181 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

How would the game play out if Earth wasn't the center of attention?

 

Its possible that if the asari revealed that beacon earlier, the final assault would've taken place in another location instead of Earth.

[AlanC9]

In terms of the development process, the problem was most likely that the ending was made by two people (Casey Hudson and Mac Walters) in a closet without feedback from the team. These two people got caught up in a specific vision of their story, and disregarded thematic and narrative inconsistencies and the fact that it had to be the player's story, too.

They had a tough challenge, though, if they were trying to stick to that outline. Or were maybe forced to stick to it, if this was done so late in the process that there wasn't enough time for alternative cutscenes.

Of course, this just means that deciding on the choices you're offering before deciding why you're offering them isn't a great procedure. Also, since the Dark Energy plot was even worse in terms of this being the player's story -- assuming I'm following you there-- Bio may simply not believe in that design principle.

[AlanC9]

That's interesting to me.  While 1.8 million people per day is a lot, I'd expect it to be more with the addition of indoctrinated humans, Reaper ground forces, and their ability to level entire buildings with their lasers.

I imagine they could do it faster, but the tradeoff would be a lower harvest. Part of the trick here is keeping the planetary economy running so the population doesn't starve before you can harvest it. What's a decade to a Reaper?

Where are you getting the 95% statistic from? I don't remember seeing that in game.

We have population figures for Earth and the largest human colonies, as well as the total number of major colonies. No world except Earth has even 5 million humans on it.

[voteDC]

It wasn't the obsession with Earth that annoyed me but the exclusion of the other backgrounds. Why were Colonist Shepards not concerned in the slightest about their homeworld of Mindoir? The Alliance hanging on Shepard's every word and they can't use some pull to talk to Mom?

Nope. All that is reduced to a small handful of lines in optional DLCs.

Heck it even annoyed me with the Earth background. Why didn't they take the opportunity to get Shepard talking to their old gang for some extra muscle (well war assets)?

I wouldn't have expected full missions but surely Shepard's background deserved more attention that it got. You would have thought Earth-Born would have been very important.

[JasonC Shepard]

How would the game play out if Earth wasn't the center of attention?

 

Its possible that if the asari revealed that beacon earlier, the final assault would've taken place in another location instead of Earth.

I would think that if the final assault would be more of a defense if that happened.  Fleet would have moved to protect the Citadel and the Crucible would have possibly been relocated.

Speaking of the Crucible though, where in God's name are they building that thing and how are they avoiding Reaper detection?

 

 

It wasn't the obsession with Earth that annoyed me but the exclusion of the other backgrounds. Why were Colonist Shepards not concerned in the slightest about their homeworld of Mindoir? The Alliance hanging on Shepard's every word and they can't use some pull to talk to Mom?

Nope. All that is reduced to a small handful of lines in optional DLCs.

Heck it even annoyed me with the Earth background. Why didn't they take the opportunity to get Shepard talking to their old gang for some extra muscle (well war assets)?

I wouldn't have expected full missions but surely Shepard's background deserved more attention that it got. You would have thought Earth-Born would have been very important.

This also bothered me.  Colonist Shepard should have at the very least expressed some sort worry for his home and Spacer Shepard could have at the very least contacted his mother when he found out she was safe.  He should have also done this during Mass Effect 2 when he was revived from the dead.  Shepard truly is a **** son.

On the topic of the Earth background, I don't think a bunch of thugs would contribute much against the Reapers.  It definitely should have provoked a much more emotional reaction from Shepard (whether that reaction be a positive or negative one should be up to the player, life wasn't good for Earth-born Shepard if I remember).

[themikefest]

Speaking of the Crucible though, where in God's name are they building that thing and how are they avoiding Reaper detection?

The crucible avoid detection the same way TIM's hideout avoided detection. The plot demanded that it not be found

 

I would guess the crucible was being built in a system that isn't too populated or at least lacked any population to attract any attention. I'm sure over time the reapers would've eventually of found it if the war was to of continued longer. Or maybe built the crucible in the same system the yahg reside.  Reapers were to leave the yahg alone.

[JasonC Shepard]

The crucible avoid detection the same way TIM's hideout avoided detection. The plot demanded that it not be found

 

I would guess the crucible was being built in a system that isn't too populated or at least lacked any population to attract any attention. I'm sure over time the reapers would've eventually of found it if the war was to of continued longer. Or maybe built the crucible in the same system the yahg reside.  Reapers were to leave the yahg alone.

Cronos Station actually did have a semi-plausible reason for remaining undetected.  The station itself was built in or very close to an asteroid belt and the dying star that The Illusive Man loves to stare at emits enough energy to make the station hard to notice with sensors.  I might be wrong about this, but that's what I remember from my very recent playthrough.

 

I'm not sure the Yahg homeworld's location is even known, but I assume it's far away from Citadel space.  If the Reapers did leave that world alone though, then that means they're probably already in that system doing their thing so I wouldn't consider it too safe to build there.  And considering how most systems near Sol are under Reaper control, I'd also have to assume that the Crucible is being build somewhere in or near Citadel space.  The Crucible is never shown on the Galaxy Map in Citadel space though so I could be wrong about it potentially being built in Citadel space.

[FOZ289]

The Crucible being hidden wasn't a big deal to me, but thinking about it, how did they know how to hide something from the Reapers?  And I feel like they missed an opportunity to defend the Crucible.  It's done entirely off-screen and then "Hey, it's finished!"  I feel like ME3 lacked escalation.  The Priority missions could take place almost in any order, then suddenly DESTROY CERBERUS and then immediately afterwards is the last mission.  I guess Thessia and Kai Leng's plot armor was supposed to be the "low point" for the good guys, but Kai Leng's involvement ruined any chance of it having an impact.

[angol fear]

In terms of the development process, the problem was most likely that the ending was made by two people (Casey Hudson and Mac Walters) in a closet without feedback from the team. These two people got caught up in a specific vision of their story, and disregarded thematic and narrative inconsistencies and the fact that it had to be the player's story, too.  

 

That's rumours. Your only evidence is a post which was supposed to be from a Bioware member Patrick Weekes.

Bioware denied it was him, Patrick Weekes didn't get fired, and he defended the ending then. We can think about it, no?

Then the story of two people who made the ending without feedback, I don't know... Mike Gamble wouldn't post that the ending would make angry some people, he wouldn't have talked about then ending if he disliked it. Anyway he knew about it. Same with Mark Meer who said that he didn't see the problem with the original ending. So the rumour about no feedback, I don't believe it. And you really think that the two founders of Bioware didn't know where Mass Effect was going? Seriously? Producers and bosses always know and give feedback.

Then let's admit there was no feedback, and there was only Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. So where is the problem? We've got the one who created Mass Effect, who makes the decisions for the serie, he is probably the one who is the most well placed to talk about Mass Effect. And we've got the lead writer, who has been working on Mass Effect since the first and who became lead writer since the second Mass Effect. So you want to say that these two people don't know what Mass Effect is about? These two people are probably the most important people in the process of writing and they are experienced people (you may dislike them, they are experienced people, that's a fact).

Now let's see your argument about the thematic and narrative inconsistencies. So Mass Effect  wasn't about organics and synthetics? Mass Effect 1 wasn't about that? Legion recruitment which is one of the few moment of story in Mass Effect 2, that moment isn't about synthetics? Rannoch in Mass Effect 3 isn't about organics and synthetics? That moment isn't the central part of Mass Effect 3? What the reapers said since Mass Effect 1 isn't about the difference between organics and synthetics? etc... i stop here because that discussion will be too long. And it's your reading of the entire trilogy that needs to be redefined to be closer to what Mass Effect is instead of what you want it to be.

And the ending was the players story too, the ending is about a choice for the player. The ending is about the player breaking the circle, the determinism, and he creates the futur he wants.

 

In your post we can clearly see your point of view : a text need to be satisfying. That idea is totally wrong : a text needs to be coherent ( and the ending was coherent ), it's the reader who wants it to be satisfying. You have to learn to separate the text (neutral level) from the expectations (reception level).

[JasonC Shepard]

That's rumours. Your only evidence is a post which was supposed to be from a Bioware member Patrick Weekes.

Bioware denied it was him, Patrick Weekes didn't get fired, and he defended the ending then. We can think about it, no?

Then the story of two people who made the ending without feedback, I don't know... Mike Gamble wouldn't post that the ending would make angry some people, he wouldn't have talked about then ending if he disliked it. Anyway he knew about it. Same with Mark Meer who said that he didn't see the problem with the original ending. So the rumour about no feedback, I don't believe it. And you really think that the two founders of Bioware didn't know where Mass Effect was going? Seriously? Producers and bosses always know and give feedback.

Then let's admit there was no feedback, and there was only Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. So where is the problem? We've got the one who created Mass Effect, who makes the decisions for the serie, he is probably the one who is the most well placed to talk about Mass Effect. And we've got the lead writer, who has been working on Mass Effect since the first and who became lead writer since the second Mass Effect. So you want to say that these two people don't know what Mass Effect is about? These two people are probably the most important people in the process of writing and they are experienced people (you may dislike them, they are experienced people, that's a fact).

Now let's see your argument about the thematic and narrative inconsistencies. So Mass Effect  wasn't about organics and synthetics? Mass Effect 1 wasn't about that? Legion recruitment which is one of the few moment of story in Mass Effect 2, that moment isn't about synthetics? Rannoch in Mass Effect 3 isn't about organics and synthetics? That moment isn't the central part of Mass Effect 3? What the reapers said since Mass Effect 1 isn't about the difference between organics and synthetics? etc... i stop here because that discussion will be too long. And it's your reading of the entire trilogy that needs to be redefined to be closer to what Mass Effect is instead of what you want it to be.

And the ending was the players story too, the ending is about a choice for the player. The ending is about the player breaking the circle, the determinism, and he creates the futur he wants.

 

In your post we can clearly see your point of view : a text need to be satisfying. That idea is totally wrong : a text needs to be coherent ( and the ending was coherent ), it's the reader who wants it to be satisfying. You have to learn to separate the text (neutral level) from the expectations (reception level).

Whether or not Casey Hudson and Mac Walters put themselves behind a locked door and took charge of the writing process has nothing to do with discussing the quality of the story/ending so I'm going to ignore that part of his/her post and yours.  However, there is no singular theme in the Mass Effect series.  The synthetics and organics part of the series is exactly that: a part of the series.  You can't pick apart his argument without hearing the reasons behind it.

Aside from that though, you completely misunderstood his/her post.  There is nothing in that post that even remotely suggests that a text/story has to be satisfying.  It doesn't even discuss what a story should or should not be.  He/she only mentions how Casey/Mac "disregarded thematic and narrative inconsistencies and the fact that it had to be the player's story, too".

Which isn't wrong.  There are inconsistencies in the narrative that people have pointed out countlessly over time.  Blaming the player for not being able to separate their expectations from the actual quality of the text is somewhat insulting and gets us nowhere in the discussion of the ending.

[FOZ289]

Synthetics and organics is only one of the themes, and it was never treated as the central theme.  What does synthetics vs. organics have to do with the genophage or the krogan?  What does it have to do with humanity's naivete and stubbornness ?  What does it have to do with tensions between humans and batarians, or humans and turians?  Obviously the origin of the Reapers can't address all of these things, that wouldn't make sense.  But suddenly ignoring everything that doesn't involve synthetic life and portraying synthetics vs. organics as the defining conflict of the galaxy for millions of years was ridiculous.

[angol fear]

Aside from that though, you completely misunderstood his/her post.  There is nothing in that post that even remotely suggests that a text/story has to be satisfying.  

 

I know, I was refering to another post he wrote in another topic. Why? because it's linked : if you don't have the basis to make a real analysis then you can't be taken seriously. Giving bad method and spreading rumours, that's not honest. 

 

 

Blaming the player for not being able to separate their expectations from the actual quality of the text is somewhat insulting and gets us nowhere in the discussion of the ending.

 

I never said we were supposed to go somewhere. Since the release of Mass Effect 3, it's impossible to seriously talk about the ending. Ieldra and many other people have spent some much time hating the ending (when you spend your time saying everyday that you dislike something, it means that you hate it, when you spread rumours like Ieldra was doing, it means that you hate it) that nobody here will change his opinion.

Anyway, you really feel affected by what I said to Ieldra but I wasn't talking to you.

 

 

Synthetics and organics is only one of the themes, and it was never treated as the central theme.  What does synthetics vs. organics have to do with the genophage or the krogan?  What does it have to do with humanity's naivete and stubbornness ?  What does it have to do with tensions between humans and batarians, or humans and turians?  Obviously the origin of the Reapers can't address all of these things, that wouldn't make sense.  But suddenly ignoring everything that doesn't involve synthetic life and portraying synthetics vs. organics as the defining conflict of the galaxy for millions of years was ridiculous.

 

Did I talked about "central theme"? I don't think so. Most player want to talk about a central theme to make the ending be inconsistent with what was done before. The problem is that it doesn't work. If you really want to show that the synthetics-organics theme isn't the most important you have to show which theme is the most imoprtant. When I say important it doesn't mean that it's the most developed, the most explicit etc... the synthetics-organics is the most important for the logic of writing. Then you have to understand that there are different level of perception in Mass Effect, if you don't step back to see the picture, this theme is like another, but on higher level (the ending is all about that) the importance isn't the same. that's why there is no central theme, and it's hard to see the most important theme during the entire trilogy.

[FOZ289]

No one has to show which theme is more important.  One theme doesn't need to be "the most important," the idea that one theme was more important than others is exactly what caused this problem in the first place.  The Reapers are technically synthetic, so obviously it's an important theme for the ending of the series.  But the Catalyst is talking about millions of years of sentient life; at no point did organics commit genocide against each other?  At no point did organics create sentient synthetic life and then commit horrible crimes against them?  It boils questions regarding free will and self-determination into a binary (This happens and it is bad, if not happen then good) constant of the universe.  Even if there is a most important theme, it doesn't override the other ones.  The ending WAS inconsistent with what came before, and I mean only in ME3.  The Catalyst didn't even address this.  It didn't directly say that there was short-term peace, it just says NO, NO PEACE, SYNTHETICS BAD with no opportunity for the player to object.  I straight-up don't and never will buy that an intelligence capable of processing the ludicrously, obscenely, literally incomprehensibly vast history of millions of years and trillions of individual beings each with free will could come up with a conclusion so utterly mundane as "robots are the problem."  Unless the answer is that it CAN'T, and that's why it came up with such a clumsy, inadequate "solution."

[JasonC Shepard]

I know, I was refering to another post he wrote in another topic. Why? because it's linked : if you don't have the basis to make a real analysis then you can't be taken seriously. Giving bad method and spreading rumours, that's not honest. 

 

 

 

I never said we were supposed to go somewhere. Since the release of Mass Effect 3, it's impossible to seriously talk about the ending. Ieldra and many other people have spent some much time hating the ending (when you spend your time saying everyday that you dislike something, it means that you hate it, when you spread rumours like Ieldra was doing, it means that you hate it) that nobody here will change his opinion.

Anyway, you really feel affected by what I said to Ieldra but I wasn't talking to you.

 

 

 

Did I talked about "central theme"? I don't think so. Most player want to talk about a central theme to make the ending be inconsistent with what was done before. The problem is that it doesn't work. If you really want to show that the synthetics-organics theme isn't the most important you have to show which theme is the most imoprtant. When I say important it doesn't mean that it's the most developed, the most explicit etc... the synthetics-organics is the most important for the logic of writing. Then you have to understand that there are different level of perception in Mass Effect, if you don't step back to see the picture, this theme is like another, but on higher level (the ending is all about that) the importance isn't the same. that's why there is no central theme, and it's hard to see the most important theme during the entire trilogy.

Referring to another post in a completely different thread is a bit odd, but fair enough I guess.  I can't see it so I can't make a comment on it.

It's completely false that it's impossible to discuss the ending since the release of Mass Effect 3 as it's been done time after time.  Disliking something and expressing that you dislike something =/= hatred, spreading rumors or ideas on what happened behind the scenes =/= hatred.  You're right, nobody here can change his opinion and nobody needs to.  The purpose of a discussion isn't to change opinions, but to share ideas.  Ieldra said that he believes that the rest of the writing team was left out of the process of making the ending and that's why it disregards the themes and narrative of the series.  His reasoning why the ending disregards these things may or may not be true, but that doesn't really change the fact there are inconsistencies with the narrative and themes in the ending.  You have not proven otherwise.

And yes I do feel affected by what you said to him.  The idea that he didn't enjoy the ending because he never understood what the series is about in the first place and couldn't separate his expectations from what he got is plain insulting and unnecessary.

 

And while you may have not mentioned that the relationship between Synthetics and Organics is a central theme, you used that theme and its appearance throughout the series to criticize the idea that Mass Effect 3's ending disregards the series' themes.  Your criticism didn't make sense however as it doesn't disprove that the ending disregards the themes of the games.  Synthetics and Organics themselves can't be considered a theme so you mentioning where they appear in the series says nothing.  Rather, the games focus on the relationship between organics and synthetics and the possibility of coexistence between the two.  Mass Effect 2 and especially Mass Effect 3's conflict between the Quarians and the Geth show that peace between synthetic and organics is possible.  The ending to Mass Effect 3 is directly in conflict with this idea however as Starchild dismisses all the friendly relations Shepard has experienced/created between organics/synthetics as temporary and forces him to make a decision on the fate of the galaxy based on the idea there can never be lasting peace between the two.  Shepard doesn't argue and accepts Starchild's flawed way of thinking without a second guess.

[fraggle]

The ending to Mass Effect 3 is directly in conflict with this idea however as Starchild dismisses all the friendly relations Shepard has experienced/created between organics/synthetics as temporary and forces him to make a decision on the fate of the galaxy based on the idea there can never be lasting peace between the two.  Shepard doesn't argue and accepts Starchild's flawed way of thinking without a second guess.

 

The ending is not in conflict to it I think. And Shepard does speak out against the Catalyst's actions, though granted, it's only a bit. But to me it seemed Shepard doesn't believe the Catalyst or the Catalyst's intentions when listening to the last dialogue.

And in the end, what point would there be in arguing anyway? Do you really believe Shepard can change the mind of an AI that's been around billions of years, is stuck in its logic, and is working with an equation on top of it? It says that its equation is that synthetics must constantly evolve in order to fulfill organic's needs. It's math, it doesn't think like an organic. And while I dislike its solution, I don't really blame it for the equation. It might even be right, we don't know. All we know is that for once, we could achieve peace (if Shepard is able to do so, that is). Do we know if it'll last? Nope. But I think that's a chance the cycle has to take then. And if Shepard doesn't believe in the Catalyst's words or its solution in any way, Destroy it is. I really think, and you even said it yourself ("the games focus on the relationship between organics and synthetics and the possibility of coexistence between the two") that whatever is happening in the games prepares the player to make up their minds how they feel about synthetics, and if Shepard is willing to possibly sacrifice them to get rid of the AI that's been taking away the chance for cycles to develop and act freely on their own since the first harvest.

[voteDC]

That's rumours. Your only evidence is a post which was supposed to be from a Bioware member Patrick Weekes.

Bioware denied it was him, Patrick Weekes didn't get fired, and he defended the ending then. We can think about it, no?

Then the story of two people who made the ending without feedback, I don't know... Mike Gamble wouldn't post that the ending would make angry some people, he wouldn't have talked about then ending if he disliked it. Anyway he knew about it. Same with Mark Meer who said that he didn't see the problem with the original ending. So the rumour about no feedback, I don't believe it. And you really think that the two founders of Bioware didn't know where Mass Effect was going?

I think the reason why they didn't see the problem people may have with the endings is that they were involved in their creation, they knew what the intent behind them was, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a series bible with information that didn't make it into the game.

That's a problem that many content creators get into, they tend to assume that people know what they know. That the person consuming their media has the same knowledge about the characters, world, background, and circumstances that they do.

I've mentioned the Citadel and people on it before. Bioware knew that the people on the Citadel that you'd helped survived the explosive events of the finale and were genuinely surprised that the people playing could have thought that they did not. That's a perfect example of what I am saying, they knew those people had survived and assumed that everyone else would have that knowledge too. They didn't see that what they had put into the game could be seen another way because they had those facts at hand.

[JasonC Shepard]

The ending is not in conflict to it I think. And Shepard does speak out against the Catalyst's actions, though granted, it's only a bit. But to me it seemed Shepard doesn't believe the Catalyst or the Catalyst's intentions when listening to the last dialogue.

And in the end, what point would there be in arguing anyway? Do you really believe Shepard can change the mind of an AI that's been around billions of years, is stuck in its logic, and is working with an equation on top of it? It says that its equation is that synthetics must constantly evolve in order to fulfill organic's needs. It's math, it doesn't think like an organic. And while I dislike its solution, I don't really blame it for the equation. It might even be right, we don't know. All we know is that for once, we could achieve peace (if Shepard is able to do so, that is). Do we know if it'll last? Nope. But I think that's a chance the cycle has to take then. And if Shepard doesn't believe in the Catalyst's words or its solution in any way, Destroy it is. I really think, and you even said it yourself ("the games focus on the relationship between organics and synthetics and the possibility of coexistence between the two") that whatever is happening in the games prepares the player to make up their minds how they feel about synthetics, and if Shepard is willing to possibly sacrifice them to get rid of the AI that's been taking away the chance for cycles to develop and act freely on their own since the first harvest.

The point in arguing is that nobody has ever met and spoke with the Catalyst since (I'd assume at least) the Leviathans before it turned on them.  Aside from that, Mass Effect is a dialogue heavy series with a focus on choice also.  Removing both the voice of Shepard goes back on both of those features of the series.

The Catalyst was designed to protect organic life from complete destruction at the hands of Synthetics.  It comes to the conclusion that organics create synthetics to improve their own lives.  There is a limit to what can be improved though with just basic synthetics so they must surpass their creators to further improve their creator's lives.  Somehow, the idea that synthetics surpassing organics would lead to the destruction of organics.  Instead of regulating production of synthetics, using its power to intervene in conflict between synthetics and organics, or finding another possible solution, the AI comes to the conclusion that it's only possible to prevent such a disaster by killing the creators of advanced synthetics.  The AI also built the Mass Effect relays and the Citadel to guide civilizations down to their eventual point of harvesting.  So this advanced AI that controlled an incredible army of immense power decided that the ONLY way to preserve organics was to kill them.  This just plain doesn't make any sense.

 

Let's talk about the Synthesis ending for a second.  The Catalyst mentions that it was viewed as a possible solution in the past, but didn't work because "organics were not ready".  What makes them ready now?  Why is the current cycle different from the Prothean empire or whatever came before?  What happened as a result of the past attempts to combine synthetic life and organic?  You'd think that releasing a giant wave of energy over the entire galaxy that affects all life would have some pretty damning effects if it didn't work in combining synthetics and organics.

 

Moving onto the control ending.  The Catalyst is giving Shepard the opportunity to preserve organic life by gaining control of the Reapers themselves.  There's two real things I find wrong with this.  The first is: how is this a solution to the potential destruction of organics?  If Shepard simply fills in the role of the Catalyst, how does that fulfill what the AI was programmed to do?  My other issue I have with this is: how can the Catalyst ensure that Shepard himself won't eventually destroy organic life?  This would be worrying to me especially if control was given to a pure renegade Shepard.  He can take the place of the Catalyst, but he isn't bound by the programming to protect organic life like the Catalyst is.  There is no guarantee that Shepard wouldn't destroy everything at least according to the Catalyst's ideas about the relationship between synthetics and organics.  Once again, this isn't any sort of solution to the issue.  It's pushing the responsibility of dealing with the issue onto someone who isn't bound by the same programming as the AI.

 

Destroy as a solution is the most sound logically, but this also doesn't consider Shepard's views or ideas.  This is strictly a solution offered by the Catalyst and there is no player input on the outcome.  Destroy not only wipes out the Reapers, but also wipes out synthetic life.  If Shepard believes in coexistence, but doesn't believe in the Catalyst's flawed solution, then this ending does nothing for the player.  By wiping out synthetic life, you are pushing back coexistence and playing into the beliefs of the Catalyst yet again.  It's also mentioned by the Catalyst that it doesn't even see this as a solution, making it confusing why it would offer the decision to the player.  If it's goal is to ensure organic survival, why would it offer something counter to what it perceives as a solution?

 

There's nothing right about the Catalyst and there's nothing right about being forced into choices that aren't even really the player's without the option to discuss anything with the AI.

[themikefest]

nevermind

[danivasnormandy]

@themikefest I saw your original post and I feel very conflicted about this, because while I appreciate that the ending was more complex than a simple final battle with the ultimate enemy, in a sense I agree that one of the problems ME3 is how it dropped what ME2 was building on, and it would have been nice that we encountered Harbinger again and fight him. What's more, it would have been even better if they combined both ideas for the ending, something like the Leviathans created the Reapers for some function, maybe like guard or watch over civilizations in the galaxy and Harbinger went rogue and united the Reapers under his control against the creators to get the power for themselves and harvest advanced civilizations for some obscure reason, but then killing Harbinger would kill all the others...

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that I find the discussion on the ending very interesting and something that some people mentioned and I think is very true is that if we start to dissect the series as a whole we find all kinds of problems and inconsistencies, and unfortunately the ending was just a victim of that, especially for trying something daring. For instance, I wasn't a fan of the beginning of ME2. I found very problematic the whole resurrection part, is one of those things that I felt the authors weren't careful enough to gauge the limits of science in this universe, just like fantasy authors have to be careful what can magic accomplish, cause then they would run into all kinds of problems. Same with the ending and the function of the Catalyst and what the Crucible could do.

[FOZ289]

@themikefest I saw your original post and I feel very conflicted about this, because while I appreciate that the ending was more complex than a simple final battle with the ultimate enemy, in a sense I agree that one of the problems ME3 is how it dropped what ME2 was building on, and it would have been nice that we encountered Harbinger again and fight him. What's more, it would have been even better if they combined both ideas for the ending, something like the Leviathans created the Reapers for some function, maybe like guard or watch over civilizations in the galaxy and Harbinger went rogue and united the Reapers under his control against the creators to get the power for themselves and harvest advanced civilizations for some obscure reason, but then killing Harbinger would kill all the others...

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that I find the discussion on the ending very interesting and something that some people mentioned and I think is very true is that if we start to dissect the series as a whole we find all kinds of problems and inconsistencies, and unfortunately the ending was just a victim of that, especially for trying something daring. For instance, I wasn't a fan of the beginning of ME2. I found very problematic the whole resurrection part, is one of those things that I felt the authors weren't careful enough to gauge the limits of science in this universe, just like fantasy authors have to be careful what can magic accomplish, cause then they would run into all kinds of problems. Same with the ending and the function of the Catalyst and what the Crucible could do.

 

Reapers are robot vampire spaceships who feed on entire civilizations instead of just blood.  Harbinger is the master vampire.  Done. Pay me, BioWare.

 

Killing Shepard and immediately bringing him/ her back from the dead was totally nuts.  Really heavy-handed way to try to force Shepard to work for a group who were nothing but unethical lunatics in the first game and undo the prestige she/ he should have had after saving the Citadel.

[Dantriges]

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that I find the discussion on the ending very interesting and something that some people mentioned and I think is very true is that if we start to dissect the series as a whole we find all kinds of problems and inconsistencies, and unfortunately the ending was just a victim of that, especially for trying something daring.

 

What was the daring thing? That it wasn´t a happy ending? My library is full with RPGs with bittersweet endings. Saving what you fought for and dying in the process is the new happily ever after.

[JasonC Shepard]

@themikefest I saw your original post and I feel very conflicted about this, because while I appreciate that the ending was more complex than a simple final battle with the ultimate enemy, in a sense I agree that one of the problems ME3 is how it dropped what ME2 was building on, and it would have been nice that we encountered Harbinger again and fight him. What's more, it would have been even better if they combined both ideas for the ending, something like the Leviathans created the Reapers for some function, maybe like guard or watch over civilizations in the galaxy and Harbinger went rogue and united the Reapers under his control against the creators to get the power for themselves and harvest advanced civilizations for some obscure reason, but then killing Harbinger would kill all the others...

 

Anyway, just wanted to say that I find the discussion on the ending very interesting and something that some people mentioned and I think is very true is that if we start to dissect the series as a whole we find all kinds of problems and inconsistencies, and unfortunately the ending was just a victim of that, especially for trying something daring. For instance, I wasn't a fan of the beginning of ME2. I found very problematic the whole resurrection part, is one of those things that I felt the authors weren't careful enough to gauge the limits of science in this universe, just like fantasy authors have to be careful what can magic accomplish, cause then they would run into all kinds of problems. Same with the ending and the function of the Catalyst and what the Crucible could do.

The resurrection of Shepard was an absolutely insane decision.  I would have been more forgiving of it if Shepard was cloned instead or wasn't revived at all, but what absolutely broke that part of the game for me was just how little it made sense.  Joker flew the Normandy right into the Collector's beam, the launch button for Joker's escape pod was OUTSIDE of the pod, and Shepard's body was more or less completely intact after going through planetary re-entry with just his N7 armor on.  I think in Mass Effect 3 it's mentioned that Shepard's brain was intact because of his helmet, but that's still absolutely nuts.

[danivasnormandy]

What was the daring thing? That it wasn´t a happy ending? My library is full with RPGs with bittersweet endings. Saving what you fought for and dying in the process is the new happily ever after.

Well I guess I felt that way since I haven't played many RPGs. In fact, ME has been my introduction to the genre   so it was refreshing for me to have an ending that not only avoided a final confrontation/boss but that posed such an interesting dilemma, or at least it was for me while I was going through it. Later on is when I started to see the problems it had and the nonsensical stuff.

 

But yeah, as much as I liked ME2, the resurrection part was definitely crazy and like I mentioned, when one starts to pick up apart the series as a whole and see all the crazy decisions or inconsistencies and what not, then the ending gains a new perspective as one of those things that didn't quite clicked with all the other great things the series has to offer.

[Dantriges]

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit but seems to me that the great victory and HEA without some bittersweet isn´t so common anymore even if you execute the whole game flawlessly.

[Iakus]

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit but seems to me that the great victory and HEA without some bittersweet isn´t so common anymore even if you execute the whole game flawlessly.

 

True Art is Angsty