93 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

OK. That still doesn't explain how Destroy is less satisfying because other options exist.

I also don't understand why the Catalyst's opinions are of any interest to a Shepard who doesn't agree with them.

[Ieldra]

@AlanC9:

 

This is how the scenario presents itself to me:

 

1. The In-world perspective

 

You are Shepard. You have reached your enemy's hq. You're at the end of your strength and you're injured, but you are, at last, confronting the enemy you've fought against, knowingly or not, ever since you saw Sovereign lift off of Eden Prime. This enemy is killing your civilization, and it has been killing civilizations for at least 37 million years. Apparently it can take images from your mind in order to appear as this boy. It tells you a lot of stuff about organics and synthetics. Maybe it's true, maybe not, but well, this is the enemy. Do you trust it?

 

Of course you don't, but that leaves you with a dilemma. You have no information about how to proceed. The enemy is in control of the situation. For all you know, pushing any of these buttons will just kill you. Why doesn't the Catalyst just kill you? No idea, perhaps it has no physical limbs or servants up here to do it, so it has to stall for time. Anyway, everything it tells you is suspect. Normally, you'd be looking for the fourth button it hasn't told you about, but there isn't one. Well, of course it could all be true. Your theory of mind will probably fail with a million-year-old AI, but would you bet your civilization on it?

 

It doesn't matter. You have no single piece of reliable information about how to proceed. All you know is that this thing has been trying to kill your civilization. You might as well throw dice to make your decision. You're caught in an inescapable infinite suspicion chain. So what do you do? As the player, you take a step back. You leave the in-world perspective and switch into the storytelling perspective. And now the sh*t really hits the fan, because all the thematic and narrative inconsistencies you could ignore in the in-world perspective swoop down and explode in your face.

 

2. The storytelling perspective

 

....because now it is driven home what this situation really means: there is no hero's solution. There are only the antagonist's solutions. It is in complete control of the scenario, and you have no way to break it. You have no meaningful agency since all the choices are predetermined by your enemy. The reasonable thing to do, given how stories work, is to refuse to take part in this game. Of course we all know how that ends, and actually the story seems to assume you should become part of your enemy's scenario. But that *would* mean that the Catalyst wins, not you. This goes for all the main choices: Destroy destroys all the synthetics. This uncomfortably associates with a Reaper method: genocide. Control will make you - or something of you - into an AI god and take control of the Reapers. This uncomfortably associates with another Reaper method: indoctrination. Synthesis will ultimate fuse organic and synthetic life. This uncomfortably associates with yet another Reaper method: Reaperization. No matter that this is - rather obviously - not how it was intended to come across, this is how it *does* come across on the associative and thematic level. If you take one of the three main choices, the antagonist's values are ascendant, and you have lost - lost in a much more profound way than losing your life.

 

There is more, though. Suppose you can ignore that and listen to the Catalyst without rejecting what it says because it's the enemy and you have no reason to assume it wouldn't deceive you. Suppose you decide to listen with an open mind. Now we are facing a different problem. The Catalyst asserts a problem. If you were mostly paragon or neutral, you have been playing a story that emphasized again and again that we aren't doomed to conflict, that we can build a good future if we can overcome our prejudices and work together. For 2.9 games, you have been pestering people for co-operation against a common enemy, for burying old hatreds, forget past wars and work for the future instead, and you have been rewarded with significant changes and very satisfying outcomes. This has worked even between organics and synthetics. You have started to understand the geth and made peace on Rannoch.

 

These things have narrative weight. 2.9 games of narrative weight against the assertion of your main antagonist? And you're expected to make one of three choices, all of which are presented to you in the context of the truth of this assertion? How does this not come across as insane? So are you supposed to disbelieve it? If so - yet again - why isn't there a fourth button to press and make you win? Or is this a scenario where you can't win? Well, yes, on the thematic and narrative level, this is a scenario where you can't win. Even if you would really like to believe that at least one of the main options is a good one, on this level the story tells you that (1) the scenario is flawed, and (2) all the options are the enemy's options.

  

This is why I've said it's best to treat the Catalyst encounter as a black box. Somehow you get the information about what the ending options do, and you can choose for the future you prefer, and/or avoid the downsides you find least acceptable. 

 

3. Is the Catalyst encounter real?

 

The hypothesis that the Catalyst encounter isn't real has some merit. In fact, at times I've thought that it took place in your mind and you were making your decision as you were dying, and that everything after your collapse at the control terminal wasn't real in a physical sense. That would explain the symbolism of the choices neatly - in the associative realm of your mind, you could trigger a meaningful choice through a symbolic action. 

You know what, though: it doesn't matter. Physically real or not, the Catalyst has complete control over the situation, you are in its game with no way out, and the consequences of your decision are real.

 

Conclusions:

 

The ending choices present interesting alternatives for the future of civilization. They have certain intrinsic themes you may or may not find appealing, but in and of themselves any of them could make for a good future. However, their presentation through the Catalyst encounter means you either can't believe in any of them, or they're narratively tainted by being the antagonist's solutions, or both. Thus, the Catalyst encounter, not the ending choices themselves, is what makes the ending problematic.

[fraggle]

The thing is, as a writer one of your tasks is to see to it that the players or readers are emotionally ok with the way your story ends (at least if you don't want a downer ending). Not necessarily happy, but ok. In the best cases even a bittersweet ending can have some kind of catharsis. On the other hand, if half of the players reject your ending because they experience it as too depressing, then you've failed as a writer.

 

Hm, I guess all the writers that wrote depressing endings that I loved didn't get the memo. Is it really a writers' task to make your audience happy in a way? Depressing endings can be amazing. How is it the writer's fault if people can't cope with it? I really dislike the notion that a writer who wants to write a certain ending has to do it with the audience in mind. Why not simply write whatever the writer likes?

Yes, some writers may think about how their story can reach the audience best, maybe also with the biggest success in mind, but I certainly welcome if people do what they want without sacrificing an artistic idea or vision.

 

The Catalyst seems to think the core problem in the universe is organics vs. synthetics, but that simply isn't true in so many instances.

 

That's because the Catalyst was programmed by Leviathans, who witnessed this over and over again.

And while you're right it isn't true in our cycle (even though I'd like to argue the geth/quarian case 300 years ago), we don't know how many times it has witnessed this whole thing. Javik also mentions they were at war with their synthetic race when the Reapers arrived. Granted, they were apparently winning, but who knows.

To me, yes, it can be our cycle proves it wrong, but you also don't necessarily have to believe a word it says and I think Shepard is expressing doubt in some cases.

I usually believe it presents everything according to its own knowledge, but I reason we do not need something to decide over our fate for us. So it has to go away

 

1. The In-world perspective

It doesn't matter. You have no single piece of reliable information about how to proceed.

 

2. The storytelling perspective

There are only the antagonist's solutions.

 

3. Is the Catalyst encounter real?

 Physically real or not, the Catalyst has complete control over the situation, you are in its game with no way out,

 

Conclusions:

 

However, their presentation through the Catalyst encounter means you either can't believe in any of them, or they're narratively tainted by being the antagonist's solutions, or both. Thus, the Catalyst encounter, not the ending choices themselves, is what makes the ending problematic.

 

All this is not the Catalyst's doing. It can do nothing but present Shepard these solutions since the Crucible docked, the Catalyst is just as trapped in these choices as Shepard is. Listen to the dialogue. Shepard needs to act, as the Catalyst itself can't choose any of the new solutions.

[IndianaJonesYay]

OK. That still doesn't explain how Destroy is less satisfying because other options exist.

I also don't understand why the Catalyst's opinions are of any interest to a Shepard who doesn't agree with them.

 

Sorry if I'm being unclear; I agree with you. Destroy is the best (imo) of all the available options. And +1 on the Catalyst's opinions remark.

 

@ leldra: well said in many respects. The Catalyst being an AI seemed so unnecessary. Let Shepard set off the Crucible, blow the Reapers to heck, and get outta there, just like the plan always was from day 1. 

 

@ fraggle: Well stated!

[Ieldra]

Hm, I guess all the writers that wrote depressing endings that I loved didn't get the memo. Is it really a writers' task to make your audience happy in a way? Depressing endings can be amazing. How is it the writer's fault if people can't cope with it? I really dislike the notion that a writer who wants to write a certain ending has to do it with the audience in mind. Why not simply write whatever the writer likes?

Writers of fiction write for an audience. Books are meant to be read, games are meant to be played, plays are meant to be watched. If you don't care how your readers experience your work, why do you publish it?

Also, please note that I didn't say you have go out of a story happy. If there was a downer ending and you liked it, obviously the writer did something to make you like it - and you're emotionally ok with it. That's all I meant. I recall a game named "Realms of the Haunting". It had a bad outcome for the protagonist that came unexpectedly for me, completely throwing my experience of the story out of balance. I can't really say that I liked it, but it was a good ending for a story of its kind. There, too, the ending was made in a way I was emotionally ok with it, although it was anything but happy for the protagonist.
 

Yes, some writers may think about how their story can reach the audience best, maybe also with the biggest success in mind, but I certainly welcome if people do what they want without sacrificing an artistic idea or vision.

Again, you are always creating things for an audience. If you have an artistic vision, then you will want it to be appreciated, and you will want to make your vision comprehensible to the audience you expect to pick up your work. Making your vision comprehensible is not the same as sacrificing it, and the ME team failed to do it. Unless you're of the school "True Art Is Incomprehensible", but then you'd better look for a different audience than the players of Bioware games.
 
The creation of art is an interactive process. If you create something, ultimately whether it is good art or not, will not be decided by you.
 

All this is not the Catalyst's doing. It can do nothing but present Shepard these solutions since the Crucible docked, the Catalyst is just as trapped in these choices as Shepard is. Listen to the dialogue. Shepard needs to act, as the Catalyst itself can't choose any of the new solutions.

....says the Catalyst. Who is the antagonist, which means I can expect it to deceive me. Now what? Oh, I know that's not how it's supposed to come across, but that is how it *does* come across. Clearly, a failure of writing and presentation.

[voteDC]

....says the Catalyst. Who is the antagonist, which means I can expect it to deceive me. Now what? Oh, I know that's not how it's supposed to come across, but that is how it *does* come across. Clearly, a failure of writing and presentation.

I think a big part of the ending problems come from Bioware assuming people would know what they knew. You just have to look at their reaction of shock to discover that people thought that all those people on the Citadel we'd fought so hard to save had been killed when the Crucible fired.

That I think is the same problem with the Catalyst. They knew what it was and its motivations and assumed the viewer would think the same, without ever giving them information to put it together. Right until the very end I was thinking something is going to happen here, as neither Shepard or I had any reason to trust what it was saying was true.

[Ieldra]

@ leldra: well said in many respects. The Catalyst being an AI seemed so unnecessary. Let Shepard set off the Crucible, blow the Reapers to heck, and get outta there, just like the plan always was from day 1.

Personally I'm glad for the other options - there are a few satisfying outcomes I can imagine based on the idea that something of you retains agency after the ending if you choose Control - but I admit they seem a little out of place given all that came before. I wouldn't have expected a story that didn't end with the Reapers' demise a few months before ME3 came out, however much I desired it. The story screams "Anything Reaper is evil" into your ears at an annoyingly loud volume for most of the trilogy. I really hate being screamed at and anvils being dropped on my head, and chances are that I won't follow whenever it happens, as I didn't here, but I can't pretend it didn't happen.

[fraggle]

Writers of fiction write for an audience. Books are meant to be read, games are meant to be played, plays are meant to be watched. If you don't care how your readers experience your work, why do you publish it?

 

Maybe "don't care" is a bit too strong. But I'm fairly sure there are artists that create something to be published, but also do the things they want without thinking about what people might expect. You know, to create a story to first and foremost satisfy themselves. Of course there are things the other way around too.

Take Harry Potter for example (I put it in spoilers just in case):

Spoiler

I believe I read J.K. Rowling changed her ending to Harry not dying because fans of course figured out before that he will die because of the Horcrux part and made a huge fuss about it. So she changed it to please them. I would've liked the other ending more, because it would have fit better for me personally. There's always two sides, but I'd rather she had not listened to what the fans wanted and did her own thing. She sacrificed her artistic vision to please her fans. Of course, this is just my opinion because I really respect people that do things for themselves and not necessarily for others.

 

Also, please note that I didn't say you have go out of a story happy. If there was a downer ending and you liked it, obviously the writer did something to make you like it - and you're emotionally ok with it. That's all I meant. I recall a game named "Realms of the Haunting". It had a bad outcome for the protagonist that came unexpectedly for me, completely throwing my experience of the story out of balance. I can't really say that I liked it, but it was a good ending for a story of its kind. There, too, the ending was made in a way I was emotionally ok with it, although it was anything but happy for the protagonist.

 

You said that half of the audience didn't like it because it was too depressing and thus the writers failed. But if this is about how emotionally satisfying it is, then it is always a matter of taste anyway and how the writing is wouldn't matter in that case. It can be good and depressive, or good and happy, and people will still be torn about it. There are always some who like it and some who dislike it. Personally, for me a super happy ending would not have fit, but that's just me.

And why were the endings here too depressing anyway? Because you win and can live with Destroy, but lose the Synthetics? I thought this to be a quite positive ending, and we also need to see that there are different Shepards. My last didn't care about the geth and sided with the quarians earlier anyway, leaving EDI the only casualty. That was very okay for me.

 

Again, you are always creating things for an audience. If you have an artistic vision, then you will want it to be appreciated, and you will want to make your vision comprehensible to the audience you expect to pick up your work. Making your vision comprehensible is not the same as sacrificing it, and the ME team failed to do it.
The creation of art is an interactive process. If you create something, ultimately whether it is good art or not, will not be decided by you.

 

Well, the first part is a different thing than what we were talking about (people understanding what you want to express). I'm not really going there because I've had this discussion too many times already on here.

And for your last sentence. Yes, ultimately, your work will be judged. But who defines what is good and bad anyway? Many things are a matter of taste, a matter of perception, some things just appeal to you, while others don't. But as long as the writer is proud of it, does that matter? Just shows to me they had their own vision, but if people dislike it they can still be satisfied themselves. It's the same with music. An artist can always be incredible proud of his own work, yet there will be people, even hardcore fans, who will dislike it. That's how these things work I suppose.

 

....says the Catalyst. Who is the antagonist, which means I can expect it to deceive me. Now what? Oh, I know that's not how it's supposed to come across, but that is how it *does* come across. Clearly, a failure of writing and presentation.

 

I said this somewhere else but to me the Catalyst is no villain. I know this is not the popular opinion, but I never had the impression it wanted to deceive us. Appeal to us to pick Synthesis, yes, but not deceivable.

So... why is it clearly a failure of writing? Some people obviously see the Catalyst as villain, others don't. Some people trust it, some don't. It's maybe rather a matter of how you perceive things, or on which level you trust the Catalyst. But does that make it failed writing?

[Ieldra]

And why were the endings here too depressing anyway? Because you win and can live with Destroy, but lose the Synthetics? I thought this to be a quite positive ending, and we also need to see that there are different Shepards. My last didn't care about the geth and sided with the quarians earlier anyway, leaving EDI the only casualty. That was very okay for me.

Why? Well, I tried to analyze things but I can't be really sure. I'm no psychologist after all. I think, though, that most of those who felt the ending is depressing did so because they felt they lost, lost in that more profound way than simply leaving Shepard behind, dead, which I have described in my first post on this page. If you look at things with cold logic, the death of the synthetics is a small price to pay for getting rid of the Reapers, but that's not how these things work. The death of the synthetics is significant because on the thematic level, it nullifies all our achievements in the course of the story, at least if you didn't play a Renegade. All that which you established in the course of the story, all that you affirmed with your actions, is suddenly not valid anymore at the point when it matters most. You know, the story could've been different. You could've failed, again and again, to unite the galaxy. You could've failed on Rannoch, and curing the genophage could've resulted in a new krogan rebellion. In that case, sacrificing the synthetics would have been a natural continuation of the theme, and even more so, the Catalyst's assertion would've had significantly more weight. The writing failure, in short, is this: that they made an ending scenario that didn't fit the story that came before. I do not think that this can reasonably be denied. At least, I haven't read a counter that amounted to more than "I liked it, and so your claim is wrong".

Also, the original endings carried a strong hint of a dark age - actually I'm sure that was the original vision - which means that almost everything you were emotionally connected to was lost, regardless of your choice. I set out to save my civilization, and I couldn't. So of course I felt I lost. This is where the EC significantly improved things.
 

I said this somewhere else but to me the Catalyst is no villain. I know this is not the popular opinion, but I never had the impression it wanted to deceive us. Appeal to us to pick Synthesis, yes, but not deceivable.
So... why is it clearly a failure of writing? Some people obviously see the Catalyst as villain, others don't. Some people trust it, some don't. It's maybe rather a matter of how you perceive things, or on which level you trust the Catalyst. But does that make it failed writing?

The ending scenario only works if you don't see the Catalyst as the antagonist. It is reasonable to accept the Catalyst's solutions if and only if you can perceive it as a neutral force that tries to find a solution to a problem. Can you do that? Well, as you say, you can, and actually, so can I, but we do it against the weight of 2.9 games screaming "Anything Reaper is evil" into our ears at the highest possible volume. The needlessly excessive cruelty of the Reapers, the abomination aesthetic, the indoctrination, the grossly cruel Reaperization process where it could've been clinical and painless - how can you *not* see the Catalyst as a villain in the light of that? The writing failure is this: in order to make the ending satisfying, you need to see the Catalyst as a neutral force, but the 2.9 games that came before didn't just not support that, they did their best to establish that the mind behind all this is the worst kind of villain the galaxy has ever seen. In this, too, the ending scenario does not fit the 2.9 games that came before. And again, no matter if someone could deal with it easily - like you - with some significant mental work - like me - or not at all, I do not think this can reasonably be denied.

[Monica21]

Spoiler

I believe I read J.K. Rowling changed her ending to Harry not dying because fans of course figured out before that he will die because of the Horcrux part and made a huge fuss about it. So she changed it to please them. I would've liked the other ending more, because it would have fit better for me personally. There's always two sides, but I'd rather she had not listened to what the fans wanted and did her own thing. She sacrificed her artistic vision to please her fans. Of course, this is just my opinion because I really respect people that do things for themselves and not necessarily for others.

 

 

I don't think using J.K. Rowling as an example is all that good. She's gone on record as apologizing for lots of things that fit within her artistic vision, but I'd like to see a quote specifically regarding Harry. What I believe happened is what I think happened with a lot of characters in her books: she changed her mind. She grew too attached to Harry. She was going to kill Arthur Weasley but realized he was the only father figure in the entire series, so kept him alive. She's wondered if she made the right choice bring Ron and Hermione together instead of Harry and Hermione. And she apologized for Fred's death. Authors change what they want to see all the time. It doesn't make their original vision the "true" vision.

 

But what resonated with me with regard to leldra's response was specifically pertaining to the Catalyst. The Catalyst is the one who decides how the story ends, not Shepard. And that goes back to a video Vanilka linked to a month or so ago that noted that the Catalyst arguably takes on the role of the Protagonist during the end sequence. All forward progression in the story is because of the Catalyst, not because your incredibly passive Shepard does something. Your Shepard stands there in pain and listens, and that's all, until he decides to take a walk. To me, that is not a satisfying ending.

 

Endings are not required to be happy. Endings need to satisfy however. If you are satisfied with the ending of Mass Effect, then that's great, but I think you're one of the very few.

[AlanC9]

Thanks, Ieldra. Here's where I personally part company from the analysis.

@AlanC9:
It doesn't matter. You have no single piece of reliable information about how to proceed. All you know is that this thing has been trying to kill your civilization. You might as well throw dice to make your decision. You're caught in an inescapable infinite suspicion chain.

I didn't see it as inescapable. All the possibilities where the thing's lying end up in the same place. Zero utility, since you'll lose whatever you do or, rather, you're already lost. So they all cancel each other out. (The possibility that the wrong choice will, say, huskify everyone in the galaxy instantly has been floated, but I don't see getting the defeat over with fast as being a bad thing; Liara's already placed her beacons so there's nothing very important for this cycle to do.)

So I never did get to the point where values are an actual thing that can be ascendant. I guess you could say that I end up at your black box without trying.

The reasonable thing to do, given how stories work, is to refuse to take part in this game. Of course we all know how that ends, and actually the story seems to assume you should become part of your enemy's scenario.

Even more true for the Dark Energy plot, of course. I think I would have been one of the six people who actually liked that ending -- assuming Bio had had the guts to really go through with it.

How does this not come across as insane? So are you supposed to disbelieve it? If so - yet again - why isn't there a fourth button to press and make you win? Or is this a scenario where you can't win? Well, yes, on the thematic and narrative level, this is a scenario where you can't win. Even if you would really like to believe that at least one of the main options is a good one, on this level the story tells you that (1) the scenario is flawed, and (2) all the options are the enemy's options.

"The enemy's options" only in the thematic sense, of course. One of the recurring problems with these debates is that we don't have a good way to segregate the thematic from the (in-universe) real without throwing in qualifiers all the time. I suppose this is a subset of a more general problem, as when someone says "the endings are all the same," which is factually nonsense but may make emotional sense.

I think we are supposed to disbelieve it. The Destroy epilogue is not a couple of synthetics talking about how Shepard cleared the way for their ascendancy. OTOH, this could just be a lack of courage on Bio's part.
  

You know what, though: it doesn't matter. Physically real or not, the Catalyst has complete control over the situation, you are in its game with no way out, and the consequences of your decision are real.

I'd substitute "the enemy" for "the Catalyst" there. The Catalyst isn't in charge of anything any more than the Reapers are; all it can do is follow its programming. Which would make the enemy ... stupidity, perhaps? (And in a thematic sense, we don't really need an actual entity there, do we?)

[AlanC9]

You know, the story could've been different. You could've failed, again and again, to unite the galaxy. You could've failed on Rannoch, and curing the genophage could've resulted in a new krogan rebellion. In that case, sacrificing the synthetics would have been a natural continuation of the theme, and even more so, the Catalyst's assertion would've had significantly more weight.

Didn't Gaider say that peace at Rannoch was a mistake? I've seen this quoted, but never in full context.

The ending scenario only works if you don't see the Catalyst as the antagonist. It is reasonable to accept the Catalyst's solutions if and only if you can perceive it as a neutral force that tries to find a solution to a problem.

Or as something that doesn't have enough agency to be an antagonist.

It occurs to me that I was always predisposed to see the Reapers this way. What I took away from Sovereign's ME1 convo was that it didn't really know why it was doing what it was doing. (What I didn't realize was that Drew K. didn't know either.)

[Monica21]

Even more true for the Dark Energy plot, of course. I think I would have been one of the six people who actually liked that ending -- assuming Bio had had the guts to really go through with it.

 

*raises hand*

 

I liked it. So maybe that's seven people.

[Tim van Beek]

I don't think using J.K. Rowling as an example is all that good...It doesn't make their original vision the "true" vision.

There is another example where fan demands (happy ending, boy gets girl) strongly contradicted the story, theme and characters, and the author defended his artistic vision (in this case there was one worth mentioning  ): Pygmalion (the musical is better known, My Fair Lady, see https://en.wikipedia...ygmalion_(play)).

 

 

 

During the 1914 run, to Shaw's exasperation but not to his surprise, Tree sought to sweeten Shaw's ending to please himself and his record houses.^[9] Shaw returned for the 100th performance and watched Higgins, standing at the window, toss a bouquet down to Eliza. "My ending makes money; you ought to be grateful," protested Tree. "Your ending is damnable; you ought to be shot."

I'd argue that there is no comparable "artistic vision" to be found im ME, at least not with respect to the death of Shep.

 

If Shepard had a story arc where he/she had to learn valor and overcome selfishness, that could have culminated in the ultimate sacrifice in the end. But Shep does not have a story arc and was already there as a character. Furthermore, while sacrifice is a central theme of ME:3, the way the catalyst scene is written, Shep does not have a choice where for example he/she can save him/herself and ensure the survival of humanity alone (therefore choosing to sacrifice others instead of him/herself). Shep's death is not a sacrifice, because there is no alternative, and that makes it arbitrary and disconnected from the ME story and its central themes (and the justification of Shep's death, as presented in the game, is...criticized elsewhere extensively already  ).

 

This makes Shep's death just another WTF for me (increasing the count to ca. 80 concerning the last 10 minutes), and that's depressing  .

 

The ending scenario only works if you don't see the Catalyst as the antagonist... And again, no matter if someone could deal with it easily - like you - with some significant mental work - like me - or not at all, I do not think this can reasonably be denied.

The catalyst presents the Reapers as gardeners of life in the galaxy, with no empathy for the weed they remove to enable new life. 

 

(BTW: The transition from original ending to the EC proves, IMHO, that everything the catalyst says is to be accepted at face value. The writers never anticipated that players would doubt it, and they put a lot of text and pictures in the EC to illustrate that, no, everything it says is true (minor inconsistencies don't disprove that, they can be found all over the franchise).)

 

I think that was supposed to be a "Wow"-Effect for those players who thought about the Reapers being evil. Unfortunately, the scene fails on many levels including communicating this aspect. But the discussion that you start there could have had become a really interesting one, if the ending had worked - and not gotten everybody to discuss it for reasons the writers clearly did not intend  .

[fraggle]

Why? Well, I tried to analyze things but I can't be really sure. I'm no psychologist after all. I think, though, that most of those who felt the ending is depressing did so because they felt they lost, lost in that more profound way than simply leaving Shepard behind, dead, which I have described in my first post on this page. If you look at things with cold logic, the death of the synthetics is a small price to pay for getting rid of the Reapers, but that's not how these things work. The death of the synthetics is significant because on the thematic level, it nullifies all our achievements in the course of the story, at least if you didn't play a Renegade. All that which you established in the course of the story, all that you affirmed with your actions, is suddenly not valid anymore at the point when it matters most. You know, the story could've been different. You could've failed, again and again, to unite the galaxy. You could've failed on Rannoch, and curing the genophage could've resulted in a new krogan rebellion. In that case, sacrificing the synthetics would have been a natural continuation of the theme, and even more so, the Catalyst's assertion would've had significantly more weight. The writing failure, in short, is this: that they made an ending scenario that didn't fit the story that came before. I do not think that this can reasonably be denied. At least, I haven't read a counter that amounted to more than "I liked it, and so your claim is wrong".

Also, the original endings carried a strong hint of a dark age - actually I'm sure that was the original vision - which means that almost everything you were emotionally connected to was lost, regardless of your choice. I set out to save my civilization, and I couldn't. So of course I felt I lost. This is where the EC significantly improved things.

 

Well, I suppose it depends on how you look at it or likely even how you play your game. All substitutes for beloved characters bring a new perspective into play imo. Genophage arc with Wreav, no way in hell I'm gonna cure it with him in charge. Then also the Geth VI instead of Legion. For this scenario Destroy was a logical and natural choice for me (so far I picked it always anyway, but still ).

And I get that people feel like they lost, or that nullifying what they did earlier feels like a slap in the face to some, but then there's other options, too. If none appeal to you, well, it's unfortunate. But maybe then Refuse would be the option to go. This is not about giving up, but rather not sacrificing your Shepard's belief, if Shepard doesn't want to decide things in that way, then things have to take their course naturally.

 

I for one loved the original ending as well. It had a high price, yes, but I think it's worth it in the end because from now on races are free, no one decides over them and life flourishes without this threat in the back. May there be other threats? I would think so, but I reason things take care of themselves. No Catalyst needed.

 

The ending scenario only works if you don't see the Catalyst as the antagonist. It is reasonable to accept the Catalyst's solutions if and only if you can perceive it as a neutral force that tries to find a solution to a problem. Can you do that? Well, as you say, you can, and actually, so can I, but we do it against the weight of 2.9 games screaming "Anything Reaper is evil" into our ears at the highest possible volume. The needlessly excessive cruelty of the Reapers, the abomination aesthetic, the indoctrination, the grossly cruel Reaperization process where it could've been clinical and painless - how can you *not* see the Catalyst as a villain in the light of that? The writing failure is this: in order to make the ending satisfying, you need to see the Catalyst as a neutral force, but the 2.9 games that came before didn't just not support that, they did their best to establish that the mind behind all this is the worst kind of villain the galaxy has ever seen. In this, too, the ending scenario does not fit the 2.9 games that came before. And again, no matter if someone could deal with it easily - like you - with some significant mental work - like me - or not at all, I do not think this can reasonably be denied.

 

It's quite simple why I don't see the Catalyst as a villain. It was programmed, it followed an equation, and it thought it helped organics ascend and to preserve them before they are forever lost. It doesn't believe what it currently does is the ultimate solution, but it hopes that someday organics and synthetics can live in peace, reach Synthesis. The method is cruel, but my Shepards actually would blame Leviathan to have created it in the first place, not really the Catalyst.

It was never that easy to deal with though, at least not entirely. I mean, yeah, I did love the ending, but I cried for hours after finishing it, too, and it stayed with me. The next step was to analyze the crap out of the end and the Catalyst and see where it leads me. I became neutral in terms of the Catalyst, because I tried to see why it did things the way it did. Maybe that's why I can see it the way I do.

 

I don't think using J.K. Rowling as an example is all that good. She's gone on record as apologizing for lots of things that fit within her artistic vision, but I'd like to see a quote specifically regarding Harry. What I believe happened is what I think happened with a lot of characters in her books: she changed her mind. She grew too attached to Harry. She was going to kill Arthur Weasley but realized he was the only father figure in the entire series, so kept him alive. She's wondered if she made the right choice bring Ron and Hermione together instead of Harry and Hermione. And she apologized for Fred's death. Authors change what they want to see all the time. It doesn't make their original vision the "true" vision.

 

But what resonated with me with regard to leldra's response was specifically pertaining to the Catalyst. The Catalyst is the one who decides how the story ends, not Shepard. And that goes back to a video Vanilka linked to a month or so ago that noted that the Catalyst arguably takes on the role of the Protagonist during the end sequence. All forward progression in the story is because of the Catalyst, not because your incredibly passive Shepard does something. Your Shepard stands there in pain and listens, and that's all, until he decides to take a walk. To me, that is not a satisfying ending.

 

Endings are not required to be happy. Endings need to satisfy however. If you are satisfied with the ending of Mass Effect, then that's great, but I think you're one of the very few.

 

Maybe that wasn't the best example as I don't have any source at all, and I'm not sure where I got it from. Might be not true after all. But I'm sure there are things happening like this example. And it's fine if the authors themselves decide things for themselves, and see the reasons as to why they change anything, as long as they do it because they want to, and not what they're expected to do (of course it's okay that way, too, but that can be so boring because you know what you get ). I for one loved the fact that it was Ron and Hermione together, they were perfect for each other and I was sooo surprised I didn't get the usual cliché hero gets the main girl. If Rowling regrets the decision, okay, I can respect that, but she felt it was the right thing to do at that time when she did.

I guess... why I feel so strongly about it is that if people stick to what they want it shows there's so much heart in it. So much passion. This makes it a lot more amazing to me because I myself feel more strongly about it too somehow. Would it be "right" to change a darker ending into a happy one because you know the audience would accept and love it more?

 

Yeah, I've seen it a lot here... people hate, despise the Catalyst and hate how passive Shepard is during the end. Do these two have a choice? No. Arguing between the both of them will lead to nothing but running in circles, while neither of them can do anything except react to the Crucible. Not the Catalyst, but the Crucible. Granted, the Catalyst cannot choose a new solution for itself, but if Shepard wants a new solution, Shepard must act. Or refuse.

 

Yup, I am well aware that I am one of the very few

[AlanC9]

There is another example where fan demands (happy ending, boy gets girl) strongly contradicted the story, theme and characters, and the author defended his artistic vision (in this case there was one worth mentioning  ): Pygmalion (the musical is better known, My Fair Lady, see https://en.wikipedia...ygmalion_(play)).

And of course, the musical does make the change Shaw wouldn't make. Though a musical is a fairly different medium from a play.

[Tim van Beek]

And of course, the musical does make the change Shaw wouldn't make. Though a musical is a fairly different medium from a play.

 

Yes, that's why this is a good example of how fan demands took precedence over a very clear artistic vision of the writer. Shaw wrote a whole essay about it:

 

 

 

Shaw remained sufficiently irritated to add a postscript essay, "'What Happened Afterwards,"^[12] to the 1916 print edition for inclusion with subsequent editions, in which he explained precisely why it was impossible for the story to end with Higgins and Eliza getting married.

 

I very much doubt that the ME writers (or Rowling, for that matter) could write a similar essay about any of the topics that are mentioned in this thread, that explain why stuff had to happen the way it did and not in any other way. 

 

Of course there are some things you cannot do in the ME ending. You cannot make Shep run away in fear from or have an emotional breakdown in front of the catalyst. That would contradict established traits of the character. AFAIK no fans have suggested anything like that  .

 

But compared to Shaw, BioWare has a much less convincing case when they refer to their "artistic integrity" 

[IndianaJonesYay]

One element that I think really weakened the ending was forcing Shepard to go solo for the last 45 mins or so of gameplay. One of the many things the Citadel DLC got right was emphasizing the relationships in the squad (think of the Clone's last question: "What's the difference? What do you have that I don't?" followed by your squadmates rescuing you and Brooks turning away from him). What other game could go on with about 2 more hours of "gameplay" involving little vignettes and a party with other characters? I don't see Yoshi and Mario going to an arcade together, or Master Chief chatting with Lasky. The camaraderie makes this game. So to have the final ten minutes be between Shepard and the newly introduced ghost-child Catalyst can be pretty unfulfilling. Just for kicks and giggles, imagine how James or Garrus or Liara or Tali would respond to the Catalyst. It'd be neat to hear their suggestions, like they offered when you saved/killed the rachni queen on Noveria, or when you had to decide on saving the Council at the end of ME1. The loss of your squadmates for a thinks-he-knows-it-all-and-is-just-short-of-godhood-AI at the end was a let-down for me.

[fraggle]

One element that I think really weakened the ending was forcing Shepard to go solo for the last 45 mins or so of gameplay. One of the many things the Citadel DLC got right was emphasizing the relationships in the squad (think of the Clone's last question: "What's the difference? What do you have that I don't?" followed by your squadmates rescuing you and Brooks turning away from him). What other game could go on with about 2 more hours of "gameplay" involving little vignettes and a part with other characters? I don't see Yoshi and Mario going to an arcade together, or Master Chief chatting with Lasky. The camaraderie makes this game. So to have the final ten minutes be between Shepard and the newly introduced ghost-child Catalyst can be pretty unfulfilling. Just for kicks and giggles, imagine how James or Garrus or Liara or Tali would respond to the Catalyst. It'd be neat to hear their suggestions, like they offered when you saved/killed the rachni queen on Noveria, or when you had to decide on saving the Council at the end of ME1. The loss of your squadmates for a thinks-he-knows-it-all-and-is-just-short-of-godhood-AI at the end was a let-down for me.

 

I find this quite interesting in how different people are and react to scenes Because while I usually hate everything that keeps me from going with my squad, like Arrival or Omega DLC (really, I only play through Arrival for story reasons and on Casual to go through it as quick as possible, and have never touched Omega again after the first time ), I loved that Shepard was alone during the end.

As much fun as it would've been to hear a typical reaction from your squaddies, I would probably not have liked a funny or witty sentence here. Would have destroyed the atmosphere for me.

I assume they really did it to lay focus on Shepard, it should become your choice, and your choice alone in the end. At least that's how I felt during that scene. Maybe your Shepard could think about their squad mates, think about what they would say if they were here.

And another thing is, yes, the camaraderie is strong when you play like that, but you can also be a Shepard that's an a*s to the squad (not that some of them care ), or not talk to them at all.

Hm, might've been interesting to have these 2 possible outcomes depending on how you treated your squad Good commander, squad is with you till the end, bad commander... oh wait, no evac scene because this Shepard would likely not care, haha.

[Tim van Beek]

I find this quite interesting in how different people are and react to scenes

That is the biggest takeaway of this forum. Poor writers. Not long ago I read this in a guidebook for creative writing by a well known novelist:

 

This is how I wrote the scene. It had 2 million readers, and none of them complained.

And I just thought "Yeah, well, maybe you should host a forum where your readers can discuss that novel, you'd be in for a big surprise..."

 

 

Hm, might've been interesting to have these 2 possible outcomes depending on how you treated your squad Good commander, squad is with you till the end, bad commander... oh wait, no evac scene because this Shepard would likely not care, haha.

Could I have a NWN2 ending mod, please? Bad commander joins with the Reapers and kills all his squad mates in a climactic arena fight!

 

 

Maybe your Shepard could think about their squad mates, think about what they would say if they were here.

 

Sure, all we need to include that into the game is to give Shep a chatter link to the Normandy, where squad mates can send text messages that are overlayed in the left lower corner. BioWare could turn this into a feature, "co-author your own ending!", where you can enter your versions on the web and have your game personalized accordingly when it is shipped to you.

 

BioWare could make a contest where the best version becomes the default, and the author has a cameo as a husk.

 

Here is mine:

 

Tali: Is this what we could have done to the galaxy, when we created the Geth? No no, we always included the value of life, the willness to serve, in the programming. Shepard, if you can give that to the Reapers, if we could work together, think of what we could learn!

 

Ashley: It's alien, Shepard! It will never value life as we do. Sooner or later they will turn on us, we have to strike first!

 

Kaidan: Back on Virmire, when Ashely died, I was convinced that the Reapers are evil, that there is no place for us and them in this galaxy. No I'm not so sure anymore. Shepard, whatever you do, remember that your friends are with you, to whatever end.

 

James: This is loco, lola! Shoot it while you can! It's Reaper tech! Don't let it into your head!

 

EDI: It has no sense of love, no sense of emotion! Killing means nothing to it. This is not life. Shepard, if you have to kill me, if I have to die so Normandy's crew can live, I accept that. This is what it means to be human, I understand this now. 

 

Liara: Is synthesis like all life making love to itself? Love on this scale, it is beyond imagination...it is something my shadow broker feeds could never teach me. Shepard, you cannot forgo this chance!

 

Javik: Commander! Vengence is the goal. To become your enemy...is not!

[AlanC9]

Yes, that's why this is a good example of how fan demands took precedence over a very clear artistic vision of the writer. Shaw wrote a whole essay about it:

I wouldn't call the musical a great example of fan demands taking precedence, except in the sense that the musical's creative team had internalized the genre conventions of the musical theater of their era. (Didn't Rodgers and Hammerstein bail on the project because they didn't see a way to make it work as a musical?) But I suppose that when we talk about "what works" in a medium we're actually talking about fan demands dressed up in critic-speak.

[spockjedi]

My view of the End and the outcomes: Install MEHEM or don't play it.

[themikefest]

Maybe your Shepard could think about their squad mates, think about what they would say if they were here.

My Shepard would like to hear what Samantha would say

[AlanC9]

I'm betting she'd be a Control fan.

[fraggle]

My Shepard would like to hear what Samantha would say

 

I know your Shepard would choose Sam

It was more a headcanon idea because we never will get it in the game. My Shep did not think of anyone during the entire scene with Anderson, TIM and the Catalyst, too busy with her own thoughts and the events, but when she shot the tube, oh yeah! Then it was Vega

And Mordin...