and I couldn't imagine playing the game any other way first time. I think it was a huge mistake not including Leviathan and From Ashes into the main game. It was probably what they wanted, but time constraints pushed them into forcing it as DLC. Either that or it was just EA being greedy. But I MUCH prefered the conversation with Leviathan than starkid.
I would've been very disappointed.
Ever since Virmire I had only 2 questions:
Who made you?
Why do you do what you do?
I would not have liked it if these questions wouldn't have been answered. Apparantly, a good portion of the people on here would've prefered the Reapers had not been explained and I just can't wrap my head around that. They've been around for billions of years harvesting countless civilizations, there has to be a 'good' reason for what they do (even if I might disagree with it), and I can't blindly destroy them without knowing their purpose.
For all you know you're going to wipe out the galactic equivalent of bugs and the entire galaxy goes to **** in their absence, just like earth would without bugs.
As I said, this is considering that the Leviathan DLC is installed. You get all that info there. And the conversation there is much better.
On a side note though, I don't think I would mind TOO much if they never explained to us what the Reapers were. It did seem a bit convoluted how Sovereign was going on about how the Reapers are so far beyond our comprehension that we couldn't even begin to fathom their purpose or existence, and then it turns out actually you can, and it's pretty simple to explain, albeit completely retarded.
I think a good compromise would have been if they just left it as explaining that the Reapers are the ones who bring order to the chaos. I liked that line. I just didn't like the fact that the "chaos" was the fact that organic and synthetic life will EVENTUALLY fight. It's such a stupid reason, especially since this isn't something that was being impressed upon you throughout the trilogy.
@ OP: Stopping at that point might have worked except it's the ending of a trilogy. It needed a boss ending of some sort or equivalent or Better. It would have been anti-climatic and a huge let down. TIM was an annoyance and not enough of a big player (IMO) to carry the ending.
I think when the platform rose I was sooo excited. full of glee. I so didn't expect to see the little boy walking up to Shepard. I have to say that was a big shock. and what came next was... well... yawl know.
Yeah, that's sort of how I felt about it as well.
I was expecting the game to finish there.. but when it didn't and the platform rose, I was really excited, albeit a bit confused.
That fell flat really quick though lol.
I'm not saying it would have been perfect for the game to end at the anderson convo. But it would have been enough for me.
I mean look out the window, Shepard's clearly in space... unless I'm missing something here?
The elevator lifts Shepard to the little platform that you always see when they show the Citadel from the outside. (it's inside the center ring)
For reference, here's a diagram when the Crucible docks with that platform to cross-reference with that video:
I was never a fan of the Shepard/Anderson scene, and the one before it with TIM was one of the worst in the game.
If everything blew up when we hit the beam it would have been a better ending than everything we got after.
I agree with her sentiments.
This is why we see these movies and tv shows that are based off books (Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter) being so damn successful..
You can easily tell when the writers had a fully fleshed out story versus when they just went along with it, adding bits to the story as they went along. They end up backing themselves into a corner they don't know how to get out of, because they never really considered the ending. Which is exactly what happened here unfortunately..
I am sure that if they had known that the ending would have amounted to "the Reapers do what they do in order to keep the organics/synthetics conflict under control" they would have at least made a point of showing us all throughout the whole trilogy just WHY synthetics were such a problem. Maybe they would have given more emphasis on the geth and changed their story around a bit, or would have introduced another AI race that wanted to wage war on it's creators, instead of presenting Cerberus as the main enemies.
I agree with her sentiments.
This is why we see these movies and tv shows that are based off books (Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter) being so damn successful..
You can easily tell when the writers had a fully fleshed out story versus when they just went along with it, adding bits to the story as they went along. They end up backing themselves into a corner they don't know how to get out of, because they never really considered the ending. Which is exactly what happened here unfortunately..
I am sure that if they had known that the ending would have amounted to "the Reapers do what they do in order to keep the organics/synthetics conflict under control" they would have at least made a point of showing us all throughout the whole trilogy just WHY synthetics were such a problem. Maybe they would have given more emphasis on the geth and changed their story around a bit, or would have introduced another AI race that wanted to wage war on it's creators, instead of presenting Cerberus as the main enemies.
I think it's slightly worse than that, as the writers -- especially in ME3 -- continually showed us that the AI characters were the most reasonable and accepting people in the galaxy; and that peace and cooperation between the two is entirely possible. The writers didn't even plan ahead within a single game. This makes the Catalyst revelation even more jarring as it's existence and the entire premise for the ending choices is directly undercut by the story itself.
Still a terrible ending. Though perhaps not as terrible as what we were forced to endure. In the same way that a quick, clean death is better than painfully bleeding out.
I think it's slightly worse than that, as the writers -- especially in ME3 -- continually showed us that the AI characters were the most reasonable and accepting people in the galaxy; and that peace and cooperation between the two is entirely possible. The writers didn't even plan ahead within a single game. This makes the Catalyst revelation even more jarring as it's existence and the entire premise for the ending choices is directly undercut by the story itself.
Exactly. The Geth were clearly victims/oppressed and the Quarians were the oppressors. We have every indication to believe that, had the Quarians not been total dicks to the Geth, they would have co-existed peacefully. The only reason we the player fight the Geth at all throughout the whole trilogy is because of the Reaper's indoctrination. EDI also was always very reasonable, helpful and loyal.
Not to mention that even if starchild was right in implying that synthetics would always rebel against organics, in no way at all does it seem logical that synthetics would be able to wipe out all organic life (starchild's second implication), especially when you've got the Krogan breeding at a rate of 100 zillion a year. I'd love to see synthetics try and keep up with their sheer numbers.
I would have at least liked the option to tell starchild "**** you. We will rebuild, and there will be peace among synthetics and organics just as there is now, except you won't be around to screw things over anymore, you instigating piece of ****" ...but of course the only dialogue option similar to that is one where we also refuse to do anything and let everyone die.
Watch this, then watch the starchild dialogue.
It's like... is this even the same game?
IMHO, ME3 could have easily achieved a 98 metascore – however the ENDING made it nose dive. This is like making a fine-tuned Ferrari or a polished Rolls Royce ---- without a muffler.
Those who voice their disillusionment have good reason for what's been said -- since it blatantly violates one of the BASIC rules in theatrical journalism - and that is - you don't spend enormous time developing a character that the viewer (or player) can become attached to - then kill them off (synthesized, whatever).
Most folks play a game for a month or two. If their hero dies or is “synthesized” (as in Deus-Ex 1), no big deal. Case closed – end of game. It is quite a different situation when years & years pass over the span of 3 games and the bond between characters set in. Those who are predominately UPPER LEFT brain usually don’t give a hoot how the ending goes (only the objective matters). Alternatively those who are more predominately LOWER RIGHT will crash & burn (the people & relationships are everything). This is made blatantly obvious during elections. The rest of us (mix) find it annoying, infuriating, and cumbersome.
In regard to ME3's ending, Bioware will need to pull itself out the ditch on this one if they ever plan to recover R&D costs for the next Mass Effect game -- since they have royally infuriated a majority of their client base. With the megabucks poured into game development, they *MUST* get a straight-A as "mediocre" isn't going to cut it - any more than a "mediocre" doctorate thesis. Even if they DO manage to get a straight-A in the next ME game, the loss of such a customer base is questionable - I wouldn't invest any stock in EA or Bioware right now.
I would lean 80% to terminating the game at the “best seat in the house” point in the game. This would have allowed some thought & design as to the INTRODUCTION into ME4 and answered some questions ( similar to the start of ME2). Catalyst didn’t really answer much for me – Leviathan did. Imagine what would have happened if Shep was killed at the end of ME1 and resurrected in ME2. Outrage! The only thing I would have changed in the “best seat of the house” scene is:
Shep: Do you think I’ll get a medal for saving the galaxy?
Anderson: (smirks, begins to chuckle, begins to laugh, then quietly dies)
-or-
Anderson: Hell no – you shot me! (yes, I know Shep wasn’t in control)
-or-
Anderson: Hell no – you let TIM shoot me.
-or-
Anderson: Hell yes – somebody has to kick those council jackasses in their butts
Cliff hangers are made to incite you to buy the next game. I think Bioware pushed their luck too far on this one.
I didn't like him calling femshep child when she's not. Why couldn't he just say "you did good Shepard"? There are other reasons, but for that scene, him saying child I didn't like.
FemShep: gets the self-conscious "soft around the middle," screwed out of two LIs, then gets treated like a child at the end.
Retour en haut
