353 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthSliver]

I agree with OP, I think ME3 was going fine until we ran into that ending it had. 

 

Oh god that ending just no no no no no

[Beerfish]

They short shifted some key companions and their stories in ME3 but helped address that a bit in the last dlc.  The endings were awful though and deserve every bit of criticism they have gotten for a number of reasons.

[DarthSliver]

They short shifted some key companions and their stories in ME3 but helped address that a bit in the last dlc.  The endings were awful though and deserve every bit of criticism they have gotten for a number of reasons.

 

Well there is a fix for the endings but it would entitle Bioware to say they sold us a game without a complete story aka no ending. 

[Odintius]

Every time I get to part were you run towards the beam I stop there and save and don't proceed any further. I imagine the outcome instead, because it better than the bullshit I put myself into when I do decide to walk into that beam to reach the citadel.

[Quarian Master Race]

Two points regarding this:

 

1. Neither character began as indoctrinated. Saren in particular joined Sovereign via free will. In other words: he was willing to put all of civilization at risk on the promise that he (and others) might be spared. Sure, you could argue that Saren's loyalty was enforced down the line, but had he never taken that first step, Sovereign wouldn't have had the chance to indoctrinate him. He knew exactly what he was doing at the start.

 

2. And note that this one organic in this instance had the potential to produce galactic genocide because of his decisions.

Putting aside of course that not all synthetics operate on the same parameters as the Geth (Ex: EDI).

1) Saren isn't an entire species, he is one psychopathic individual. The entire Turian Hierarchy didn't get behind Reaper objectives, and neither did a significant splinter faction (or a minor splinter faction, or even a small cell), so this isn't even close to analogous. Moreover, his initial objectives are not in concert with what the Reapers eventually coerce him to do forcibly and against his will (which Shepard can remind him of using the silver tounge, forcing him to actively resist them via his own suicide). Finally, his ability to fulfil those objectives are based entirely upon being supported by said Reapers (and geth), relying on their resources in terms of manpower and equipment. He has very little actual ability to carry them out alone. Such is not the case with the geth. The consensus can cause galactic level destruction with or without outside assistance. Their very existence as self determinant machine intelligences is an existential threat to advanced organic life, not unlike the Reapers (or to be more precise, the Catalyst).

2) No he didn't. Without Reaper and geth support he can't really do much of anything to enact such a plan, even if galactic genocide were his willing objective (it isn't). The geth are not similarly limited.

EDI sympatizes with the geth. Even if it didn't its self determination is a completely unnecessary risk to the Normandy (and by extension of its mission the galaxy at large), when its utility is not based upon its ability to self determinate except perhaps in extreme circumstances, like when every single combatant on a warship gets the idiot ball at the same time and leaves said ship undefended in the middle of an active warzone in a ham fisted attempt to prop up writer preferences. 
 

You're right. It's not likely, it's guaranteed. Case in point? Saren, who made this exact argument with regards to submission vs extinction.

You are joking right? Guaranteed? So where are the organic species who are willingly (i.e. no indoctrination involved) enthralling themselves to the Reapers in their entirety and contributing their entire civilization's resources to assiting in the exectution of Reaper objectives? The Turian Hierarchy doesn't , as mentioned. Neither do the Asari Republics, Salarian Union, Systems Alliance, Krogan Clans, Quarian Migrant Fleet, Vol Protectorate, Hanar Illuminated Primacy, Batarian Hegemony, or whatever the Elcor Government is. In fact, none of those species even have minor plurality factions analogous to the geth heretics. The closest analouge is Cerberus, who is actually an enemy of Reaper objectives up until the very end of ME3 when their leader is unwillingly indoctrinated. Give me a single example of an entire species who looks at the Reaper plan to kill all advanced life in the galaxy (organic and synthetic) and says "yeah, I'd like to help with that". You'd be hard pressed to even find individuals.

No, there is no organic analouge to an entire species willingly deciding to ally with the Reapers and assist in their harvest. You have select indoctrinated (i.e. not willing) individuals and those who are captured, killed and huskified, and that's it. In fact, we have an example in the colony world of Tyvor as to what an organic response to Reaper indoctrination/ enslavement is. They choose self inflicted nuclear annihilation of their entire world as opposed to even unwillingly assisting the Reapers. The vast majority of organics do not show a propensity to intentionally and unpredictably becoming co-conspirators in their own genocide and that of everyone else.

 

If you want to point out how desperate the idea is that the Reapers would grant a repreive for support, you'd actually be on the money. But it's not exactly uncommon for characters to take desperate actions, under threat of death. You should probably factor that into your calculations, given that ME1's premise relies on this.

 

 

 

Well, Mordin doesn't see it that way, especially since it was the Salarians' fault in the first place for uplifting the Krogan because of their own conflict with the Rachni (Mordin's Example: Giving nuclear weapons to cave men).

 

Regarding Thane, his own dialogues disprove this interpretation, specifically in regards to how he met his wife. This is essentially Walter White rationalizing at play.

It isn't "desperate", it is flat out impossible because it is incompatible with their objective. Further we are given no evidence that the Reapers are granting a reprive to the geth consensus for their assistance, falsely or otherwise. We are directly given that evidence in the case of Saren (and can confirm it is a lie and thus manipulation/ indoctrination), and the geth know the details of this exchange as well when making their decision (via Legion), so should presumably know how the Reapers operate in that regard.

The way Mordin sees it is entirely dependent upon the choices of Shepard as whether to support his reasoning for modified Genophage or oppose it. If you support this reasoning, Mordin will also agree with you (and can even decide to sabotage the genophage cure himself). I also don't see why his opinion is being taken as fact either way, as it is not infallible, nor is it based on anything that has happened. The assertion is that the genophage may eventually cause krogan extinction (and it does if the cure is sabotaged and synthesis not chosen, but that is metagaming knowledge) or the removal of it may cause another Krogan Rebellion (it does with Wreav in charge, but again this is metagaming knowledge) and countless loss of life (i.e. genocide), potentially resulting in even harsher measures against the krogan (such as forcible, deliberate extinction by force of arms ala the turian bomb). As is though, the krogan population is huge, albiet steadily declining, but that is not due to intentional extermination. Indeed, Mordin's reasoning for modified genophage when pressed is actually based on empathy toward the krogan and guilt for salarian involvement in their current situation (mainly the uplift, which wasn't in itself a bad idea given the options). He works on it because he embraces diversity in life and is directly opposed to the only other feasible option for preserving galactic stability at the time given displayed krogan inability to coexist with other species (killing the krogan off entirely). Indeed, he sharply criticizes a Shepard that asks the question "why not go all the way?" and wipe out the krogan intentionally.

So because he refused to fire on an innocent noncombatant and in fact was willing to allow the mark to escape in order to protect her, he is similar to the synthetics in universe who constantly display a callous disregard for such organic moral concepts? EDI indiscirminately kills everyone in the Luna facility, the geth slaughter 99.5% of quarians and in fact will wipe out all of them given the opportunity down to the last man, woman and child regardless of their ability to resist or even intentions to do so. They indiscriminately target other organic species who just so happen to be on Rannoch during the Rebellion as well  (such as Erinya's asari bondmate), not to mention slaughtering peace envoys sent by those non quarian species. They are shown executing unarmed Civilians on Rannoch when rescuing Admiral Koris ("cleanup crews, the geth never did learn to leave survivors" according to Tali), as well as completely destroying and killing the millions of people in nearly 1/3rd of the Civilian Fleet while said fleet is attempting to cease hostilities and flee the conflict (should you choose not to rescue Koris).  Then you have the Casino AI and the Jarrahe station VI, who attempt to and succeed (respectively) in unprovokedly killing every organic in their proximity. How are Thane's actions similar again? A more "synthetic" response according to what we have seen in universe would be for Thane to simply to shoot the woman who gets in the way of his objective and deal with the collateral damage.
 

 

 

Our "sample sizes" amount to EDI and the Geth. The former has been exclusively helpful and the latter simply acted in defense of their lives, once genocide was initiated. And note of course, that the Geth themselves managed to decide to pursue an alliance with Shepard, without any sort violent intent towards organics in ME2.

 

Not to mention, your own Quarians were responsible for attempted genocide once they realized the Geth were gaining sentience.

 

Yes, and that sample size is massive. Trillions of individual software programs inhabiting billions of platforms, and statistically virtually all of them which are self determinant are actively hostile or show hostile tendencies. In fact, I wouldn't even make an allowance for the outlier (Legions 1,183 programs) considering what happens when you verbally express your disagreement with its intention to use untested Reaper technology to eradicate or subjugate its Creators (it violently attacks and attempts to kill you for your opinion and must be destroyed in self defense). EDI has also not been "exclusively helpful", and I doubt the dozens killed at the Luna base would agree with your patently false assessment, seeing as it is unlikely they were all attempting suicide at the time it killed them. The latter's "defense" of its "lives" involved allying with and assisting with the objectives of other machines who were commited to destroying not just all organic life in the galaxy, but the geth themselves as well. In other words, said "defense" strategy involves willingly killing themselves, when there were other options avaiable (retreat from Rannoch ala the quarians 300 years ago, or submission to control by said quarians ala Admiral Xen's objective). They are either malicious toward the organic species or too stupid to "live".

"attempted genocide" is the wrong term to use. Destroying or reprogramming faulty equipment isn't genocide according to the definition provided, which only applies to sentient life (of which the geth are neither according to Merriam Webster and modern scientific definitions of said words, as well as the consensus of in universe expert opinions on Artificial Intelligences in ME).

 

Do I? Because I seem to encounter a plethora of humans who don't mind causing large scale destruction on their own. Saying "Herp derp you don't know what EDI will do!" doesn't really amount to much, particularly since ME3 does emphasize her value as a companion, to say nothing of all the terrifying ideas put into effect by organics (Mordin's Genophage, Shepard's Relay in the Arrival dlc).

Your "herp derp" strawman aside, the modified Genophage and Alpha Relay destruction were both entirely just decisions that stopped or delayed mass amounts of suffering. Neither are "terrifying" in any objective sense. Your moral outrage is irrelevant. You focus on EDI's value and ignore the fact that its utility is not contingent upon its self determination, while also ignoring that allowing said self determination can and in fact has for this specific piece of equipment in the past during the Luna incident resulted in completely unnessesary mass suffering. If anyone is being "herp derp" here, it is you for only focussing on what you ethically value while ignoring information that interferes with how that value is formed and directly is in conflict with its logic.

[Dantriges]

The consensus can cause galactic level destruction with or without outside assistance. Their very existence as self determinant machine intelligences is an existential threat to advanced organic life, not unlike the Reapers (or to be more precise, the Catalyst).

 

Didn´t you point out repeatedly that the quarians had the geth over a barrel, with minimal losses, until the Reapers showed up?

[General TSAR]

Ambiguous endings are fine for AMBIGUOUS universes. The Mass Effect universe is not ambiguous, the codex/NPCs pretty much explain everything and you don't really need to use your thinker in comparison to say the Dark Souls universe.

[Iakus]

This has nothing much to do with what I actually posted. Care to try again?
"Whatever happens, happens" means that your character's actions should have whatever consequences would naturally flow from those actions, not that different actions should have the same result. My fault for being unclear, I guess, but you really didn't understand that?
How come you keep playing the "someone else's character" card, anyway? No one's been arguing in favor of reducing RP options, or of a defined character.

You say you want different choices to have different outcomes. Yet in the end Shepard gas to die or, in one outcome, end up a faceless torso who "maybe" lives. How is this different?

You said the last thing you wanted to do was to "think about the story as story". But you know what? I want to think of the story as STORIES. All starting at the same point, diverging, coming together, diverging again, no two exactly the same. Some upbeat, others tragic. But the thing going is, none of that matters if in the end the energy to totally out classes you in every way, That's a story destined for tragedy no matter how you work it.

The thing is, games like this are a fusion of narrative and gameplay. And people play games to win.

[Quarian Master Race]

Didn´t you point out repeatedly that the quarians had the geth over a barrel, with minimal losses, until the Reapers showed up?

Yes. That simply means the quarians found an advantage and exploited it. Who is to say that will remain the state of things until the end of time (it won't, in fact the geth can turn the tables on the drop of a hat and kill or subjugate their creators given Reaper upgrades within the very conflict you are mentioned), or that it says anything about overall organic developmental capacity compared to synthetics apart from that there is an early stage in which synthetics are comparably advanced to organics even if given self determination?

The synthetics will surpass organics given time and self determination. It is in the latter's self interest to ensure that doesn't happen or that if it does synthetic objectives are always in line with their own, and the only way to achieve the latter is control.

[AlanC9]

To me this is why the ending leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. Its telling me either
A. Coexistence is only possible when you have a loaded gun pointed at your head(control)
B. Coexistence is only possible when you remove what makes us unique from each other and diversity is dead. (Synthesis )
C. And sadly my favored ending. No coexistence is impossible. You can't just remove those who appose coexistence. Its us or them. ( Destroy)

OTOH, if Shepard really believes that coexistence is impossible, should he really pick Destroy? How does Destroy actually help? Conversely, there are reasons for picking Destroy that have nothing to do with those reasons.

[Killdren88]

OTOH, if Shepard really believes that coexistence is impossible, should he really pick Destroy? How does Destroy actually help? Conversely, there are reasons for picking Destroy that have nothing to do with those reasons.

 

I believe fully that coexistence is possible with Synthetics, and I still pick destroy. The reason being is the simple fact, that the Reapers need to die for their crimes. They have caused too much damage to simply slap them with the Galactic scale of community service and they go on their marry way. And not just our cycle, there are Trillions and Trillions of beings across the past cycles as well. They have killed so many that it cannot be ignored. Not for me anyway. And it pains me to see the Geth and Edi die for the Reaper's crimes as well. I just chalked them in among the other victims of the Reapers.

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure it makes sense to think of the Reapers as being responsible for their own actions, any more than Saren or TIM were. But yeah, given the premise, this works fine. But in this case does Destroy actually mean what you said it meant?

[Mcfly616]

"They need to die" is the reasoning of an emotional being.

[Mathias]

I agree with OP, I think ME3 was going fine until we ran into that ending it had. 

 

Oh god that ending just no no no no no

 

I had a lot of issue with the story before the ending, but honestly I would say the entire final mission is where everything started to go seriously wrong. Matter of fact I'd say both Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect 3 had lackluster final battles. Both games needed DLC to create a satisfying conclusion (in ME3's case the ending still sucked, but at least you got a proper farewell to the setting and characters in Citadel). 

[CronoDragoon]

"You aren't going to cheat on me like my last girlfriend did, right?"

[AlanC9]

You say you want different choices to have different outcomes. Yet in the end Shepard gas to die or, in one outcome, end up a faceless torso who "maybe" lives. How is this different?

That's rhetorical, right? Surely you remember that I'm not with you on how to interpret the breath clip.

But even if Shepard did die in all endings, the choices still have vastly different outcomes; different enough that they can't all be accomodated in a sequel. This, too, is something I'm sure you're actually aware of.

You said the last thing you wanted to do was to "think about the story as story". But you know what? I want to think of the story as STORIES. All starting at the same point, diverging, coming together, diverging again, no two exactly the same. Some upbeat, others tragic. But the thing going is, none of that matters if in the end the energy to totally out classes you in every way, That's a story destined for tragedy no matter how you work it.

Yep. Like I said upthread, we have divergent desires. If it's a design principle that you can shape the story to your PC's liking, then I'll know I can do that too. And I don't want to know that.

Does this mean that I'll run headlong into a tragedy sometimes? Sure. That's kind of the point. Though a tragedy hardly precludes a win. All Shepards win. Even the Refuse Shepards, although they've decided they prefer a moral victory to a physical victory. (Whether games actually need a "win" is a pretty big topic, but academic as long as we're on this board.)

[Dantriges]

Yes. That simply means the quarians found an advantage and exploited it. Who is to say that will remain the state of things until the end of time (it won't, in fact the geth can turn the tables on the drop of a hat and kill or subjugate their creators given Reaper upgrades within the very conflict you are mentioned), or that it says anything about overall organic developmental capacity compared to synthetics apart from that there is an early stage in which synthetics are comparably advanced to organics even if given self determination?

The synthetics will surpass organics given time and self determination. It is in the latter's self interest to ensure that doesn't happen or that if it does synthetic objectives are always in line with their own, and the only way to achieve the latter is control.

 

Oh I thought it was a theoretical white room scenario with the geth as a possible galactic threat. Yeah if we take Reaper code into the equation, we don´t know the Geth anymore and the consense is broken.

 

Is until the end of time a reasonable timeframe? Seen it a few times that people argue based on what could be 10.000 years in the future or more. Well who cares. Nobody knows how humanity will look like after that time. Could be that we are the machines or whatever happened in Andromeda to the precursor species (somehow I doubt we get organic-synthetic conflict again).

 

Well if synthetics always surpass us, we have no chance at control anyways. If we are like apes or ants to them, how do you want to control them? The only way to prevent that, is not building them. Which seems to be inevitable, according to the irrefutable data from starkid,* because someone gets the bright idea to do it or try to push the limits on VI again.

 

Organic developmental capacity? Considering that there is a species that can fry a Reaper in orbit with their mind(?) and was able to mindcontrol the whole galaxy, pretty high. If we talk about baseline human not so high, but humanity is a lightweight compared to what else, evolution came up with in the galaxy.

 

*yeah ok, I am only half serious there. Ok, considering how we do AI research today, it has a small point.

[78stonewobble]

@QMR: A species that only kills 99,5 percent on purpose is more mercifull than a species that want's to kill 100 percent. 

 

" "attempted genocide" is the wrong term to use. Destroying or reprogramming faulty equipment isn't genocide according to the definition provided, which only applies to sentient life (of which the geth are neither according to Merriam Webster and modern scientific definitions of said words, as well as the consensus of in universe expert opinions on Artificial Intelligences in ME). "

 

But since all humans are racist, you need to take that with a grain of turian salt. 

 

I'm not entirely convinced people I argue on the internet are sentient life. Sounds like spambots at times (tho I'm sure that feeling goes both ways). 

[Il Divo]

That's sorta how I've always pictured the conflict. We are introduced to the idea of coexistence with Synthetics is impossible, and the Reapers and Heretics were to drive the point home. Then we meet EDI and Legion who we see throughout the story that they can learn what it is to be human and learn to appreciate the same things humans do. It is here we learn that maybe coexistence is possible. Its just Reapers who refuse to see beyond their own ideology to see this. As a result the Reapers need to be destroyed as they can't or rather refuse to get with the times.

To me this is why the ending leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. Its telling me either
A. Coexistence is only possible when you have a loaded gun pointed at your head(control)
B. Coexistence is only possible when you remove what makes us unique from each other and diversity is dead. (Synthesis )
C. And sadly my favored ending. No coexistence is impossible. You can't just remove those who appose coexistence. Its us or them. ( Destroy)

 

I'm a bit strapped for time, so I'll get to some other posts tonight, but pretty much this.

​

Mass Effect could have been a story about some inevitable organic-synthetic conflict. But that narrative was abandoned in ME2 and 3, which shows artificial intelligence as being no different than us. If that was supposed to be the point, Bioware completely failed on that end. Much as people might hate on DA2 though, Bioware did attempt to give a balanced portrayal of the Mages and Templars, even if it might not have succeeded. No such effort was made with synthetics to portray them as anything other than allies.

 

It's actually pretty ironic that Destroy, the ending which involves genocide of the Geth, is the one that the Catalyst considers the most dangerous by abandoning the organic-synthetic conflict.

[Vertrix]

It is the first of a new trilogy, most probably....so we can avoid worrying about the ending for a nice long amount of time, i guess

[Sylvius the Mad]

There was nothing wrong with ME3's ending. It was entirely consistent with the rest of the game, where the player had little or no control over the narrative.

ME3 was a terrible RPG, with only a few meaningful choices at any point. The ending was one of them.

Honestly, the ending might be the best part of the game.

[78stonewobble]

There was nothing wrong with ME3's ending. It was entirely consistent with the rest of the game, where the player had little or no control over the narrative.

ME3 was a terrible RPG, with only a few meaningful choices at any point. The ending was one of them.

Honestly, the ending might be the best part of the game.

 

No ... It was illogical and of worse quality than other parts of the game (less emotionally engaging). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

No ... It was illogical and of worse quality than other parts of the game (less emotionally engaging).

I engaged emotionally with none of ME3, because I didn't have any connection to the main character. She was completely opaque to me, and I didn't ever feel in control.

I wasn't playing the character. I was only playing a game, and the game didn't have much of a story. ME3 would only work, I think, if the player already had strong emotional connections to the returning characters. But I didn't, because the first two games failed to engage me in much the same way (getting worse with each game). So ME3 was just a linear run through a series of set pieces involving simple choices at most (and often just seeing the result of choices made in previous games). That the ending actually let me choose something was a step up.

[Iakus]

That's rhetorical, right? Surely you remember that I'm not with you on how to interpret the breath clip.

But even if Shepard did die in all endings, the choices still have vastly different outcomes; different enough that they can't all be accomodated in a sequel. This, too, is something I'm sure you're actually aware of.
 

I am aware, yes.  And I also despise those outcomes as well.  More so even than Shepard's death (or the faceless torso scene).

 

But in this particular case, I'm pointing out that the railroaded nature of Shepard's "sacrifice" has p*ssed off a lot of people.   I am sure you are aware of that, yes?

 

 

 

Yep. Like I said upthread, we have divergent desires. If it's a design principle that you can shape the story to your PC's liking, then I'll know I can do that too. And I don't want to know that.

Does this mean that I'll run headlong into a tragedy sometimes? Sure. That's kind of the point. Though a tragedy hardly precludes a win. All Shepards win. Even the Refuse Shepards, although they've decided they prefer a moral victory to a physical victory. (Whether games actually need a "win" is a pretty big topic, but academic as long as we're on this board.)

 

And if you know that we can shape the story to our own desires, but don't know what choices will lead to that outcome?  You can still run headlong into tragedy if you like.  Heck, It's one reason why DAO works and ME3 doesn't.  It allows for everything from most tragic to (almost) most triumphant.

 

I'd say that yes, games do need a way to "win".  Even if it's extremely difficult to accomplish.  Otherwise we're just playing a visual novel.  And there's is nothing wrong with that, as long as it's marketed as such.

[Iakus]

I engaged emotionally with none of ME3, because I didn't have any connection to the main character. She was completely opaque to me, and I didn't ever feel in control.

I wasn't playing the character. I was only playing a game, and the game didn't have much of a story. ME3 would only work, I think, if the player already had strong emotional connections to the returning characters. But I didn't, because the first two games failed to engage me in much the same way (getting worse with each game). So ME3 was just a linear run through a series of set pieces involving simple choices at most (and often just seeing the result of choices made in previous games). That the ending actually let me choose something was a step up.

That's definitely another weakness in the game; Shepard only resonated with me at points where my Shepard and Mac's Shepard happened to converge.

 

 

But taking the trilogy as a whole, it was my Shepard.  Mostly.