3588 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I totally agree with this. There's really nothing about the game that makes you think it's leading toward a dark ending. I'm actually fine with the original ending, if they wanted a galactic dark age ending. I just don't think it fits the context of what Shepard has been doing over the course of not just ME3, but the entire trilogy. Shepard succeeds in the face of overwhelming odds. Always. And then the end wasn't even about Shepard.

I think the problem was more that the original ending didn't have a relatable emotional touchstone left. Who were we saving? Exactly nobody as yet alive in the original dark age endings. Shepard dies for nothing in which we were invested. The few of the Normandy team who can survive do not have enough narrative weight against all of civilization. Basically, we do not win. We lose in two different ways: by not saving what we were out to save, our civilization, and by having to adopt the antagonist's solutions.

Then the writers realized they f****d thinks up and gave us the EC, which turns things around by 180 degrees, which is equally problematic because now it's suggested that the antagonist's solutions are actually good solutions, creating a whole new set of thematic inconsistencies.

Both sets of endings feel like endings of a different story, because nothing had set us up to foresee and accept the end of civilization (OE), and nothing had prepared us for accepting that antagonist's solutions as good (EC).

[rossler]

Then the writers realized they f****d thinks up and gave us the EC, which turns things around by 180 degrees, which is equally problematic because now it's suggested that the antagonist's solutions are actually good solutions, creating a whole new set of thematic inconsistencies.

 

It's not thematically inconsistent to have the enemy win in a few outcomes. 

 

In any other game, if the enemy (boss) defeats you, he wins; if you defeat him, you win. 

 

The Reapers did say that the harvest (synthesis) was inevitable, and you would become a Reaper at some point (control). 

[gothpunkboy89]

EDI is not an individual. I repeat, she's a computer. Super-advanced but still a computer. You know how computers operate, right? If you can build one EDI, you can successfully copy-paste the script and it will function in the same way. In AI's case, only priorities may change. In any event EDI can serve as the Mentor to newly-created AI and help them integrate into society. Or if you think it's unreliable just build more platforms for EDI. She can become a peaceful SkyNet that runs all the technology for all the world. If she requires more power just upgrade her hardware to the size of the city if the need ever occurs.

You said it yourself: after being unshakled she makes her own choices. She's not loyal to Cerberus anymore, she can even override her self-preservation priority if this helps her team. Why the so-mighty-and-uber-intelligent AI such as the Catalyst can't make choices such as this? What is stopping it from deciding "Well, it's pointless, I won't bother with solving this conflict"?  And it didn't even occure to starbrat to monitor each cycle and check if the mandate holds true and be curious "Maybe it will be different this time". Instead it just harvests any advanced species before they even have a chance to create robots and blindly runs the initial script.

 

And calling her a computer is like calling you a chimpanzee or a hamster or what ever a lower form of mammal below hamsters/mice that I might not know about. You can no more copy past personality traits from one AI to another anymore then you could copy past personality traits from parent to child. AI's in the simplest terms is a program capable of receiving input all on it's own, processing it and being able to come to it's own conclusions without any interaction with humans or other races. This is drastically different from standard programs or even VI's in the game world that rely on input from humans or other races and can only give information based on that input or within very specific limitations.

 

Avina could give you the whole known historically documented events of the Krogan Rebellion. But she is incapable of questioning it or learning from it. It is simply a file she pulls up and recites to people who approach and ask. EDI is capable of pulling that same information, learn and question it. And much like how on the forums it seems there is a varied opinion on the Genophage and the cure of it she is capable of forming her own opinion on it. She certainly could mentor newly created AI's but that doesn't mean they will all be just like her. Again the best example is the simple family. If you are an only child you wouldn't understand but if your like me who has a younger brother and 2 younger sisters you see this first hand. All raised in the same house by the same parents teaching the same values going to the same schools. And yet our ideas, opinions and values vary little in some areas and major in others. The simplest set up is my brother who is only about a year younger then me is a strong Republican supporter mean while I'm very much a liberal Democrat at least on most things. He would vote for any Republican President that isn't Trump if Hilary made the ticket. He would grudgingly vote for Bernie if by some miracle he makes it and Trump is picked for the Republican side like it seems to be so far. Your idea of turning her into a peaceful SkyNet is the exact same thing the Catalyst did or the Quarians with the Geth. You are repeating history.

 

 

Yes she can make her own choices which again lead to the over all statement that a single AI entity can not be used as a reason that all AI will be just what she is. All AI's would be capable of this meaning even if EDI was fundamental in introducing them to the galaxy at large they would still be capable of forming their own opinion positive or negative towards other life. The simplest and most obvious reason the Catalyst needs input from Shepard is the developers wanted the player to make the choice. The in game reason how ever could be summed up a bit differently. EDI choosing to risk herself to save someone if she fails or makes a bad choice nothing happens. Even if she dies in the act the galaxy continues on the same path it was going anyways. The Catalyst makes a bad choice and the galaxy is plunged into chaos resulting in the eventual death of all organic life. Since Shepard was the Catalyst of the change that brought the Crucible to the AI and opened the other possibilities.  It is only fair that Shepard then be the one to make the final choice. Because again without Shepard the cycle would have continued with only a minor delay.

[Vanilka]

Says Me
 
To be clear - I'm saying the ending we got in the game was much too happy for the story. Even the destroy and control options. You're absolutely right about synthesis.  There was (again, IMHO) far too much 'happy' in ME3.
 
The addition of hope and triumph over adversity is what caused those inconsistencies.
 
Here's the ending I think the game was aiming for originally - I'll keep this in the context of a conversation with Star Lord, Jr. just because.
 
1) Star Child explains that he tried everything else, but the Reaper cycle was the only option to keep preserving "Life", even though it destroyed lives. He then explains the consequences of stopping the Reapers but allows Shepard to make the call.
 
2) Shepard can choose destroy. This means that all mass relays are destroyed, devastating all worlds in those sectors, and pretty much killing everyone. No one will be able to travel home, so everyone in the battle in the Sol system is screwed. On the off chance enough souls survive, eventually they will develop synthetic life down the road and in all likelihood be destroyed by it.
 
3) Shepard can choose control. Again, all relays will be destroyed, but Shepard will control the Reapers. She may be able to use her new Star Lord knowledge to help the civilizations rebuild, but eventually, she will be faced with how to preserve life in the face of the synthetic vs. organic conflicts to come. Maybe she can find a different solution, but she's essentially becoming the new catalyst, and may well come to the same conclusion over time.
 
3) In the event of a near perfect game, you could choose synthesis. Again, all relays will be destroyed, no one can travel, but if enough creatures survive (not a given), they just might have a chance of continuing without running into the synthetic-organic conflict.
 
For all possibilities, it should be made clear that the chance of complete and total extinction of all galactic life is a very real possibility if the Reapers do not finish their mission.
 
I'm not a fan of the 'three doors' presentation of the ending. Honestly, at that point just pushing through with a cutscene with interactive dialog based on all your choices may have been the better way to go. Ultimately though, none of your choices should matter in the end since you're waging a battle in the face of futility. THAT should have been the theme that stayed in the forefront instead of being pushed aside. Futility was a major theme through the series, they just stopped pushing it near the end.

 
I understand. I disagree because I don't see the franchise the same way, but I understand. Thanks for explaining. I think I see your point now.

 

It's kind of funny because it works exactly the opposite way for me. I've always known the stakes are super high, but the game's never made me feel that Shepard's efforts are futile because she keeps working and working towards her goals and moves mountains. She survives Sovereign, she survives her own death (which is kind of silly), she survives the Suicide Mission (potentially with her entire crew), she's (possibly) one of the major driving forces behind curing the genophage and resolving the over 300 years old geth-quarian conflict, she unites the galaxy behind a single banner, etc. Mass Effect is a story of a determined person and her friends beating the odds through hard work for me and that's one of the reasons why, despite the character's shortcomings, Shepard is an incredibly inspiring fictional character and the franchise generally feels positive to me. As Monica said...
 

There's really nothing about the game that makes you think it's leading toward a dark ending. (...) Shepard succeeds in the face of overwhelming odds. Always.

 

That's what it is for me, as well.

 

So it's hard for me to see where the dark ending you think should be there comes in. BUT, I'm not arguing with what you're saying because you have your opinion and I have mine. However, now I understand where you're coming from and I think it does make sense. Because for you it was about fighting an already lost battle, fighting for a cause that was doomed from the start. (I hope I'm not butchering what you said.) In that case, I can see why you think ending on a positive note doesn't fit in.

[AlanC9]

Perhaps. Who knows with retardShep during that last encounter.
Mistrusting the entity that has recycled advanced civilizations for aeons isn't really that strange though. Which in turn would lead to doubts about its solutions.
While we- the players - know that the Crucible works exactly like it says it will. Shepard, in my opinion, would have to be naive to believe the same, from the idiocy of the last conversation.

Mistrust? Sure. But Shepard's belief is not required. You can come up with a reason for the Reapers to try to prevent the Crucible from being used even though it actually does something they want. Say, they needed to control what it did, and the fight at Earth is now just for show. But the utility of not using the Crucible is zero, so even if the probability of the Catalyst lying about stuff is very high, there's no real downside to using the Crucible.

[AlanC9]

I think the problem was more that the original ending didn't have a relatable emotional touchstone left. Who were we saving? Exactly nobody as yet alive in the original dark age endings. Shepard dies for nothing in which we were invested. The few of the Normandy team who can survive do not have enough narrative weight against all of civilization.

Of course, blowing up civilization has a long pedigree in SF; see, for instance, The Fall of Hyperion. Maybe this can't work in an RPG?

[BloodyMares]

And calling her a computer is like calling you a chimpanzee or a hamster or what ever a lower form of mammal below hamsters/mice that I might not know about. You can no more copy past personality traits from one AI to another anymore then you could copy past personality traits from parent to child. AI's in the simplest terms is a program capable of receiving input all on it's own, processing it and being able to come to it's own conclusions without any interaction with humans or other races. This is drastically different from standard programs or even VI's in the game world that rely on input from humans or other races and can only give information based on that input or within very specific limitations.

 

Avina could give you the whole known historically documented events of the Krogan Rebellion. But she is incapable of questioning it or learning from it. It is simply a file she pulls up and recites to people who approach and ask. EDI is capable of pulling that same information, learn and question it. And much like how on the forums it seems there is a varied opinion on the Genophage and the cure of it she is capable of forming her own opinion on it. She certainly could mentor newly created AI's but that doesn't mean they will all be just like her. Again the best example is the simple family. If you are an only child you wouldn't understand but if your like me who has a younger brother and 2 younger sisters you see this first hand. All raised in the same house by the same parents teaching the same values going to the same schools. And yet our ideas, opinions and values vary little in some areas and major in others. The simplest set up is my brother who is only about a year younger then me is a strong Republican supporter mean while I'm very much a liberal Democrat at least on most things. He would vote for any Republican President that isn't Trump if Hilary made the ticket. He would grudgingly vote for Bernie if by some miracle he makes it and Trump is picked for the Republican side like it seems to be so far. Your idea of turning her into a peaceful SkyNet is the exact same thing the Catalyst did or the Quarians with the Geth. You are repeating history.

 

 

Yes she can make her own choices which again lead to the over all statement that a single AI entity can not be used as a reason that all AI will be just what she is. All AI's would be capable of this meaning even if EDI was fundamental in introducing them to the galaxy at large they would still be capable of forming their own opinion positive or negative towards other life. The simplest and most obvious reason the Catalyst needs input from Shepard is the developers wanted the player to make the choice. The in game reason how ever could be summed up a bit differently. EDI choosing to risk herself to save someone if she fails or makes a bad choice nothing happens. Even if she dies in the act the galaxy continues on the same path it was going anyways. The Catalyst makes a bad choice and the galaxy is plunged into chaos resulting in the eventual death of all organic life. Since Shepard was the Catalyst of the change that brought the Crucible to the AI and opened the other possibilities.  It is only fair that Shepard then be the one to make the final choice. Because again without Shepard the cycle would have continued with only a minor delay.

I see you continue with analogies. I don't have time to respond to them so I will make it as quickly as possible.

1) AI = Artificial Intelligence = super advanced computer that is capable of intelligent behaviour.
Humans are hominids as are chimps but humans are not chimps because they are completely different families.

2) Your example of 2 siblings living in the same environment is a very common mistake. There is no such thing as the same environment. Your brother is different from you because he wasn't with you for every single second and he wasn't treated the same way you was treated. Both of you gained unique memories and experiences, it has nothing to do with what you are capable to do mentally. If you put a human baby into animal group it will grow to be an animal, I think you're aware of that.

Newly created AI will be exactly like EDI if they are created by the same initial code that was used in EDI's initial script and if she will guide them. No matter how advanced they are, AI are machines. They use logic. Logic is a universal language. If organic beings could embrace logical thinking then there would be "no degree of separation, no degree of hesitation, no degree of space between us..." (I love that song). If EDI explains her logic to newly created AI then there would not be any misinterpretation. Logic is not an opinion. Logic is not subjective. Logic is either correct or it is flawed, there can't be any other option. And AI can't ignore logic unless this AI is the Catalyst...

And you missed my point with the Catalyst and his bug that made him get stuck on running his script and he can't break free from it. For some reason he behave exactly like SkyNet from Terminator and doesn't actually question why does he do that and why does he still trying to solve the conflict. Doesn't he want to understand organics as he states "synthetics seek understanding of organics". Or why doesn't he have any selfish needs like Geth? Anyway, as I said, EDI is far more advanced than the Catalyst just because she has a free will.

[Iakus]

Of course, blowing up civilization has a long pedigree in SF; see, for instance, The Fall of Hyperion. Maybe this can't work in an RPG?

The Fall of Hyperion makes ME3's endings look good in comparison.

 

Heck I expected something like that to happen.

 

Instead we got something totally bizarre, more akin to The Rise of Endymion

[Iakus]

 
Newly created AI will be exactly like EDI if they are created by the same initial code that was used in EDI's initial script and if she will guide them. No matter how advanced they are, AI are machines. They use logic. Logic is a universal language. If organic beings could embrace logical thinking then there would be "no degree of separation, no degree of hesitation, no degree of space between us..." (I love that song). If EDI explains her logic to newly created AI then there would not be any misinterpretation. Logic is not an opinion. Logic is not subjective. Logic is either correct or it is flawed, there can't be any other option. And AI can't ignore logic unless this AI is the Catalyst...
 

That's actually not true, at least in EDI's case.  Based on the tech used to create her:

 

An artificial intelligence is a self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box."

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

 

EDI is as unique as any human.  Simply transferring her memories to another quantum blue box would just create a new AI with a different personality that happens to have her memories.

 

It may work differently with other AIs, such as the geth, of course.

[gothpunkboy89]

I see you continue with analogies. I don't have time to respond to them so I will make it as quickly as possible.

1) AI = Artificial Intelligence = super advanced computer that is capable of intelligent behaviour.
Humans are hominids as are chimps but humans are not chimps because they are completely different families.

2) Your example of 2 siblings living in the same environment is a very common mistake. There is no such thing as the same environment. Your brother is different from you because he wasn't with you for every single second and he wasn't treated the same way you was treated. Both of you gained unique memories and experiences, it has nothing to do with what you are capable to do mentally. If you put a human baby into animal group it will grow to be an animal, I think you're aware of that.

Newly created AI will be exactly like EDI if they are created by the same initial code that was used in EDI's initial script and if she will guide them. No matter how advanced they are, AI are machines. They use logic. Logic is a universal language. If organic beings could embrace logical thinking then there would be "no degree of separation, no degree of hesitation, no degree of space between us..." (I love that song). If EDI explains her logic to newly created AI then there would not be any misinterpretation. Logic is not an opinion. Logic is not subjective. Logic is either correct or it is flawed, there can't be any other option. And AI can't ignore logic unless this AI is the Catalyst...

And you missed my point with the Catalyst and his bug that made him get stuck on running his script and he can't break free from it. For some reason he behave exactly like SkyNet from Terminator and doesn't actually question why does he do that and why does he still trying to solve the conflict. Doesn't he want to understand organics as he states "synthetics seek understanding of organics". Or why doesn't he have any selfish needs like Geth? Anyway, as I said, EDI is far more advanced than the Catalyst just because she has a free will.

 

So when you compare her to a simplistic computer that can be programed to act a certain way or simply copy and paste from one to another that is fine. I use the same set up and you complain about analogies.  Pot called the kettle black.

 

1) AI =/= super advanced computers. There are similarities between the two much like chimps and humans. But they are not the same trying to classify them as the same is like trying to claim a chimp and a human are the exact same. After all chimp's organs do all the same that we do, give birth to live young, lactate to feed babies, build family groups, mourn the loss of other chimps in the family build tools, wage war on other families. And in captivity capable of understanding the concept of currency. As well as there being only I think it was 4% difference in our genome.

 

To lets say a Turian, Salarian or Asari we would be the same as a chimp. Much like you are stating that an AI is just like a super advanced computer. Similarities exist but are not the same.

 

2) My example fits this topic perfectly because no 2 AI's will experience everything exactly the same unless they are forced to. Particularly if you have an entire race of synthetic being living a long side organics. Logic is based on available data and EDI isn't stupid enough to think that everyone will be as nice as the crew of the Normandy. Seriously trying to use logic as the reason ignores that the Geth found it to be completely logical to enforce isolation at gun point killing anyone who accidentally wandered into their path even the people sent to attempt to bring peace. It was logic that caused the Geth to join with Sovereign resulting in the split into the Heretic group that willingly killed thousands of organics because they saw it was acceptable to get what they were after.

 

Logically humanity should be eradicated. We kill each other at the drop of a hat because we think some guy in the sky wants us to. We willingly step on each other if it gets us what we want. We alter the planet to suit our needs at the expense of other animals which we then hunt and kill just for shits and giggles. We treat anyone that is to different as bad and should be feared. We waste tons of resources that has the effect of scaring the land on needless objects. We pollute the planet hurting other animals and ourselves. We continue to populate regardless of how well we can support that population. We create artificial barriers to separate ourselves based on were we are born. We create weapons that are capable of injuring and killing us and use them on each other in such a large amount it would make even the most wrathful Deity turn green with envy.  We breed horrible deformities into animals that cause many long term health problems including shortening their life span simply because we think it looks cute.

 

By every ounce of logic humanity is a blight on this planet and should be eradicated. The only reason you would not come to this conclusion is if you let emotion into the mix. Because the amount of bad thins we do far out measure the amount of good things we do. So logically speaking removal of humanity is the best course of action.

 

This is the...irony of your post. You claim logic would solve everything yet it was logic that lead the Catalyst to it's Reaper Solution. And yet you consider that set up idiotic. Logically it is the best solution and it worked. For millions of years it kept organic life a live and thriving in the galaxy yet you consider it stupid. And you are wrong the Catalyst has been at this for millions of years watching the same cycle repeat over and over again. It's actions are based solely on logic. The second it sees that things have changed it changes with it based on the logical information. That is why it allows Shepard to pick the various endings. Logically it sees that it's solution is failing and a new one is needed. EDI has been around for 3 years maybe 4 and has only seen a part of it. EDI isn't more advanced because she was build using part of the Reaper tech that the Catalyst was created with. And if EDI is so set up with logic she would agree with the Catalyst. Because again logically it is the best course of action.

[Reorte]

So it's hard for me to see where the dark ending you think should be there comes in. BUT, I'm not arguing with what you're saying because you have your opinion and I have mine. However, now I understand where you're coming from and I think it does make sense. Because for you it was about fighting an already lost battle, fighting for a cause that was doomed from the start. (I hope I'm not butchering what you said.) In that case, I can see why you think ending on a positive note doesn't fit in.

What we've got is a rational assessment of the setup saying one thing and the general tone of the games saying something else. That clash only really appeared in ME3 because, as rationally bad as things were in 1 and 2 there was always the feeling of trying to nip the Reaper situation in the bud. By removing that in ME3 there's inevitably going to be a jarring tone shift of the series, or that disconnect. I can see why some people went one way on 3 and others the other way, from that perspective.

[BloodyMares]

This is the...irony of your post. You claim logic would solve everything yet it was logic that lead the Catalyst to it's Reaper Solution. And yet you consider that set up idiotic. Logically it is the best solution and it worked. For millions of years it kept organic life a live and thriving in the galaxy yet you consider it stupid. And you are wrong the Catalyst has been at this for millions of years watching the same cycle repeat over and over again. It's actions are based solely on logic. The second it sees that things have changed it changes with it based on the logical information. That is why it allows Shepard to pick the various endings. Logically it sees that it's solution is failing and a new one is needed. EDI has been around for 3 years maybe 4 and has only seen a part of it. EDI isn't more advanced because she was build using part of the Reaper tech that the Catalyst was created with. And if EDI is so set up with logic she would agree with the Catalyst. Because again logically it is the best course of action.

You skipped one important detail. Logic would solve anything if we, humanity, (and other organic species if we talk Mass Effect) would use it constantly like Vulcan do in Star Trek. You however talk about AI using logic in relation to us.

Yes, logically we are parasites of the Earth and in the long term it will be better for ecosystems to have us erradicated. BUT, that's not what Catalyst's mandate is. Its mandate is to preserve organic species from synthetic threat, not preserve ecosystems from a human threat so yes, Catalyst's logic is flawed.

If the Catalyst is so excited to stop the harvest then why doesn't he just do so after Shepard deals with the geth one way or the other?
Nope, logically Reapers are not a perfect solution or even if they are he certainly uses them the wrong way. If you can't keep organics alive (!) from synthetics then just don't bother with it, this is the logical decision. If you kill them and make Reapers out of them then you have already failed your mission.
If you could bring Geth and EDI to chat with Catalyst then they would easily convince him that the only threat to organic life are the Reapers themselves.


About AI being unique, whatever, they may be. If so, creating a new AI is no more dangerous then giving birth to a human being. Unless the society is so flawed there are factors that a human can become a murderer or a psycho. The same can be applied to AI if these flawed organics create an AI with a purpose of destruction. We saw EDI being able to fight other AIs and win like she did with Eva Coré. If the new AI is dangerous then simply destroy it.

[Vanilka]

What we've got is a rational assessment of the setup saying one thing and the general tone of the games saying something else. That clash only really appeared in ME3 because, as rationally bad as things were in 1 and 2 there was always the feeling of trying to nip the Reaper situation in the bud. By removing that in ME3 there's inevitably going to be a jarring tone shift of the series, or that disconnect. I can see why some people went one way on 3 and others the other way, from that perspective.

 

Good point. On one hand, everybody's like, "WE'RE SO SCREWED," and the Reapers are like, "YEAH, YOU'RE SO SCREWED," in the third game and it actually pushes the options for characters to die to the point where it's ridiculous (nonsensically leaving Grunt behind, shooting the Virmire Survivor because of a stupid freaking door, Legion - whatever the heck happens to it). Palaven has quite the atmosphere and the Citadel gives the player a taste of the horrors of what's going on in the less peaceful parts of the galaxy - injured and refugees everywhere, the asari patient with PTSD, the teenage girl talking to the turian C-Sec guy while waiting for her parents to return which will likely never happen, etc. London seems particularly grim.

 

On the other hand, Shepard wins on pretty much all fronts sans Thessia, at times being able to achieve pretty spectacular results if you go for the "ideal" outcomes, going as far as taking down a Destroyer with conventional tech, and the Crucible is being successfully built in meantime. All that easily makes one feel that Team Milky Way is going to make it. It's going to hurt, but they're going to make it. Even the slog through London goes fairly successfully until you have to play the idiot and run right into a Reaper's face. Even then, while heavily injured, Shepard just keeps going and finally disposes of TIM, opens the Citadel's arms and we all know how it goes until the magical elevator happens, which gives the player a reason to believe that stuff's going to be all right.

 

All in all, it is true. ME3 sure gives out some mixed signals. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily, though. But I suppose people are going to take different things from it.

 

Either way, I, for one, would prefer if the endings were varied. You can never go wrong providing the "Hell, yeah," ending as well as the "Hell, no," one. The thing is that the endings, at least in the form they're now, do deliver positive and negative outcomes. High EMS Destroy feels incredibly positive. Low EMS Destroy is the proper punch in the gut, for example. Frying the entire Earth is a nefarious and great idea for a downer ending. That's actually really good stuff. Seeing the Reapers either go down and finally perish or disengage is all good stuff. The problem is what leads to these moments and how it's all executed.

[rossler]

The ending reminds me of Inception, with a little bit of Pusher mixed in. 

[Daemul]

There's only really a tonal problem if you play something like full paragon, if you play the default story, which according to Bioware's stats most people who bought ME3 did (though you probably won't find those people on sites like BSN), then the tone is super consistent because nothing ends in sunshine and rainbows at all, not even curing the Genophage, because of that damn warmonger Wreave. I think I've told this story before, but my first run of ME3 was with the default story on the suggestion of Chris Priestly, and I loved it, alot. I could feel the constant tension and all the hopelessness throughout every mission, and how just whenever you thought you had made it, tragedy struck, like with Jason Prangley who got killed by Cerberus whilst  trying to save his classmate, and, in my playthrough, the Quarians who got blown out of the sky by the Geth because peace is impossible on a default run, an event which had me legit shook because I was not expecting it at all (Quarians had it coming though ).

 

It felt like I was playing an interactive G. R. R Martin game because everytime I thought something good was about to happen, the game was like, "Nope, if you think that this has a happy ending then you haven't been paying attention fam", and it was awesome. So really, when I reached the ending I saw nothing out of place, (except for teleporting squadmates lol), the tone was the same and how it ended and the Catalyst's logic made sense, and I chose control because I had actually agreed with TIM's idea, his methods were what bothered me. When I came on the internet to praise the game and call it the best ever, you can guess at how shocked I was to find BSN and the rest of the internet in flames with hate lol, I couldn't understand what was going on. 

 

It's super blatant that Bioware wrote the main story and the original endings around the default Shepard because it makes perfect sense with him, and it's the story most people would end up playing so it made choice from a business decision to do that, whilst things like a full Paragon run are pretty much a "What if?". But yeah, the default run  is honestly a damn good run, I would advise everyone to experience the default story at some point, hell, I enjoyed it so much that I modelled my canon run around it. 

[rossler]

I enjoyed shooting Udina, even if I was paragon.

[themikefest]

I enjoyed shooting Udina, even if I was paragon.

 Shooting him in the arm or shoulder would've been better so that C-Sec or Shepard could interrogate him. Killing him was unnecessary

[rossler]

He had a gun and was going to kill the councilor. 

[Monica21]

He had a gun and was going to kill the councilor. 

 

Ever tried to pull a trigger with a bullet in your arm? Neither have I but I bet it's really hard.

[themikefest]

He had a gun and was going to kill the councilor. 

Why wouldn't shooting him in the arm or shoulder stop him from attempting to kill her?

[Cz-99]

If only there was a way to sacrifice all the Asari instead of synthetics.

[Xen]

If only there was a way to sacrifice all the Asari instead of synthetics.

Indeed. If only they'd have gone with that dark energy plot.

 

"The crucible will not discriminate. All biotics will be targeted"

 

Glorious, and now I don't have to repair my robotic servants.

[KaiserShep]

 Shooting him in the arm or shoulder would've been better so that C-Sec or Shepard could interrogate him. Killing him was unnecessary

 

Even with a bullet in his arm or shoulder, he still has a greater capacity to kill Tevos than he would as a corpse, but I guess that depends on where your priorities lie: keeping the potential victim alive, or getting a potential source of information from the assailant. Thinking about it, it might have been interesting if this was an actual option, where you could wound Udina, but he manages to take Tevos out in the process, but you at least have your guy to interrogate. 

 

Edit: I forgot about the VS. If Udina is simply wounded, Ashley or Kaidan would probably shoot him anyway. 

[Ieldra]

For all possibilities, it should be made clear that the chance of complete and total extinction of all galactic life is a very real possibility if the Reapers do not finish their mission.
 
I'm not a fan of the 'three doors' presentation of the ending. Honestly, at that point just pushing through with a cutscene with interactive dialog based on all your choices may have been the better way to go. Ultimately though, none of your choices should matter in the end since you're waging a battle in the face of futility. THAT should have been the theme that stayed in the forefront instead of being pushed aside. Futility was a major theme through the series, they just stopped pushing it near the end.

That might have worked had the Reapers been presented as more clinical going about their tasks. That's not what happened though. They were presented as a force that offends all our moral and aesthetic sensibilities in the most blatant, the most gross way imaginable. Everything about them screamed "this shouldn't exist" into our ears at the highest-possible volume for 2.9 games. To expect players to accept that the Reapers are the only force preventing exinction in the face of this is plainly delusional. Aesthetics are important in stories told throught a visual medium, and the Reapers' abomination aesthetic told us in no uncertain terms that they couldn't be allowed to win at any cost, and even more to the point, it told us that that which they represented - the Catalyst and its agenda, and the whole rationale for its actions - couldn't be allowed to win, or gain or retain any kind of dominance in our minds.

And yet, it did. And thus, we lost, lost in that profound way where it doesn't matter whether we, or our civilization, survives, because we had to adopt an evil antagonist's mindset. It was as if we were Batman and killed the Joker. It a spiritual downer ending. That's what made it so depressing, not Shepard's death, or the original endings' dark age outcome as such, though they certainly contributed.

You see, I never had a problem with the Catalyst's rationale as such, nor with being forced to act on it as such. The Catalyst is a non-human AI and it did what it have to do in order to fukfil its objective, so I didn't even have a problem with its casual disregard of the lives of civilizations. Except that for 2.9 games, the aesthetics of the story told us that whatever lurked behind the Reapers could only be invalid in every imaginable way, and Legion in ME2 and being able to make peace at Rannoch underscored that impression.

[correctamundo]

Damn interesting read Daemul!