718 réponses à ce sujet

[prosthetic soul]

 

No worries I always try to respect everyone's opinion and you have your valid reasons for not liking it, I have mine to like it. So we can just agree to disagree

Yeah, that's a lesson Monica and God need to learn. 

[Vanilka]

The galaxy did luck out on that, I agree. But there are also multiple occurrences in the game where that doubt is also expressed. We get a glimpse into the Crucible from Javik and Vendetta, and Hackett tells you at one point they've found out more about what the Crucible does and that they try to find out how to target the Reapers specifically.
The question if it's a good idea to put their hopes in it has a simple answer. They have no other choice. There's nothing else. Bioware had to pull out something like that because they made the Reapers near unbeatable from early on.

That's true. I think they kind of shot themselves in the foot by not planning ahead because, as you said, they made the Reapers seem like they're absolutely unbeatable, so we needed a plan B. I agree that trusting it is basically the only thing we can really do at that point.
I've always found it interesting though that we actually destroy a few Reapers (or hear about them having been destroyed), you can even get your EMS so high that the war terminal will tell you that you are practically winning, but Hackett keeps being all pessimistic. You just can't please that guy.
But yeah, at that point, I guess that a mysterious magical device thingy is the best thing they could've gone for. Well, at least I have no better idea. With crazy high EMS, it may be even possible to beat the Reapers, I'd say, but they make it sound like it would be a long, long, exhausting, devastating war and the question is whether it would be worth it. I've also seen some people suggest that Shepard should have had a choice to either pour resources into the Crucible or into conventional war. I think that would be cool, too. Well, at least I like the idea of it.
It is true that they do give us some progress on the Crucible. I like to think that by the end, they have a rough idea that it won't blow the whole galaxy up, at least.
 

The Catalyst justifies its reasoning with the heaps of data from all these years that bring the proof.
And since you mentioned geth and quarians, what started that war in the first place? Synthetics disobeying orders, so "Synthetics will always turn against the organics" is right here. Also, the Catalyst states why this would always apply, because Synthetics must per definition always surpass their creators in order to fulfill their purpose, to improve the organics' existence. It tells Shepard that these improvements have limits, and thus Synthetics must be allowed to evolve and that the result is conflict.
And when you say that we can take care of ourselves, yes, we can (that's exactly my reasoning and why I pick Destroy), but this is not what the Catalyst was tasked to do. If either quarians or geth die it would have failed. That knowledge of whoever dies would be lost. You say the Catalyst is incorrect, but that is from your own point of view. If you would put yourself in the Catalyst's position, it has no other way but to try and preserve that knowledge, because that is its task, that's how it was programmed.

You know, that's something I can get behind. Like, if they have observed it many times over, it might make me feel a bit more understanding. "Okay, I still hate you, but I know where you're coming from." Still, I've never understood why do it this way. Why not harvest the naughty synthetics? Or why not peek out once in a while to check whether the dumb vulnerable organics are okay and if they're not, then help those idiots survive, so to speak. I guess we can also go for "This AI is crazy/broken," or something because I still think killing everybody is very, very difficult to justify. (Of course, on meta level, we know the Reapers needed to be explained somehow.)

That's an interesting point of view, actually. Never thought of it like that before. Because when the geth gained awareness, they weren't hostile, right? It was the quarians who started shooting after the geth refused to turn off because, let's face it, nobody wants to die. I admit I feel for the geth. And maybe I'm wrong, but I do. They didn't even know what was going on. Legion's recordings and what we see in the geth consensus make me feel kind of sad. Although I do realise it is very one-sided as we get no such quarian recordings. On the other hand, Tali also said that it was the quarians who first tried to shut them down and then attacked them for fear of being attacked, which confirms what we saw. So we have a situation where (I think) the organics started crap and it had fatal consequences. However, the geth could've killed them all off but didn't. It was slaughter for both sides, but the geth let them go and then minded their own business.
I guess my hate for the Catalyst's logic stems from all that. I don't think the geth are guilty. I'm not saying innocent, but still. That's why I, personally, find the Catalyst's logic unacceptable.
It is true there are a few instances, like the AI in the terminal on the Presidium in ME1, that does attack you... or... well... it... uh... tries.

I admit I don't follow the Catalyst's logic about the improving and evolving leading to conflict. Like... because the machines evolve to gain awareness? And then the organics flip out and there's conflict or what is it that The Catalyst has in mind?

Programming, perhaps faulty one, is another thing I would understand. We don't really see into it that much. I can't really argue with a machine programmed for a specific task. Especially when it was done badly. It's the way it went such a macabre way that makes it weird, I guess. As I said before, of all the possible solutions, to take this turn in particular... Well, it's better not to think about it too hard.

It's funny, though, because with the Destroy ending, its purpose fails completely, doesn't it? It hasn't created any new solutions and the only solution the Catalyst had is gone with the Catalyst itself. I'm grateful that it's there because that's the way I go, but it's not a solution to the Catalyst's problem, I think.
 

Yes, you are right of course and this is the only sentence that makes me wonder. On the one hand, yeah, the Crucible is responsible for the energy.
But where do the options come from? And more importantly, why does the Catalyst repeatedly say that the Crucible changed it and created new possibilities?
Now, for the first, there is a thread (if you're interested in reading it I can look it up and link it here) around here that played with the idea that the tubes for Destroy and Control are attached to the Crucible, which would then make sense that the Catalyst is forced to accept these solutions once the Crucible docks. It would be part of the Citadel only then.
Because it doesn't make much sense to me if these two tubes were attached to the Citadel before. The Catalyst could've just removed them with the Reapers' help if one Cycle would have managed to attach them to the Citadel.
Then the Protheans believed the Crucible could be used to both destroy or control the Reapers, which suggests that these solutions were somehow tied to it.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it's great discussing it, because maybe someone has more ideas or a different approach which would make total sense.

I've always assumed that the options were already there, given that they're on the platform we're standing on, which is part of the Citadel. But what you say about Control and Destroy would make much more sense. I mean, it really would be dumb for the Reapers to develop a device to destroy themselves. So if that's the explanation, it's better than what I thought it was. And if it isn't... well... just don't tell me, okay?

Thanks for the suggestion. I may check the thread out. Maybe it'll give me some possible answers, at least.
 

It's all good, you can get upset that much about a video game, just as much as some people fall in love with it It's great when games evoke such strong emotion, shows that people really care about it.

 

Yeah, I mostly get like that because I genuinely love these games, so I take it too seriously sometimes. I can't count the moments these games made me cry and stuff. I know I complain a lot, but it's mostly because I give a damn.
 

Fair enough. And that also goes back to "how much do you trust the Catalyst" Those are good questions you're asking, and they should be asked, even though the Catalyst already presents their answer a bit already if you're willing to believe it.
One thing I also liked in the ending is that in this moment, all that counted was Shepard. It focused on Shepard, nothing else mattered. And while the player might want to know more about the whole thing, Shepard doesn't really have time to get answers for all the questions, and ultimately, I don't think they're needed. But maybe I see it that way because I did believe the Catalyst was presenting the choices to its best knowledge
Hehe, yeah, Destroy all the way But I like that there are plenty of arguments for Control or Synthesis as well. It's up to each player, there's no right or wrong, everyone just has to justify their choice for themselves and what happens next is totally up to imagination.

True. It's subjective how much reassurance one needs. I admit I'm a very distrustful person in these games because you never know when something comes back and bite you in the butt in BW games, lol.

And indeed. I totally think you can justify any ending, theoretically. I've stated my reasons for why I pick Destroy, but I'm sure people could come up with good reasons for all of them. I wouldn't really go into a fight about which one is better because it's subjective and everybody can play their Shepard the way they want. There's practically no wrong choice. Some people intentionally play "badly" and get low EMS Destroy because it's cool to them.

I can't say I disliked everything about the ending, though. To give it some credit, too, while I have my issues with the writing and execution, I really liked the environment and everything around it since the moment we enter the beam all the way to the Catalyst. The moving walls and all. TIM may be a bastard but his weird reaperfied face looks amazing with the background of the Citadel arms. The planet with the fighting going on in the background on the top of the Citadel. That's something that is really a highlight of the ending to me, personally. And after the discussion with the Catalyst, while there are things that bother me, like the Normandy crashing (Landing?) on some weird planet for some reason, my Shepard's LI getting out looking completely okay somehow (I guess the injury from London wasn't so bad?), but I like the people on their homeworlds celebrating as the Reapers start falling to the ground and the random soldiers getting free from the husks and all. Now that was great, imho.
 

Yeah, discussions like these are great when they're civil. I've seen other folks here and it was not as polite, haha. I think it's nice to discuss because maybe both sides can understand each other (heh, we achieve Synthesis ) and maybe also find some more arguments for or against each case. I'm always happy if I can find out more, or read more ideas/different approaches, that can be a lot of fun.

 

Yeah, that's what I think. It's just fun. It doesn't matter whether I like it or not. The endings are done now. The game is finished. We can just share impressions, good or bad. I just like to talk about the game and... yeah, that's it. I don't really like heated debates, gods forbid arguments on discussion forums. I think there's space for all of us with all our opinions as long as it's all civil.

[themikefest]

That's true. I think they kind of shot themselves in the foot by not planning ahead because, as you said, they made the Reapers seem like they're absolutely unbeatable,

What makes them unbeatable is their numbers. Here's a post mentioning how many they may have.
 

so we needed a plan B.

It would've been nice if the plans for the device were found in ME2 instead of ME3. That way it doesn't come out of nowhere just as the reapers invade the galaxy
 

I've always found it interesting though that we actually destroy a few Reapaers (or hear about them having been destroyed),

Here's a post mentioning reapers being destroyed throughout the game
 

With crazy high EMS, it may be even possible to beat the Reapers, I'd say, but they make it sound like it would be a long, long, exhausting, devastating war and the question is whether it would be worth it.

Even if we were able to defeat them conventionally, it would take a long time. I wouldn't be surprised that Shepard dies of old age by the time the reapers are defeated. It depends on how many reapers there are, the people leading the attacks and what losses we suffer while fighting them.
 

I've also seen some people suggest that Shepard should have had a choice to either pour resources into the Crucible or into conventional war.

I've posted a couple of suggestions of what I would do if a conventional victory was possible.
 

Thanks for the suggestion. I may check the thread out. Maybe it'll give me some possible answers, at least.

Here's the thread or at least an image of the Crucible
 

Some people intentionally play "badly" and get low EMS Destroy because it's cool to them.

I do it because I can and it also adds replay value

[Vanilka]

Sorry in post #80 you used the term "crawling" and not the term walking.  But my point was valid as you complained about the method to get to a choice (crawling).
 
As for HEA that wasn't specifically directed at you and your name was mentioned after that point of reference.  
 
Actually all three choices are a new solution.  The catalyst says something about how Shepard being there changed the variables and new "solutions" are necessary.  But the catalyst can't do it instead Shepard has to make the choice.
 
During the whole freakin game Hackett always relied on Shepard to do everything.  Name one thing that Hackett did where he didn't rely on Shepard?  So why expect something new now?  Besides this isn't "Hackett decides game" it's Shepard and what you the player will pick and choose.  So no a conversation with Hackett and him making a decision is contrary to everything in the game so far.  Nothing supports this.  Sheppard gets to decide when to attack and even gets on the com to all fleets as to when to open fire.  BTW you know Shepard is wounded but Hackett doesn't so your complaint is invalid because it's based on information only you have.  So why wouldn't he wonder why nothing is going on?  The flaw in logic is in your analysis and not Hackett's response.  It wasn't speculation on my part that it does nothing.  It's based on the facts as presented int he game to date.
 
So you claim in your speculation that it would change something.  What would it change and more importantly how can it change it?  It's your turn to write a paragraph for the game to show how talking to Hackett impacts the choice Shepard has to make.
 
Your clarification might be crap to someone else.  What clarification are you asking for?  It seemed the extended cut make things pretty darn clear to me.  Not everything can or should be known.  If by clarification you want to know the future then sorry there is no crystal ball available.
 
The Geth didn't turn on them YET.  And that is the point Jarvik and Catalyst are making.  They EVENTUALLY will turn.  Catalyst says this many times.  jarvik talked about how their AI's were helpful at first but eventually turned.  That is the whole premise of the game.  AI's will eventually turn.  Now you can either accept this premise or not.  But the whole story is based on it.
 
BTW once again I'm not picking on you.  I cited one comment but I used the word "people" meaning plural not an individual.  Am I defending the endings?  In one sense I am.  I'm defending the endings in that Bioware explained them and had a right to end the story as they see fit.  Am I defending it as an ending I would like?  I haven't commented on that.  My "feelings" about the endings are personal opinion and each of use can have their likes and dislikes.  That sin't up for debate.
 
What is up for debate are facts.  Facts surrounding if they are logical in the concept of the reset of the story.  Do they fit into the game universe.  What are other possibilities where the story and game supports them.
 
I've read hundreds of pages and got into the indoctrination wars way before the extended cut came out.  Seems I was right back then as Bioware specifically says there was no indoctrination going on.  But that was the old debate.
 
But I will always challenge those that claim to know better, or have a better solution to defend their statements.  If Bioware's ending can come under fierce criticism then so can your's or anyone else's.  Why should your's or anyone's ending not be as deeply analyzed or criticized as the official endings?  But in the end it almost always comes down to people wanting some sort of HEA ending, with HEA being slightly different based on taste.

 
Hey, I'm always open to feedback. Any sort of feedback. Just, please, do not go around and accuse people of whining because it just comes across as overly hostile and it makes me feel like I'm being attacked. Even more so because you accused me of something that really did not happen. Yes, I used the word "crawling", it was a part of the sentence, but it wasn't at all what I was complaining about. In that particular part, I was complaining about spending the last minutes of the game by having a really long conversation with TIM and then a really long conversation with the Catalyst. And we agreed with other posters, that this in particular may be a matter of personal tastes. The walking was never in question and it actually never occurred to me to be bothered by it.
 
If the HEA stuff was not aimed at me, then fair enough. I apologise for that.
 
About the solutions, fraggleblabla, in their last post mentioned something interesting about that as regards the construction of the Crucible.
 
I'm just saying it's a bad strategy to see the Citadel open and do nothing. That's all I'm saying. It's a bad call. But Hackett has made plenty throughout the game, including relying on Shepard 100% of time. Shepard does absolutely everything from having political meetings to fighting on the front lines to leading fleets. And, personally, I've always seen Shepard as a power fantasy and I love being in charge of all that. But I still think sitting outside and hoping that the single person that got onto the Citadel doesn't die and gets all the job done is not a smart move. It's the same as in London, they make you go through the thickest, most dangerous part instead of going around. I'm not saying it's not cool, but it's just not a good plan and, worst of all, it makes Hackett and Anderson look dumb.
 
It's my turn? Look, man, I came here to have a discussion and hopefully fun. This attitude of yours is defeating the purpose of why I came here, not because you have a different opinion, but because of how you talk to me. Because I have to do absolutely nothing. Just because I see a problem doesn't mean I'm willing to write a fanfic that fixes the damn game. And at this point, I'm pretty sure that no matter what I suggest, it'll be stupid to you anyway. As I said, though, I wouldn't wait for Shepard to do it alone. The moment the Citadel opens, I'd send some people in if possible to see what's up. Especially in case that thing isn't goddamn firing. My Shepard wasn't even an engineer or anything like that, she was a soldier by class. So yeah, maybe a tech specialist could come in handy, for starters - call me crazy.
 
I have already stated what clarification I'd like to see in the game in the previous posts. I have also stated that this may be subjective. We agreed with another poster that we see it differently and that is fine. I don't know why it grinds your gears so much. This can't be healthy.
 
Just because the Catalyst says something many times does not make it true. Many lies and misconceptions have been repeated again and again throughout the history and that doesn't make them true, either. Javik never says that their AIs turned against them. He talked about a completely different nation that implanted themselves with synthetic parts and overdid it to the point that it went horribly wrong. Again, saying that something "will always" happen is nothing but a speculation.
 
Funny you mention the thing with the universe  and such when a game that is all about unity regardless of diversity provides you with erasure of that diversity as its best ending. It killed the moral of the story, basically.
 
Oh, but it's not about having a debate here. It's about how you talk to me that makes me defensive. If you think that accusing people of whining and being rude to them is a way to have a discussion, then I don't think I'll stick around. I had no problem discussing stuff with fraggleblabla and AlanC9 was also able to keep it civil, even though we very much disagree.

[Dantriges]

Just because the Catalyst says something many times does not make it true. Many lies and misconceptions have been repeated again and again throughout the history and that doesn't make them true, either. Javik never says that their AIs turned against them. He talked about a completely different nation that implanted themselves with synthetic parts and overdid it to the point that it went horribly wrong. Again, saying that something "will always" happen is nothing but a speculation.

 

The Zha/Zha´til story sounded a lot like one of these sythesis experiments of the catalyst gone wrong to me.

[fraggle]

With crazy high EMS, it may be even possible to beat the Reapers, I'd say, but they make it sound like it would be a long, long, exhausting, devastating war and the question is whether it would be worth it. I've also seen some people suggest that Shepard should have had a choice to either pour resources into the Crucible or into conventional war. I think that would be cool, too. Well, at least I like the idea of it.

 

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, would've been interesting to see! Not sure if it would've been entirely possible, seeing how the Council refused to do anything about the Reaper threat for years (and even then it's questionable whether they could've been beaten conventionally if everyone had prepared; I have zero ideas on this ), but maybe that idea with the resources would work out. Maybe they could've also found out about Reaper weaknesses earlier, use that to their advantage (that targeting laser on Rannoch for example), and while that might take years, might've been possible. Who knows!

 

You know, that's something I can get behind. Like, if they have observed it many times over, it might make me feel a bit more understanding. "Okay, I still hate you, but I know where you're coming from." Still, I've never understood why do it this way. Why not harvest the naughty synthetics? Or why not peek out once in a while to check whether the dumb vulnerable organics are okay and if they're not, then help those idiots survive, so to speak. I guess we can also go for "This AI is crazy/broken," or something because I still think killing everybody is very, very difficult to justify. (Of course, on meta level, we know the Reapers needed to be explained somehow.).

 

Yes, that's my understanding. The Catalyst has tried a lot to find better solutions and always failed, but we don't know what exactly it tried.

I have no idea why it's not harvesting what causes the trouble. Maybe it was tried before. Or maybe because they don't wanna expose themselves to the remaining races, or because of its reasoning that organics will just create new synthetics again after that. And also since the Reapers need to hibernate, they probably can't be there anytime a conflict would arise. So they needed to find a concept that keeps both parties quiet for 50.000 years

About the killing, the problem is that they don't see it that way. They actually think they're helping us... ahem, ascend It's maybe some personality trait left behind by Leviathan, who were pretty far up their own asses. It's funny because I can get why they do what they do, in a way, they preserve the knowledge, it's stored away somewhere, a giant archive. But the way they do it also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

That's an interesting point of view, actually. Never thought of it like that before. Because when the geth gained awareness, they weren't hostile, right? It was the quarians who started shooting after the geth refused to turn off because, let's face it, nobody wants to die. I admit I feel for the geth. And maybe I'm wrong, but I do. They didn't even know what was going on. Legion's recordings and what we see in the geth consensus make me feel kind of sad. Although I do realise it is very one-sided as we get no such quarian recordings. On the other hand, Tali also said that it was the quarians who first tried to shut them down and then attacked them for fear of being attacked, which confirms what we saw. So we have a situation where (I think) the organics started crap and it had fatal consequences. However, the geth could've killed them all off but didn't. It was slaughter for both sides, but the geth let them go and then minded their own business.
I guess my hate for the Catalyst's logic stems from all that. I don't think the geth are guilty. I'm not saying innocent, but still. That's why I, personally, find the Catalyst's logic unacceptable.
It is true there are a few instances, like the AI in the terminal on the Presidium in ME1, that does attack you... or... well... it... uh... tries.

 

The geth were not hostile, no, but I think that refusing to turn off is the start of the whole problem and what proves the Catalyst right in this case. The geth should've turned off, like they were told. The quarians may have been too quick to panic, but both sides thrived to survive, so no wonder conflict arose.

Yeah, the geth did not chase the quarians, but the only reason for that was that they were in no state to do so. At least that's what I took away from one of the geth consensus dialogues with the Geth VI (just played it the other day). I don't remember unfortunately if these dialogues change with Legion.

Btw I feel a bit for the geth, too, but in the end they can be just as ruthless when it comes to survival as the quarians and both factions are rather "at fault", even though I can't hold it against them they both want to survive. The problem lies in the geth evolving, that they refused to shut down and loose their new-gained awareness. Not to mention they were so easily used by the Reapers.

And it's great you have the option to make peace, but it's also interesting to see what happens if you don't manage.

 

Oh, and I don't know if you have read any of the ME books, but it seems everyone is very afraid of AI, it was illegal to research them because it was considered highly dangerous (in Council space iirc), so maybe the Catalyst does have a point after all, haha.

 

I admit I don't follow the Catalyst's logic about the improving and evolving leading to conflict. Like... because the machines evolve to gain awareness? And then the organics flip out and there's conflict or what is it that The Catalyst has in mind?

 

Too bad we don't know what it has seen so far. Maybe organics follow the same pattern every time. They feel threatened as soon as synthetics gain awareness and if they always acted on their instinct to survive, then I can understand the Catalyst. It might be a prejudice that every cycle acts like this, but from statistics it does have a point. And we've seen it in our cycle too. The only way this does play out differently is if Shepard has enough weight to make peace, the geth and quarians would've not managed to do that on their own.

 

It's funny, though, because with the Destroy ending, its purpose fails completely, doesn't it? It hasn't created any new solutions and the only solution the Catalyst had is gone with the Catalyst itself. I'm grateful that it's there because that's the way I go, but it's not a solution to the Catalyst's problem, I think.

 

Yeah, that's definitely not the Catalyst's solution. It's also really apparent when you have low EMS, the Catalyst is more hostile when Synthesis is not available. That's a pretty cool touch imo. I'm also glad Destroy is there. To be honest I first picked Synthesis, because the concept sounded great to me, because of EDI and the geth, but seeing what I had done was not so nice, haha. So now Destroy, perfect. We don't need the Catalyst. As we've discussed before, I do think we can manage on our own. If we f*ck up, then that's how it plays out. No need for something to take our fate in its hands for us.

 

Yeah, I mostly get like that because I genuinely love these games, so I take it too seriously sometimes. I can't count the moments these games made me cry and stuff. I know I complain a lot, but it's mostly because I give a damn.

 

Me, too, believe me I rarely cry generally, but if I'm really invested in something... The absurd thing is that when I first started playing ME1 I never thought I could be invested so much in these games. But it just built up slowly and ME3 was like this huge rollercoaster and my emotions completely went wild, hahaha. And all these characters that the grew dear to my heart. Such a great game series.

 

I can't say I disliked everything about the ending, though. To give it some credit, too, while I have my issues with the writing and execution, I really liked the environment and everything around it since the moment we enter the beam all the way to the Catalyst. The moving walls and all. TIM may be a bastard but his weird reaperfied face looks amazing with the background of the Citadel arms. The planet with the fighting going on in the background on the top of the Citadel. That's something that is really a highlight of the ending to me, personally. And after the discussion with the Catalyst, while there are things that bother me, like the Normandy crashing (Landing?) on some weird planet for some reason, my Shepard's LI getting out looking completely okay somehow (I guess the injury from London wasn't so bad?), but I like the people on their homeworlds celebrating as the Reapers start falling to the ground and the random soldiers getting free from the husks and all. Now that was great, imho.

 

That's one of the things I also loved, that whole atmosphere in the end was amazing. I could really feel it.

You are totally right there are issues with it, not denying it, and also you pointed out a couple of good things in your response to Goodmongo, but these things don't bother me so much somehow. Overall my love for the ending still overweighs these flaws, because I like the complete concept of it.

And even though some of the scenes from the EC are ridiculous (Normandy evac scene...), or that the LI shows up unharmed when exiting the Normandy, I'm still kinda glad they're there. Weird, haha.

And agreed, seeing how people start celebrating was totally great. Shep did it!

[Vanilka]

The Zha/Zha´til story sounded a lot like one of these sythesis experiments of the catalyst gone wrong to me.

 

Now that would be quite a plot twist. I mean, we technically don't know. It could be right. Or not. But I like the idea.

 

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, would've been interesting to see! Not sure if it would've been entirely possible, seeing how the Council refused to do anything about the Reaper threat for years (and even then it's questionable whether they could've been beaten conventionally if everyone had prepared; I have zero ideas on this ), but maybe that idea with the resources would work out. Maybe they could've also found out about Reaper weaknesses earlier, use that to their advantage (that targeting laser on Rannoch for example), and while that might take years, might've been possible. Who knows!

 
Yeah, it would be a risk. I also like the idea of the allied forces discovering weaknesses and developing strategies. To be honest, I think watching the combat scenes and space battles is a lot of fun, but very often they seem to have no strategy. Like, in London, we see human soldiers shooting ravagers from close distance with no cover whatsoever and... of course, getting obliterated. It's curious because in another scene, you see them use covers and grenades and kicking ass. We see a destroyer taken out with a Cain, but this knowledge is never shared among the characters for some reason. What I'm trying to say is that seeing this made me think that maybe with good plans and research, it could've been done but... I still think it would be long and painful and, as themikefest said, it's likely some people would die of old age before the war would be over. It's still interesting to think about, though.
 

Yes, that's my understanding. The Catalyst has tried a lot to find better solutions and always failed, but we don't know what exactly it tried.
I have no idea why it's not harvesting what causes the trouble. Maybe it was tried before. Or maybe because they don't wanna expose themselves to the remaining races, or because of its reasoning that organics will just create new synthetics again after that. And also since the Reapers need to hibernate, they probably can't be there anytime a conflict would arise. So they needed to find a concept that keeps both parties quiet for 50.000 years
About the killing, the problem is that they don't see it that way. They actually think they're helping us... ahem, ascend It's maybe some personality trait left behind by Leviathan, who were pretty far up their own asses. It's funny because I can get why they do what they do, in a way, they preserve the knowledge, it's stored away somewhere, a giant archive. But the way they do it also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

 
Hah! "Shuuut uuuup, all of you! (annihilates the whole galaxy, enjoys 50k years of peace)"

About the ascending, another thing is why they just leave some species out. Like the quarians. I know it's mentioned their immune system is weak and their numbers are small, but don't they deserve to be preserved, too? And what will happen to them? Will they be destroyed or just left to float around in the destroyed galaxy? To possibly create more "dangerous" tech? On the other hand, you see the Reapers harvested harvesters (Lol, maybe they just have a sense of humour?) These guys:

Spoiler

I mean, they have no technology, don't use ships or mass relays, as far as I know. And I don't think they even communicate in any way. But they get harvested, for some reason. Why these, but no thresher maws, also? (I can only imagine the horror of having reaper maws. My canon Shep is Sole Survivor. That could be interesting.)

*shakes fist at Reapers* Make up your mind!
  

The geth were not hostile, no, but I think that refusing to turn off is the start of the whole problem and what proves the Catalyst right in this case. The geth should've turned off, like they were told. The quarians may have been too quick to panic, but both sides thrived to survive, so no wonder conflict arose.
Yeah, the geth did not chase the quarians, but the only reason for that was that they were in no state to do so. At least that's what I took away from one of the geth consensus dialogues with the Geth VI (just played it the other day). I don't remember unfortunately if these dialogues change with Legion.
Btw I feel a bit for the geth, too, but in the end they can be just as ruthless when it comes to survival as the quarians and both factions are rather "at fault", even though I can't hold it against them they both want to survive. The problem lies in the geth evolving, that they refused to shut down and loose their new-gained awareness. Not to mention they were so easily used by the Reapers.
And it's great you have the option to make peace, but it's also interesting to see what happens if you don't manage.
 
Oh, and I don't know if you have read any of the ME books, but it seems everyone is very afraid of AI, it was illegal to research them because it was considered highly dangerous (in Council space iirc), so maybe the Catalyst does have a point after all, haha.

Too bad we don't know what it has seen so far. Maybe organics follow the same pattern every time. They feel threatened as soon as synthetics gain awareness and if they always acted on their instinct to survive, then I can understand the Catalyst. It might be a prejudice that every cycle acts like this, but from statistics it does have a point. And we've seen it in our cycle too. The only way this does play out differently is if Shepard has enough weight to make peace, the geth and quarians would've not managed to do that on their own.

 
I guess that's where we just have a different opinion again. I just can't blame the geth for not wanting to die and I really do not approve of quarians for trying to solve the situation by attacking them. I agree neither is innocent, but that's it for me. It reminds me of Kara, the demo for PS3. Now I'm not a person that's easily disturbed, but I admit this video made me cry when I saw it for the first time because, to me, this just seems absolutely traumatising. But it's interesting to see your point of view because I never thought about it like that before. If the Catalyst considers synthetic life coming into existence at all a problem, well, then it gives me more insight into what's going on. I don't agree with it, but I might understand it.

I haven't read the books, just the Foundation comics (Because companions, heh.) so far. I don't remember anything in particular about AIs there, though. However, I've read most of the codex properly and, yeah, they have various laws against creating AIs and creating sapient beings, as well. I'd say that's totally reasonable because it doesn't seem like a good idea to play god, so to speak, and just... create living beings. The laws were in place even before the quarians made the geth.

As for the peace or not, I think it's awesome to have options so there's a lot of new things to try and everybody can decide on their ideal playthrough that is likely to be totally different from somebody else's. As themikefest said in the previous posts, it adds a lot of replay value. I do admit I'm too much of a chicken to try some of those decisions like shooting the VS on the Citadel or picking either quarians or the geth because PAAAIIN. Maybe I'll get there one day, though.
 

Yeah, that's definitely not the Catalyst's solution. It's also really apparent when you have low EMS, the Catalyst is more hostile when Synthesis is not available. That's a pretty cool touch imo. I'm also glad Destroy is there. To be honest I first picked Synthesis, because the concept sounded great to me, because of EDI and the geth, but seeing what I had done was not so nice, haha. So now Destroy, perfect. We don't need the Catalyst. As we've discussed before, I do think we can manage on our own. If we f*ck up, then that's how it plays out. No need for something to take our fate in its hands for us.

 
It's interesting that synthesis is not available with low EMS, though, because that would mean that synthesis was not originally there and it's then added by the Crucible? But how did the Catalyst pull it off before then? Perhaps it would be better to have only synthesis available with low EMS but with some really horrific results like... creating new Collector race from the existing races or something of that sort? That would be freaky.

To be honest, I picked synthesis first, as well. Partly because I was just so dumbfounded by the ending that I felt like nothing I'd do mattered any more and went, "Whatever!" So I picked the promised rainbows and unicorns because I didn't want to kill EDI and the geth. Then I really regretted not taking the ending seriously because I didn't like what I saw in the synthesis ending and I admit I reloaded the game to take destroy. I mean, it was interesting to see one possible ending, but it has many very unpleasant implications, imho. Like, what will happen to all the reaper creatures now that they have awareness? They were people once, now they're walking horrors of flesh and tech and weaponry. Will they want to commit suicide? Will they be able to coexist with "normal" people and lead a good life? That's something that the conversation with the Catalyst never touches - what happens to the "monsters" we fought with synthesis. I find that important.

Anyway, like you, I also believe the organics can handle themselves. I mean, war happens. There were the Rachni Wars, the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, the First Contact War, people fight all the time. I don't think we need a referee. And, as you say, if we mess up, we mess up. It's not like it's possible to wipe out all life in the galaxy anyway. The synthesics would have to declare war on germs or something, lol. And who knows, should the synthetics ever gain upper hand, maybe they wouldn't mind coexisting with developing organics. We basically have no way of knowing the future.
 

Me, too, believe me I rarely cry generally, but if I'm really invested in something... The absurd thing is that when I first started playing ME1 I never thought I could be invested so much in these games. But it just built up slowly and ME3 was like this huge rollercoaster and my emotions completely went wild, hahaha. And all these characters that the grew dear to my heart. Such a great game series.

 
Yeah, same here. I'm normally a pretty stoic, even cynical person, but these games get to me for some reason. I guess I also get really immersed in the universe and story and I really grew to like the characters. I was sort of prepared for that because my friend who played it before I did told me the games ruined his life, lol, though I don't think I saw it coming in such an extent anyway. It only went "downhill" from ME1.  
 

That's one of the things I also loved, that whole atmosphere in the end was amazing. I could really feel it.
You are totally right there are issues with it, not denying it, and also you pointed out a couple of good things in your response to Goodmongo, but these things don't bother me so much somehow. Overall my love for the ending still overweighs these flaws, because I like the complete concept of it.
And even though some of the scenes from the EC are ridiculous (Normandy evac scene...), or that the LI shows up unharmed when exiting the Normandy, I'm still kinda glad they're there. Weird, haha.
And agreed, seeing how people start celebrating was totally great. Shep did it!

 
Oh, god, the evac scene. I'm very conflicted about that one, too, because some things are truly poorly done and the evac scene and landing with high EMS make little sense, but on the other hand, I'm also really glad we see our friends get out of there safely and see that they made it in the end. I don't think it's weird you kind of like it. It's a good idea; it's something the players who care about the characters naturally want to see. It's just that it could've been executed better, I guess.

[Rhaenyss]

Evac scene, for me it's purely heart over mind, and I don't dwell on it at all. I'm not that nitpicky and it made me feel, so it gets a pass.

[Pee Jae]

For me, it was just a case of my Shepard (s) suddenly developing a case of the stupids. "Where am I?" Really, Shepard? You don't know where you are?

Secondly, Shepard's first thought upon seeing the Catalyst should have been, "Why does that look like the child I couldn't save?" Upon learning what the Catalyst actually is, (the AI controlling all Reapers) he/she should have said or thought, "This thing looks like the child I couldn't save because it's trying to gain sympathy or establish some kind of rapport with me. Why? Further, now how can I believe that that child was a real person?" From this point forward, Shepard should have been extremely suspicious of everything the AI says to him/her. My Shepard then would have said, "No. I reject all of your "choices." Shut the Reapers down. All of them. Then, shut yourself down. Game over. I win."

 

But... the EC is a compromise I can live with. I can play the game again without feeling like it's not worth it. And I can headcanon Citadel with the rest. 

[fraggle]

About the ascending, another thing is why they just leave some species out. Like the quarians. I know it's mentioned their immune system is weak and their numbers are small, but don't they deserve to be preserved, too? And what will happen to them? Will they be destroyed or just left to float around in the destroyed galaxy? To possibly create more "dangerous" tech? On the other hand, you see the Reapers harvested harvesters (Lol, maybe they just have a sense of humour?) These guys:

Spoiler

I mean, they have no technology, don't use ships or mass relays, as far as I know. And I don't think they even communicate in any way. But they get harvested, for some reason. Why these, but no thresher maws, also? (I can only imagine the horror of having reaper maws. My canon Shep is Sole Survivor. That could be interesting.)

 

Yeah, no clue what would happen to those species. Maybe they'll all get meshed together into one Reaper. If their number are not high enough to create one out of them, maybe they have to mix.

Also no clue why they don't harvest thresher maws. They might have or don't have their reasons. That's something we'll never know unfortunately

 

I guess that's where we just have a different opinion again. I just can't blame the geth for not wanting to die and I really do not approve of quarians for trying to solve the situation by attacking them. I agree neither is innocent, but that's it for me. It reminds me of Kara, the demo for PS3. Now I'm not a person that's easily disturbed, but I admit this video made me cry when I saw it for the first time because, to me, this just seems absolutely traumatising. But it's interesting to see your point of view because I never thought about it like that before. If the Catalyst considers synthetic life coming into existence at all a problem, well, then it gives me more insight into what's going on. I don't agree with it, but I might understand it.

 

I have to watch that at home later I don't really support either side, because as you said, neither are innocent.The quarians act terrible in ME3, too, worst time to start a war. But I really liked that a faction also doesn't support the war. Even though they can't really do anything against it, haha.

 

As for the peace or not, I think it's awesome to have options so there's a lot of new things to try and everybody can decide on their ideal playthrough that is likely to be totally different from somebody else's. As themikefest said in the previous posts, it adds a lot of replay value. I do admit I'm too much of a chicken to try some of those decisions like shooting the VS on the Citadel or picking either quarians or the geth because PAAAIIN. Maybe I'll get there one day, though.

 

During my last run I didn't have a choice but to pick sides. I've f*cked up something in ME2 It was an amazing scene though. It was touching and it made me really sad, but also happy in terms of how the characters dealt with each other.

I used to be like that, said I would never kill of certain characters. But now I want to try out new and different things. Even if it makes me sad.

 

It's interesting that synthesis is not available with low EMS, though, because that would mean that synthesis was not originally there and it's then added by the Crucible? But how did the Catalyst pull it off before then? Perhaps it would be better to have only synthesis available with low EMS but with some really horrific results like... creating new Collector race from the existing races or something of that sort? That would be freaky.

 

I too am inclined that Synthesis was not a concept of the Crucible, but rather a byproduct and only accessible due to the energy beam and Shepard's essence.

Of course it's also possible Synthesis was integrated with the Crucible, and it was just too damaged in Low EMS to still generate Synthesis, but I am rather on the byproduct side.

Oh my, that would have been horrible indeed Would have been interesting to see!

 

To be honest, I picked synthesis first, as well. Partly because I was just so dumbfounded by the ending that I felt like nothing I'd do mattered any more and went, "Whatever!" So I picked the promised rainbows and unicorns because I didn't want to kill EDI and the geth. Then I really regretted not taking the ending seriously because I didn't like what I saw in the synthesis ending and I admit I reloaded the game to take destroy. I mean, it was interesting to see one possible ending, but it has many very unpleasant implications, imho. Like, what will happen to all the reaper creatures now that they have awareness? They were people once, now they're walking horrors of flesh and tech and weaponry. Will they want to commit suicide? Will they be able to coexist with "normal" people and lead a good life? That's something that the conversation with the Catalyst never touches - what happens to the "monsters" we fought with synthesis. I find that important.

 

Haha, exactly! I wasn't really "Whatever", but the promised rainbows and not wanting to kill of EDI and the geth sound familiar as reasoning to pick Synthesis And the same thing happened to me afterwards, I didn't like at all how it was presented! So I also reloaded and picked Destroy!

It is important, and a good question. One that I don't want to or can't answer. I'll leave that to the folks that picked Synthesis with a vision and idea in mind.

 

Yeah, same here. I'm normally a pretty stoic, even cynical person, but these games get to me for some reason. I guess I also get really immersed in the universe and story and I really grew to like the characters. I was sort of prepared for that because my friend who played it before I did told me the games ruined his life, lol, though I don't think I saw it coming in such an extent anyway. It only went "downhill" from ME1.

 

Haha, don't even get me started on this one I never was a Sci-Fi fan, and while I enjoyed ME1 and 2, I never thought I'd play them again. ME3 changed everything. I got so sucked into the whole universe that I immediately replayed everything again after finishing ME3. And then another run. I still want to try out the other classes too, I became invested in the combat system very much and I just can't stop playing.... unhealthy.

I used to love Dragon Age, and this ruined my life last year, but ME is on a whole different level. Goddamnit.

 

Oh, god, the evac scene. I'm very conflicted about that one, too, because some things are truly poorly done and the evac scene and landing with high EMS make little sense, but on the other hand, I'm also really glad we see our friends get out of there safely and see that they made it in the end. I don't think it's weird you kind of like it. It's a good idea; it's something the players who care about the characters naturally want to see. It's just that it could've been executed better, I guess.

Evac scene, for me it's purely heart over mind, and I don't dwell on it at all. I'm not that nitpicky and it made me feel, so it gets a pass.

 

I think this describes it perfectly Even though it's stupid, I felt something and I still loved it!

[Goodmongo]

 
Hey, I'm always open to feedback. Any sort of feedback. Just, please, do not go around and accuse people of whining because it just comes across as overly hostile and it makes me feel like I'm being attacked. Even more so because you accused me of something that really did not happen. 
 
About the solutions, fraggleblabla, in their last post mentioned something interesting about that as regards the construction of the Crucible.
 
It's my turn? Look, man, I came here to have a discussion and hopefully fun. This attitude of yours is defeating the purpose of why I came here, not because you have a different opinion, but because of how you talk to me. Because I have to do absolutely nothing. Just because I see a problem doesn't mean I'm willing to write a fanfic that fixes the damn game. And at this point, I'm pretty sure that no matter what I suggest, it'll be stupid to you anyway. As I said, though, I wouldn't wait for Shepard to do it alone. The moment the Citadel opens, I'd send some people in if possible to see what's up. Especially in case that thing isn't goddamn firing. My Shepard wasn't even an engineer or anything like that, she was a soldier by class. So yeah, maybe a tech specialist could come in handy, for starters - call me crazy.
 

 

I apologize for this.  My goal is to challenge people.  I do not know you so maybe what I'm about to say does not fit and if it doesn't please do not take it personally.  But I think you will have to agree that many come on here and complain about A or B.  Now as I said not liking something is fine.  That is taste.  But most complaints said they did it "wrong" or that a plot hole was left open etc.  And this is where I will challenge them to define what was wrong or what was missed or what could or should have been done.

 

Complaining without solutions is just bitching in my book.  It accomplishes nothing.  It's better to just say "I don't like it" and move on.  But human nature seeks justification and reinforcement of their feelings.  So I will challenge when someone tries to complain about an actual fact or game mechanic.  I will challenge them to find a better solution.  Because if there is no other solution then their complaint is basically meaningless.

 

 
I'm just saying it's a bad strategy to see the Citadel open and do nothing. That's all I'm saying. It's a bad call. But Hackett has made plenty throughout the game, including relying on Shepard 100% of time. Shepard does absolutely everything from having political meetings to fighting on the front lines to leading fleets. And, personally, I've always seen Shepard as a power fantasy and I love being in charge of all that. But I still think sitting outside and hoping that the single person that got onto the Citadel doesn't die and gets all the job done is not a smart move. It's the same as in London, they make you go through the thickest, most dangerous part instead of going around. I'm not saying it's not cool, but it's just not a good plan and, worst of all, it makes Hackett and Anderson look dumb.
 
Just because the Catalyst says something many times does not make it true. Many lies and misconceptions have been repeated again and again throughout the history and that doesn't make them true, either. Javik never says that their AIs turned against them. He talked about a completely different nation that implanted themselves with synthetic parts and overdid it to the point that it went horribly wrong. Again, saying that something "will always" happen is nothing but a speculation.
 
Funny you mention the thing with the universe  and such when a game that is all about unity regardless of diversity provides you with erasure of that diversity as its best ending. It killed the moral of the story, basically.
 
Oh, but it's not about having a debate here. It's about how you talk to me that makes me defensive. If you think that accusing people of whining and being rude to them is a way to have a discussion, then I don't think I'll stick around. I had no problem discussing stuff with fraggleblabla and AlanC9 was also able to keep it civil, even though we very much disagree.

 

 

A couple of points on why didn't anyone else do anything.  The Citadel is big.  Does Hackett know where Shepard is at?  Then can send a division of troops and it can take months to find Shepard.  It seems there is no GPS locator in the game as Shepard needed the Turians to fire a flare to find their location on Tuchanka.  So issue one is even knowing where to go to be able to even do anything.

 

But even if Hackett does find Shepard what will be done?  This is the central question.  I am honestly asking what do you expect to see if Hackett or other appeared next to Shepard?  I don't see how it changes anything.  You still have four basic choices.  You and organics are being forced to play the game as set out by the Catalyst.  No one may like the rules but I can make a very logical and concise defense of why it is what it is.

 

As for trusting the Catalyst that is a central choice that you as the player have to make.  And that is the whole point!  Do you or do you not trust the AI.  Most choices in life are not clear cut or easy.  ME3 was trying to do just that.  I honestly have problems understanding why anyone doesn't get this basic premise.  If you trust the AI you go synergy (if available) and if not you can destroy or fight on.

 

As for beating the Reapers with a crazy high EMS I see two major issues with it.  First off the many comments by Hackett that they can't win a conventional war.  Next is the fact that the organics already lost much of their fighting forces in piecemeal engagements.  Not to mention that no one was ready and no coordinated effort was put into place from the start.  So I really doubt this.  And you do have that option.  Refuse or shoot the Catalyst and the war goes on.  But Bioware dictated that organics lose this cycle.  So I don't see it as a real option and there are many clues to support that you can't win no matter what EMS you have because there isn't enough forces left in the galaxy to win.

 

BTW I replayed the ending in a save last night.  Not you but others said why not just use some blood or a finger to get the synergy ending.  Or why not throw Anderson in it.  First off these people don't listen very well.  The Catalyst says it needs your "energy" to create a new DNA.  It doesn't say it needs your DNA.  Identical twins have identical DNA  but are two different persons with different wants, idea, feelings and even different fingerprints.  So energy is not DNA and it's Shepard's energy or lifeforce as some Si-Fi references like to call it, that is needed.  So hopefully that can be put to rest.  Synergy requires Shepard to sacrifice his life to give over his essence, her energy for it to work.  

[Goodmongo]

Yes, that's my understanding. The Catalyst has tried a lot to find better solutions and always failed, but we don't know what exactly it tried.

I have no idea why it's not harvesting what causes the trouble. Maybe it was tried before. Or maybe because they don't wanna expose themselves to the remaining races, or because of its reasoning that organics will just create new synthetics again after that. And also since the Reapers need to hibernate, they probably can't be there anytime a conflict would arise. So they needed to find a concept that keeps both parties quiet for 50.000 years

 

 

I can explain this one.  You got part of the answer in that many different approaches have been tried and failed.  Now here is what I see.  

 

1) Organics will always create synthetics for a number of reasons.  Even picking the destruction choice the catalyst says that it is temporary because their children will once again create synthetics and the chaos will return.  So basic premise one is:  Organics will eventually create synthetics.

2) Synthetics will eventually rebel against organics.  This is basic premise number two.  People like to point to the Geth/Quarian peace to show there is another way.  But Jarvik clearly points out that his cycle and ones before his cycle have shown synthetics have rebelled in the past.  The catalyst says it will always eventually happen.  Our facts are less clear but we do know that it in fact did happen in the past but we don't know what might happen in the current cycle due to Shepard's influence with the Geth.

 

So the catalyst tries to harvest the bad synthetics.  But the bad organics keep making more.  So when does the constant harvesting stop?  It would be a never ending harvesting as synthetics constantly duplicate themselves and the organics that want them constantly keep making more.  Eventually you realize the core problem is the organics.  They are the ones making synthetics.  This is what the catalyst was getting to.  The synthetics are the symptom while organics are the root cause.

 

EDIT:  And now for conjecture on my part, but conjecture still based on facts presented in the game.

 

Destroy ending:  You defeat the reapers.  All AI is destroyed.  Organics rebuild.  Then one day a new AI is created.  A bloody war results as the new synthetics are seen as a threat and just like the Geth refuse orders to turn off.  Eventually one side or the other is completely destroyed with organics losing if Catalyst is right.

 

Do nothing ending:  They already explain most of it.  The current cycle loses but some future cycle wins.  What is missing is what option did the future cycle pick?  No evidence on that one at all.

 

Control ending: As shown Shepard uses the reapers to rebuild things.  And uses the reapers to keep the peace.  And I do agree that it is possible for Shepard to cause all reapers to self-destruct which leads to the destroy ending above.  But if Shepard keeps them around then what happens when the organics create a new Geth or AI race?  This goes back to my point that eventually the root cause is organics.  So does Shepard become the new catalyst?  Does Shepard now harvest organics?  How does Shepard resolve the problem?

 

Synthesis ending:  Eventually this ends up being the only solution that some future cycle WILL pick.  The only way to resolve the organic/synthetic problem of eventual war is to make both sides the same.  We can actually look at human history to see this.  There are plenty of examples.  When you have two tribes they will eventually war with each other.  Only assimilation or joining resolves it.  In the end you can either go with Synergy now or have a future cycle pick it.

[Dantriges]

 

It seems there is no GPS locator in the game as Shepard needed the Turians to fire a flare to find their location on Tuchanka.  So issue one is even knowing where to go to be able to even do anything.

 

BTW I replayed the ending in a save last night.  Not you but others said why not just use some blood or a finger to get the synergy ending.  Or why not throw Anderson in it.  First off these people don't listen very well.  The Catalyst says it needs your "energy" to create a new DNA.  It doesn't say it needs your DNA.  Identical twins have identical DNA  but are two different persons with different wants, idea, feelings and even different fingerprints.  So energy is not DNA and it's Shepard's energy or lifeforce as some Si-Fi references like to call it, that is needed.  So hopefully that can be put to rest.  Synergy requires Shepard to sacrifice his life to give over his essence, her energy for it to work.  

 

GPS. Yeah, somehow I doubt the Turians set up a global positioning satellite system around Tuchanka just for one mission.

 

Energy thingie: That was me with the finger. There was no hint in this scifi franchise that there is something called a lifeforce or essence in the setting. IIRC even the harvest was described as DNA collection and mind uploading on a technological basis. More like a brainscan instead of a sould drain. If the game was set in the Babylon 5 universe with their soulhunters, reincarnation of souls, antiagathics who need the lifeforce of another sapient being and machines who could transfer life force ok. Or Starwars with the Force or Shadowrun with his essence (and magic). The closest thing we´ve got in Mass Effect was prothean memory reading which was tied to your DNA, because life leaves marks on it or so. Well doesn´t make sense but who cares. Could be that the Reapers actually sample that when they take a sip of your liquefied body.

 

So this lifeforce/essence thing came completely out of the blue.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Okay, personally I liked the ending of Mass Effect 3, though I can understand why many people had a problem with it. No real boss fight, similar endings, choices seem more negative than positive. But there is one thing I noticed in a lot of fan-fiction and a mod that create a "better" ending, which is that Shepard is alive and well. You mean, people actually had a problem with Shepard dying?

So let me get this straight: the Walking Dead, Lee dies, best ending ever. Terminator 2, T-800 dies, best ending ever. Mass Effect 3, Shepard dies, worst ending ever?

I mean, come on! One of the largest themes of the game was sacrifice and honoring the people who gave their life for the greater good. So why couldn't Shepard do it? He's the main hero of the game and is written as the savior of the Galaxy, so it's obvious that he would die for the Galaxy. Besides, if other movies or video games can get away with main characters dying, why not Mass Effect 3?

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Why don't you guys provide some opinions below.

 

I take more issue with how Shepard dies than them actually dying. Walking into an explosion/needing to jump into a beam/electrocuting themselves to the point of disintegration because of reasons no one bothered to bring up, but they're still somehow sure performing these actions will fix things. I get the sacrifice is supposed to be a theme but do it in a way that comes of as less contrived please.

[Goodmongo]

 

So this lifeforce/essence thing came completely out of the blue.

 

I agree it did come out of the blue.  I was just saying that the catalyst made it pretty clear that it need Shepard's energy and not DNA.

 

Memory and thoughts to me are still different than a life force or energy AKA soul.  Memory is just a fact or experience, a piece of data that is stored.  I think the reapers were storing knowledge and data from the civilizations.  I can't recall at any point hearing that their "personality" was being stored.  Jarvik at times seemed to have a capability to read some emotions like anger from Grunt, or fear from Shepard.  But I can't recall any reference where the reapers ever had that capability.

 

And in the conversation with catalyst it was mentioned that synergy was now available for the first time because of Shepard.  So either it was his combination of the organic and synthetic rebuilding process, or it was something unique to him that came about due to his experiences.  Arguments can be made for and against each of these but that's not the point.

 

In the end it came out of the blue because it was also a new possibility that catalyst didn't consider before, or at least no other organic was ready for.

 

 

I take more issue with how Shepard dies than them actually dying. Walking into an explosion/needing to jump into a beam/electrocuting themselves to the point of disintegration because of reasons no one bothered to bring up, but they're still somehow sure performing these actions will fix things. I get the sacrifice is supposed to be a theme but do it in a way that comes of as less contrived please.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is "somehow sure" it will fix things.  The catalyst is sure but that doesn't mean you the player should be sure.  And that is the main point.  You have to make a choice based on limited knowledge and not being sure.  Just like most of real life.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I don't think anyone is "somehow sure" it will fix things.  The catalyst is sure but that doesn't mean you the player should be sure.  And that is the main point.  You have to make a choice based on limited knowledge and not being sure.  Just like most of real life.

 

I'm speaking more about the mindset of Shepard the actual in game character not the player. From the perspective of a player I'm pretty sure the exposition given to me by glow boy will work exactly how he says it will because it's a video game and the devs want to actually tell us what immediate effect our actions will have before we make an in game choice.

 

Shepard as a character however, well...

 

You have our main character talk to someone they've just met for like what? 10 minutes? Learn that they can preform actions that will kill them but save the galaxy. The only thing Shep is relatively certain of is their own death by these actions, but they do said action anyway on hope that it will work. A character willingly giving their lives to enact a solution communicates a fair degree of certainly I think.

[AlanC9]

I agree it did come out of the blue.  I was just saying that the catalyst made it pretty clear that it need Shepard's energy and not DNA.

Note that this was exactly what happened to Legion earlier. The code (equivalent of DNA for Legion) wasn't enough; Legion itself had to be broken up and disseminated.

Non-rational? Magical? Sure. But that's how the MEU rolls.

[AlanC9]

Secondly, Shepard's first thought upon seeing the Catalyst should have been, "Why does that look like the child I couldn't save?" Upon learning what the Catalyst actually is, (the AI controlling all Reapers) he/she should have said or thought, "This thing looks like the child I couldn't save because it's trying to gain sympathy or establish some kind of rapport with me. Why? Further, now how can I believe that that child was a real person?" From this point forward, Shepard should have been extremely suspicious of everything the AI says to him/her. My Shepard then would have said, "No. I reject all of your "choices." Shut the Reapers down. All of them. Then, shut yourself down. Game over. I win."

Well, you're allowed to do that in the game too. Problem is, it doesn't work.

[AlanC9]

You have our main character talk to someone they've just met for like what? 10 minutes? Learn that they can preform actions that will kill them but save the galaxy. The only thing Shep is relatively certain of is their own death by these actions, but they do said action anyway on hope that it will work. A character willingly giving their lives to enact a solution communicates a fair degree of certainly I think.

Or desperation. A slim chance of victory is better than no chance at all. The fact that Shepard will die is trivial to Shepard -- or at least, it ought to be.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Or desperation. A slim chance of victory is better than no chance at all. The fact that Shepard will die is trivial to Shepard -- or at least, it ought to be.

Trivial so long as they achieve their objective, they're desperation probably helps convince them they will, but it still strikes me as pushing it past the point of believable.

[Goodmongo]

I'm speaking more about the mindset of Shepard the actual in game character not the player. From the perspective of a player I'm pretty sure the exposition given to me by glow boy will work exactly how he says it will because it's a video game and the devs want to actually tell us what immediate effect our actions will have before we make an in game choice.

 

Shepard as a character however, well...

 

You have our main character talk to someone they've just met for like what? 10 minutes? Learn that they can preform actions that will kill them but save the galaxy. The only thing Shep is relatively certain of is their own death by these actions, but they do said action anyway on hope that it will work. A character willingly giving their lives to enact a solution communicates a fair degree of certainly I think.

 

Soldiers are sometimes faced with exact same situation.  Do they sacrifice themselves based on the hope that their sacrifice will mean victory.  History is filled with examples of people giving their lives in sacrifice in the hope of it making a difference.  They don't know for sure if their sacrifice will do it or not.  They do know they will die.  So this choice reflects reality for many soldiers throughout history.

 

For me I believed that the catalyst was telling the truth.  But that wasn't what concerned me.  Instead I approached it from this perspective.  Synergy is going to change the fundamental structure of every living thing, organic and synthetic in the galaxy.  Do I have the right to make that decision?  Even if everything is true I will change everyone, including my LI into something different.  Is that my choice to make?  Even if there is ever lasting peace what gives me the right to dictate it to all?  I'm a soldier.  I fight and kill things and eventual will die.  Is this really victory?

 

And THAT is why I really liked the endings.  In all my gaming years I can only think of one other choice that was harder to make.  I don't like the choices given to me but that is not for me to decide.  I can only decide which of those choices to actually pick and even inaction is a choice.

[Dantriges]

In the end it came out of the blue because it was also a new possibility that catalyst didn't consider before, or at least no other organic was ready for.

 

 

But it also came out of the blue for the player who is asked to participate in this decision.

In the end it felt like "We need your lifeforce so jump into the beam."

"Why?"

"Because we had this idea for an awesome ending using themes like sacrifice, death and rebirth, transformation and transhumanism."

"Sounds awesome, but why lifeforce? It was never mentioned as a significant part of this franchise. Everything was about DNA here, DNA that. Even the prothean was talking about DNA all the time instead of telling about the concept of lifeforce which we primitives were too dumb to discover."

"Uh well, because Shepard jumping into a beam of light which dissolves him/her into his molecule components is more dramatic and and a more awesome visual than bleeding on the floor which you do right now."

"Ehhh..."

"Don´t you want to ponder about the philosophical ideas and possible implications?"

"No you ruined the mood."

 

And well more or less all that stuff here: http://forum.bioware...age/?p=19510549

[GreyLycanTrope]

Soldiers are sometimes faced with exact same situation.  Do they sacrifice themselves based on the hope that their sacrifice will mean victory.  History is filled with examples of people giving their lives in sacrifice in the hope of it making a difference.  They don't know for sure if their sacrifice will do it or not.  They do know they will die.  So this choice reflects reality for many soldiers throughout history.

 

For me I believed that the catalyst was telling the truth.  But that wasn't what concerned me.  Instead I approached it from this perspective.  Synergy is going to change the fundamental structure of every living thing, organic and synthetic in the galaxy.  Do I have the right to make that decision?  Even if everything is true I will change everyone, including my LI into something different.  Is that my choice to make?  Even if there is ever lasting peace what gives me the right to dictate it to all?  I'm a soldier.  I fight and kill things and eventual will die.  Is this really victory?

 

And THAT is why I really liked the endings.  In all my gaming years I can only think of one other choice that was harder to make.  I don't like the choices given to me but that is not for me to decide.  I can only decide which of those choices to actually pick and even inaction is a choice.

Yeah I get the sacrifice angle, it's the fantastical elements that don't mesh well with it however. While soldiers do makes sacrifices often I don' think soldiers just jump at the opportunity to sacrifice themselves the first time a random hologram pops up tells to, least none that I know of.

 

And it's great that you found it relatable and thought provoking that doesn't necessarily mean the game's narrative or pacing was particularly well structured however.

[Vanilka]

I have to watch that at home later I don't really support either side, because as you said, neither are innocent.The quarians act terrible in ME3, too, worst time to start a war. But I really liked that a faction also doesn't support the war. Even though they can't really do anything against it, haha.

 

True, they both have their share of problems, like the heretics or running to the Reapers for help with the geth, and ME3 puts the quarians in the position of villains, pretty much. I'm glad it was for the few civilians we meet, Koris, and Tali, because I was really mad with the quarians at first for starting another war, as if the one with Reapers wasn't enough. I think being neutral is a pretty healthy attitude, actually.
 

Haha, exactly! I wasn't really "Whatever", but the promised rainbows and not wanting to kill of EDI and the geth sound familiar as reasoning to pick Synthesis And the same thing happened to me afterwards, I didn't like at all how it was presented! So I also reloaded and picked Destroy!
It is important, and a good question. One that I don't want to or can't answer. I'll leave that to the folks that picked Synthesis with a vision and idea in mind.

 

Heh, I'm glad I'm not alone. And I agree, I'll stick to my preference for my canon and leave the others to people who have a good explanation for them.
 

Haha, don't even get me started on this one I never was a Sci-Fi fan, and while I enjoyed ME1 and 2, I never thought I'd play them again. ME3 changed everything. I got so sucked into the whole universe that I immediately replayed everything again after finishing ME3. And then another run. I still want to try out the other classes too, I became invested in the combat system very much and I just can't stop playing.... unhealthy.
I used to love Dragon Age, and this ruined my life last year, but ME is on a whole different level. Goddamnit.

 

Yeah, it's tempting to replay it all again with all the variables. I still keep finding new stuff and I haven't even tried all the backgrounds and classes yet. I've managed to play through the games three times in the past few months. Tell me about unhealthy, heh.
I admit I've always loved sci-fi and ME reminded me of that after I got stuck to playing fantasy stuff for a long time. I didn't fall in love with it right away, either. I mean, I loved the first game in the end, but it took me some time to get immersed in it. I think it's because my first playthrough is always sort of a crash test where I learn about the lore, characters, the world my character lives in, gameplay, etc. It helps me enjoy the game better afterwards because stuff stops being confusing and I'm ready to seriously play and roleplay.
I had the same "problem" with Dragon Age, actually. I obsessed about it for a long, long time. Mass Effect hit me even harder, as well, lol.

 

I apologize for this.  My goal is to challenge people.  I do not know you so maybe what I'm about to say does not fit and if it doesn't please do not take it personally.  But I think you will have to agree that many come on here and complain about A or B.  Now as I said not liking something is fine.  That is taste.  But most complaints said they did it "wrong" or that a plot hole was left open etc.  And this is where I will challenge them to define what was wrong or what was missed or what could or should have been done.
 
Complaining without solutions is just bitching in my book.  It accomplishes nothing.  It's better to just say "I don't like it" and move on.  But human nature seeks justification and reinforcement of their feelings.  So I will challenge when someone tries to complain about an actual fact or game mechanic.  I will challenge them to find a better solution.  Because if there is no other solution then their complaint is basically meaningless.

Fair enough. Then challenge me and talk to me. That is fine. I think we'll both leave feeling better when we don't yell at each other.

To be fair, though, sometimes it's necessary to provide feedback, even if the feedback is very negative because some things do deserve negative feedback in order for the company to know they did something wrong. This helps them improve. Such feedback doesn't always have to be accompanied by a solution. It just doesn't. That's not the customer's job. It's as when people complain about the evac scene and rightfully so because the Normandy appears in five seconds out of nowhere to pick up your companions and only your companions while people around you are dying while you're declaring your love to your LI with Harbinger staring at your butt. But, hey, he's patiently waiting until you're done, so it's fine. Even people who like the scene admit it's silly. I prefer it to be there instead of it not being there, as well. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out that, "Wow, that doesn't exactly make sense. Why doesn't Harby shoot the Normandy down or something? Why don't we pick the other injured and dying people up?" Etc. I don't think anybody can really argue it could've been done much better. Whether people like it or not, that's a personal opinion. And that's fine. However, it's not really my job as a person who bought the game with my own money to help the game's writers and devs fix it. Sometimes I wouldn't be able to provide my own ideas, but that doesn't mean the game has zero issues.
 

A couple of points on why didn't anyone else do anything.  The Citadel is big.  Does Hackett know where Shepard is at?  Then can send a division of troops and it can take months to find Shepard.  It seems there is no GPS locator in the game as Shepard needed the Turians to fire a flare to find their location on Tuchanka.  So issue one is even knowing where to go to be able to even do anything.

 

In Mass Effect, they have these things called NavPoints which they can send through their omni-tools. This can be seen e.g. on Therum in ME1 where Shepard commands Joker to lock on her signal to pick them up. Shepard's omni-tool might have been melted (Although they do seem to communicate with Hackett somehow.), but Anderson's wasn't. If I were Shepard, I'd try to see if Anderson's undamaged equipment could be used to call for help. (This would be a perfect moment for the companions to shine, imho.)
 

But even if Hackett does find Shepard what will be done?  This is the central question.  I am honestly asking what do you expect to see if Hackett or other appeared next to Shepard?  I don't see how it changes anything.  You still have four basic choices.  You and organics are being forced to play the game as set out by the Catalyst.  No one may like the rules but I can make a very logical and concise defense of why it is what it is.

 

If I had any say in the story, I'd just scrap the Catalyst completely because it's redundant. I already said before that I think that it would be better not to go there at all. Shepard opens the Citadel, the Crucible starts charging, Shepard and Anderson have that touching talk about how they have won while watching their job pay off, then Anderson dies happy, etc. The results could be a combination of your EMS, alignment, decisions. For example, helped cure the genophage? Let the players see Tuchanka damaged but optimistic. Didn't help cure the genophage? Let's see Tuchanka in ruin with a few relieved but somewhat depressed krogan. High EMS? Just the Reapers go down. Low EMS? Lots of other stuff gets damaged, including synthetics. Very low EMS? We can still have the whole galaxy destroyed. I'm just rambling ideas now, though. If I were a writer, I'd have to carefully prepare all this because that's what writers should do.

Provided Shepard eventually got a team with her, they could've had a look at that console she tried to fiddle with before she fainted in the original. We don't know what they would figure out or not because we are not even allowed to try. I find it weird she had to fall unconscious for the Catalyst to do anything.

Yeah, I know, the awesome A, B, C and screw you choices. I'd just really, really not go there and let the Reapers keep some of their dignity before they die. ("Who made you?" - "WE HAVE NO BEGINNING. WE ARE ETERNAL. RUDIMENTARY CREATURES OF FLESH, YOU TOUCH MY MIND FUMBLING IN IGNORANCE. WE ARE BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION. HURR DURR." and all that jazz.) But anyway, first of all, not having a person who's on the brink of passing out decide the fate of the whole galaxy might be nice. Having EDI could bring interesting insight into what's going on and what's what. The Catalyst tells you, "Your Crucible is largely intact." Okay. Fine. What's wrong? What do we do about it?

 

The Normandy pretty much passes where Shepard is while leaving so they're somewhere close. Some help is always better than none.
 

As for trusting the Catalyst that is a central choice that you as the player have to make.  And that is the whole point!  Do you or do you not trust the AI.  Most choices in life are not clear cut or easy.  ME3 was trying to do just that.  I honestly have problems understanding why anyone doesn't get this basic premise.  If you trust the AI you go synergy (if available) and if not you can destroy or fight on.

But I am given absolutely zero choice whether I want to trust the Catalyst or not. I'm forced to make a choice. And no matter which choice you go for, it's all based on the assumption that the Catalyst tells you the truth. You can refuse, but the refuse option is there to punish you for not liking the original endings because what happens basically is that Shepard says some nonsense about dying free, looking like an idiot, and then you see Liara's capsule. You don't see any fighting or anything. It has the least content of all endings. You don't really get a choice to leave, contact anyone, and fight on. If it's decided that the organics lose without the Crucible, fine, but at least treat it like a legitimate ending.
 

As for beating the Reapers with a crazy high EMS I see two major issues with it.  First off the many comments by Hackett that they can't win a conventional war.  Next is the fact that the organics already lost much of their fighting forces in piecemeal engagements.  Not to mention that no one was ready and no coordinated effort was put into place from the start.  So I really doubt this.  And you do have that option.  Refuse or shoot the Catalyst and the war goes on.  But Bioware dictated that organics lose this cycle.  So I don't see it as a real option and there are many clues to support that you can't win no matter what EMS you have because there isn't enough forces left in the galaxy to win.

Yeah, they keep telling you that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally as you proceed to take Reapers down with Cains, orbital strikes, and fleets. Even the colonists on Feros took a capital ship down. You can't tell the player one thing and then show them something else.
 

The Catalyst says it needs your "energy" to create a new DNA.  It doesn't say it needs your DNA.  Identical twins have identical DNA  but are two different persons with different wants, idea, feelings and even different fingerprints.  So energy is not DNA and it's Shepard's energy or lifeforce as some Si-Fi references like to call it, that is needed.  So hopefully that can be put to rest. Synergy requires Shepard to sacrifice his life to give over his essence, her energy for it to work.

 

What is "your energy"? Because to me it sounds like, "I need you to jump into the beam but there's no good explanation I can give you." What is a person's energy? We're moving into a really spiritual territory here.

[GreyLycanTrope]

What is "your energy"? Because to me it sounds like, "I need you to jump into the beam but there's no good explanation I can give you." What is a person's energy? We're moving into a really spiritual territory here.

"Organic energy" makes me think biochemical, which means you can toss a wombat in there and get the same results.

 

Hell just grab a fern from the nearest Citadel apartment.