160 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

Just had another thought: If Shepard refuses to use the Crucible, he might be unworthy of the role of Übermensch. He is unable to transcend the Paragon/Renegade morality system, and is thus unfit to trigger a paradigm shift that leads the galaxy into a new age.

[angol fear]

Yep, this opinion needed to be expressed. ME3 is my personal favorite, but I love the whole trilogy. I think the ending, with the Extended Cut, is ultimately satisfying, and encourages us to consider the consequences of all the world-changing decisions we made. I was frustrated with the original presentation, and the EC isn't perfect, but I greatly appreciate the intended point. 

 

The story was about Shepard as a Nietzchean Übermensch, a charismatic soldier who managed to unite an entire galaxy and overthrow a billion-year-old evolutionary control system. He fought the gods themselves, and made a choice that transcended the domain of mortals, beyond good and evil; the choice of a god. He either killed them, replaced them, or reconciled them with the mortal realm. He was a champion of life, and was granted the authority to define it. He will be remembered for all time. The stuff of legends and myths.

 

Just trying to bring some positivity to this often pessimistic forum.

 

We can add in your Nietzschean interpretation of the ending :

- the form of the catalyst which can be interpreted in a nietzschean way (the child is the third and last metamorphose)

- the amoral aspect of the ending (no good and evil) that you talked but not to a god's realm, it's actually closer to nature (the EC add a comparison which is here to show the relation to the reapers and the nature).

- the fact that in the end there is no god, the criticism of religion is still here but people can misinterpret it and see it in a religious way. (just like Zarathoustra is a man without gods but he has a prophet aspect, he talks and seems to be a prophet).

- the ambiguous writing based on implicit, paradoxes and retroactive reading which forces the player to be an active reader just like Nietzsche wants the reader to be active to interpret, because interpretation is an art. Nietzsche doesn't explicitly develop his thoughts. The form of Mass Effect 3's ending was Nietzschean.

- the importance of the body for the synthesis ending. Nietzsche insisted on the body and its importance. he was an anti Plato. With the synthesis ending, it's a DNA change that seems to be the solution. The body influences the mind.

 

Glad to see some positivity on that forum! 

[The Real Pearl #2]

Needs more controversy 

[LineHolder]

As I've said before: I appreciate the concept as much as you do, but I have problems with the implementation. A story such as this, among other things, shouldn't give me a canonically stupid protagonist and insult my intellect with its explanations. Also, while the ending choices were philosophically interesting, they were ruined by the way they were presented and by the main expositor. Meanwhile, the story that came before, including most of the choices in the side-plots, was annoyingly traditionalist, and because of that, failed to lay an appropriate groundwork.

 

I would've loved to play Shepard as you see them, but I never got that vibe. To me, Shepard appeared as a low-IQ Joe Everyman with little understanding of the world and little competence in anything except to kill stuff, in a story that - excluding the ending - always set me up to make choices according to the delusionary and immature philosophical stance "follow your heart and everything will be ok".

 

As I see it, we had a setup that could've made a groundbreaking story that challenged the way we see ourselves in the hands of a competent writer, but we ended up with a cheap TV show full of contrived drama and traditionalist stereotypes. The narrative tools available to ME3's writers were clearly insufficient to tell a story of such a grand scope - both in time and space and in philosophy.

 

As admirable as your interpretation of Synthesis is, I find that you're doing yourself and your ideas a disservice by tethering them to or deriving them from Mass Effect and its endings. Transhumanism and all that jazz is an interesting concept but as you yourself admit, it has no place in the story.

 

All that Mass Effect did, when you stop and consider the 'synthesis' of Collectors and Reaper troops, is create a hatred for the concept. To flip it in the last few minutes and meld all synthetic and organic 'DNA' via a light wave that travels across the Galaxy ... I ... no.

 

Although I'm of the view that all the endings are equally stupid. The entire plot of the game is beyond stupid so it's no surprise that the endings are a mess as well.

[Ieldra]

As admirable as your 'interpretation' of Synthesis is, I find that you're doing yourself and your ideas a disservice by tethering them to or deriving them from Mass Effect and its endings. Transhumanism and all that jazz is an interesting concept but as you yourself admit, it has no place in the story.

 

All that Mass Effect did, when you stop and consider the 'synthesis' of Collectors and Reaper troops, is create a hatred for the concept. To flip it in the last few minutes and meld all synthetic and organic 'DNA' via a light wave that travels across the Galaxy ... I ... no.

 

Although I'm of the view that all the endings are equally stupid. The entire plot of the game is beyond stupid so it's no surprise that the endings are a mess as well.

Well....you have a point. Perhaps it would've been more honest to wash my hands of the whole thing and move on, but at the time - after five years of playing ME games - I couldn't do that without an attempt to find something positive that I could take away from it. Apart from that, I maintain there are interesting ideas in the plot and its ending, no matter how much they got mangled by writers with no respect for their subject matter - or little knowledge thereof.

 

As for Synthesis, I haven't the faintest idea how the writers thought this would come across - nor even how it was intended to come across. So, why not interpret it in a way that is at least somewhat interesting. Everyone of us falls on one side of a cognitive dissonance: the fact that it was clearly intended to be a good ending and the EC shows it as such, and the fact that it has some unpleasant aspects that are liable to invalidate it in many people's minds. With little to tell me which way to jump, my main motivation was that I wanted an outcome that worked for me personally that isn't Destroy - which I personally despise for reasons I won't repeat unless someone tells me they're interesting in hearing that yet again.

[fchopin]

 I wanted an outcome that worked for me personally that isn't Destroy - which I personally despise for reasons I won't repeat unless someone tells me they're interesting in hearing that yet again.

I would be interested in hearing your reason if it is not another (Geth and Edi die).

[Ieldra]

I attribute most, maybe even all, of Shepard's dumb moments to clumsy exposition that is aimed at the player. Thus, they don't really bother me. I also understand your frustration with the common sentiments expressed in mainstream stories; it's an interesting observation. For some reason, though, I don't feel like Mass Effect beats me over the head with them as much as you seem to feel. They are there, of course, but I don't think it's that bad.

So what about "The Citadel? The fight's here..."? And Shepard's reaction to the events at Thessia? Sorry, I just can't forgive things like that, especially since it would've been easy to avoid with added dialogue options. Also, the traditionalist elements wouldn't bother me if they weren't always, without exception, painted as right.
 

For example, curing the genophage is supposed to be the "feel-good-and-thus-is-right" decision, but honestly, the case for sabotage is very compelling, and I've found it more appealing in recent times. I also think this why BioWare didn't include an epilogue at release; they didn't want to pass judgment on any decisions. It's totally valid to believe that even a Wrex-led krogan will lead to disaster. I personally believe that it could cause significant problems after the Destruction ending. I'm more comfortable with curing the genophage in the Control and Synthesis scenarios.

The case is indeed compelling. The case I make against the story is that it attempts to mask that in order to make the feel-good decision more appealing. Nobody ever asks "Do you really want the krogan to multiply a thousandfold per generation (which is the number implied from data given us in ME2)? Also, rememeber they can live for more than a thousand years." Add the utter stupidity that comes out of anyone's mouth as soon as biology becomes a topic, and you end up with a plot implementation that insults my intellect at every turn.

Because of things like that, I believe that in most cases, if someone perceives a philosophically compelling element in the story, it's accidental. I don't believe someone who gives us those cases of utter stupidity has the ability to intentionally and successfully present a philosophically interesting concept. And considering how things turned out, I maintain that they didn't. We may recognize the elements they attempted to address, but the subject matter clearly went over their head. That doesn't make the ideas they failed to present convincingly less interesting, but it makes the ME trilogy a failed vehicle of transporting them. For instance, I ask: can you intelligently discuss ideas about synthetic and organic life if your main exposition to them is through the ME trilogy? The most relevant point is raised exactly once in a debate between minor NPCs and never followed up on. Another case is Synthesis: Need I say "new DNA"? If I was forced to write such crap, I'd shoot myself in the head before I exposed anyone else to it.

I'll give you this: even a failed attempt is worthwhile. However, if philosophical themes are to be addressed in an appropriate manner, stupidity, contrived drama and feel-good morality needs to be avoided. Philosophy is a thinking discipline after all, and such stories must avoid insulting my intellect. Consider, as an example, Planescape: Torment. I think nobody would ever accuse that game of being dry, but I could actually have an interesting debate with an NPC in it.

[Ieldra]

I would be interested in hearing your reason if it is not another (Geth and Edi die).

No, it's not that. Thematically, Destroy reinforces the idea that only organic life is true life. Not all players who choose it do so for that reason, but it's present nonetheless. By rejecting anything non-organic, it also thematically reinforces the traditional boundaries of the human condition. About life, I am firmly in Engineer Adams' camp - we're all made from matter and our life processes are biochemical, so I can't see what quality organic life could have that synthetic life couldn't. Also, as a transhumanist, it is my fondest desire to overcome those traditional boundaries of the human condition, and attempts to reinforce them are fundamentally against everything I believe about life and the universe.

Another minor point is that the original Destroy ending featured a dark age of civilization. My goal in the trilogy was to stop the Reapers and save my civilization, it was never about something as abstract as "all life" or even "all organic life". It also wasn't just about a few characters who had become close to me. I wanted to save the species of Citadel space, their culture and their technology. The EC retconned the dark age, but it's still present in my mind.

So you see, I *can* choose Destroy, but only with a Shepard who's very much unlike me in their beliefs about life and the universe, and it won't change that I despise it.

[LineHolder]

Ieldra,

 

ME3 is one of those rarest of rare specimens whose plot is surpassed by the head canon of every reader/player/watcher. I can't say if this is a stroke of genius or cause for rank hilarity.

 

With that out of the way, let me also say that I don't have any champion in the fight between the 4 endings, but taking the Destroy option at face value (saying that it is solely to destroy non-organic life) is as bad as saying the concept of Synthesis (or Transhumanism) is evil.

 

If we are strictly talking themes without taking their implementation in the game into consideration,

 

- Destroy = destroying your enemies who've killed bazillions of beings down the millennia.

 

- Control = co-opting the machinery and working of your enemy

 

- Synthesis = either 'ascending' or 'enhancing' state of living from strictly organic or synthetic

 

- Refuse = joke ending

 

Each of these three is standing on platforms infinitesimally thin, now taking the game's plot into consideration.

 

- Destroy has the forced added caveat of destroying 'synthetics'. How it doesn't fry all the circuitry and associated non-sentient machines (and by extension everyone in existence) is not explained. That 'destroys synthetics' is simply there to force an ending that has a 'cost' to it.

 

- Control has the forced added caveat of killing Shepard and 'uploading' his consciousness to become Starbrat 2.0. The first time I played the game, my Shepard got 'tricked' into this option because it seemed the least destructive.

 

- Synthesis has already been discussed ... a la DNA and all that rubbish

 

When I mentioned being tricked into 'Control' I mean to point to the foolishness of choosing from choices presented by the entity we have been fighting for the entirety of the story. Taking whatever it says at face value is not only dangerous, but also stupid. The conversation between it and Shepard means nothing. I won't devote my time to analyzing it because it gives too much credence and dignity to Casey-Mac's writing and their desire for 'speculation by everyone'.

 

All I'm trying to put across by way of this rambling is to not take the 'Destroy' option at face value just as you could not take 'Synthesis' at face value yourself.

[Vox Draco]

All I'm trying to put across by way of this rambling is to not take the 'Destroy' option at face value just as you could not take 'Synthesis' at face value yourself.

 

So the surreal gameshow-drama in front of our eyes is not what it seems and cannot be trusted and can be everything we WANT it to be?

 

And people still wodner why soemthing like the indoctrination-theory was created. One of the few things that allow me to somehow incorporate the endings into anything like a logical headcanon without totally ignoring it. Or I just blame Sheaprd's bloodloss or abuse of chems and stims and consider teh endings just hallucinations after Shepard got hit on Earth and is about to die...

 

You see the strangest things they say when you die...

[LineHolder]

So the surreal gameshow-drama in front of our eyes is not what it seems and cannot be trusted and can be everything we WANT it to be?

 

And people still wodner why soemthing like the indoctrination-theory was created. One of the few things that allow me to somehow incorporate the endings into anything like a logical headcanon without totally ignoring it. Or I just blame Sheaprd's bloodloss or abuse of chems and stims and consider teh endings just hallucinations after Shepard got hit on Earth and is about to die...

 

You see the strangest things they say when you die...

 

I've never understood the hatred for IT myself. Two criticisms that I do sort of understand are,

 

1. Tricking the player with non-Destroy options

 

2. Not revealing the 'trickery' at the end and thereby not expanding upon the 'good' ending either

 

It would have been a stroke of genius if they had gone through with it though, because it's not often that your intellect and attention are challenged by story based games.

[Ieldra]

Ieldra,
 
ME3 is one of those rarest of rare specimens whose plot is surpassed by the head canon of every reader/player/watcher. I can't say if this is a stroke of genius or cause for rank hilarity.
 
With that out of the way, let me also say that I don't have any champion in the fight between the 4 endings, but taking the Destroy option at face value (saying that it is solely to destroy non-organic life) is as bad as saying the concept of Synthesis (or Transhumanism) is evil.
 
If we are strictly talking themes without taking their implementation in the game into consideration,
 
- Destroy = destroying your enemies who've killed bazillions of beings down the millennia.
 
- Control = co-opting the machinery and working of your enemy
 
- Synthesis = either 'ascending' or 'enhancing' state of living from strictly organic or synthetic
 
- Refuse = joke ending
 
Each of these three is standing on platforms infinitesimally thin, now taking the game's plot into consideration.
 
- Destroy has the forced added caveat of destroying 'synthetics'. How it doesn't fry all the circuitry and associated non-sentient machines (and by extension everyone in existence) is not explained. That 'destroys synthetics' is simply there to force an ending that has a 'cost' to it.
 
- Control has the forced added caveat of killing Shepard and 'uploading' his consciousness to become Starbrat 2.0. The first time I played the game, my Shepard got 'tricked' into this option because it seemed the least destructive.
 
- Synthesis has already been discussed ... a la DNA and all that rubbish
 
When I mentioned being tricked into 'Control' I mean to point to the foolishness of choosing from choices presented by the entity we have been fighting for the entirety of the story. Taking whatever it says at face value is not only dangerous, but also stupid. The conversation between it and Shepard means nothing. I won't devote my time to analyzing it because it gives too much credence and dignity to Casey-Mac's writing and their desire for 'speculation by everyone'.
 
All I'm trying to put across by way of this rambling is to not take the 'Destroy' option at face value just as you could not take 'Synthesis' at face value yourself.

It's actually quite similar. I'm sure I could write a somewhat satisfactory scenario for Destroy, just as I did for Synthesis, but that wouldn't remove the thematic problem I have with it, just as my Synthesis scenario didn't remove the problem of forcing a physical change on all intelligent life in the galaxy, or its own thematic problem that the Reapers claim the same theme of ascension for themselves, and ME3's Synthesis doesn't distance itself enough from that. The difference is that Synthesis is *also* associated with themes I find interesting (as is Control btw), while Destroy is just associated with "destroy your enemy", which is of course perfectly fine but also somewhat boring.

Also, the implementation adds additional themes, thus it can't be ignored if we stick to that level. Destroy would have one problem less if it just destroyed the Reapers, Synthesis would have one problem less had the story detached it from the Reapers, Control would have one problem less without it being associated with TIM, and every ending would have one very big problem less with a different expositor than the Catalyst.

Imagine if the endings had been like this:
(1) Destroy destroys only the Reapers.
(2) Synthesis synthesizes only Shepard, who survives and acquires the ability to synthesize others.
(3) Control...hmm, actually that could remain unchanged.

...and furthermore, if the exposition hadn't come from the antagonist. I guess Destroy would still be the majority choice, but Control wouldn't suffer from the implication that Control!Shep is just Starbrat 2.0, and Synthesis wouldn't compromise its main theme by association with the Reapers or forcibly changing all life.

[fchopin]

No, it's not that. Thematically, Destroy reinforces the idea that only organic life is true life. Not all players who choose it do so for that reason, but it's present nonetheless. By rejecting anything non-organic, it also thematically reinforces the traditional boundaries of the human condition. About life, I am firmly in Engineer Adams' camp - we're all made from matter and our life processes are biochemical, so I can't see what quality organic life could have that synthetic life couldn't. Also, as a transhumanist, it is my fondest desire to overcome those traditional boundaries of the human condition, and attempts to reinforce them are fundamentally against everything I believe about life and the universe.

Another minor point is that the original Destroy ending featured a dark age of civilization. My goal in the trilogy was to stop the Reapers and save my civilization, it was never about something as abstract as "all life" or even "all organic life". It also wasn't just about a few characters who had become close to me. I wanted to save the species of Citadel space, their culture and their technology. The EC retconned the dark age, but it's still present in my mind.

So you see, I *can* choose Destroy, but only with a Shepard who's very much unlike me in their beliefs about life and the universe, and it won't change that I despise it.

 

I agree with you that organic life is not the only kind of life in the universe and there could be synthetic life or some other kind of AI life but I dont see what that has to do with the destroy ending.

 

For me I always choose destroy as that is the only way to stop the reapers and keep our individuality as we know it in the game. What the space child says is not relevant to me as I have no problem with Artificial Intelligence or any other kind of life in our universe.

 

The reapers have to die what ever the cost and if the Geth and Edi has to die then so be it.

I would still choose destroy even if it was the Asari and Krogans who had to die or another species.

My favourite character in ME3 was Legion.

[Linkenski]

The moment in ME-1 where I understood that the quarians had over-developed the geth (thanks, Tali for 'splaining it so well in Udina's office), and the geth were revolting, I immediately thought of Asimov's I, Robot. The struggle between organics coping with their 'too smart' synthetic creations is the common grist in the Sci-Fi story mill. How this common story element is developed in a fresh way always tickles my fancy. I never tire of it, not do I tire of ME Trilogy, no matter what happens in ME:A.

I don't either. I'm watching BSG for the first time now and I love the way they explore the idea of consciousness and life through the struggle between Cylons (synthetics) and Humans (organics) and I loved everything about "synthetics and organics" in the ME Trilogy aside from EDI and Joker in ME3 lacking subtlety and of course the ending. I don't like how when you argue the ending was never foreshadowed people go "But there was Synthetics vs organics throughout the series." Yes. There was also the idea of Organics vs Organics via the Genophage subplot, the idea of racism and interraciality between humans and other organic aliens, the idea of man's inhumanity to man via Cerberus -- For the narrative to come and tell you at the very, very end of the journey that the biggest conflict there ever was was the struggle between organics and machine works because the Reapers are the main threat but it falls pretty darn flat in how it's executed or argued ("Synthetics will ALWAYS destroy ALL organics") when you never see that as a player; not the Reapers because they preserve organics and not the Quarian vs Geth because they were fighting because the organics shot first and the Geth were acting in self-defense and not trying to kill "ALL organics". If you ask me there's just as much a story of Organics will always destroy ALL synthetics or Organics will ALWAYS destroy ALL Organics as there is an argument or assumption that Synthetics will destroy ALL Organics we learn in the ending.

 

Bioware managed to somehwat justify its plausibility by pointing out that the statement "Synthetics will ALWAYS destroy ALL Organics" is just the Reapers being retarded in their programming and thus doing the thing they're trying to prevent and thereby showing us how Synthetics can end up being our own downfall, but wow. The narrative gets really convoluted and complex in the final scene and none of this was very well telegraphed throughout the journey.

 

In other words the ending subverts the journey and it takes emphasis away from the things aside from just Organics vs Synthetics that were a big part of the story to make up a new story right in the conclusion. I'm constantly told from every teacher I've had no matter if it's English, Biology, Physics whatever, that I can't tell sometihng new in my conclusion. If I want to tell something new it must mean I forgot to tell it before, and such is the case of Mass Effect 3. It brings up something it forgot to mention in the conclusion and as the viewer you're left feeling puzzled and then annoyed when you realize that this Denoument of the ending doesn't reflect the story that had just been told.

[Iakus]

No, it's not that. Thematically, Destroy reinforces the idea that only organic life is true life. Not all players who choose it do so for that reason, but it's present nonetheless. By rejecting anything non-organic, it also thematically reinforces the traditional boundaries of the human condition. About life, I am firmly in Engineer Adams' camp - we're all made from matter and our life processes are biochemical, so I can't see what quality organic life could have that synthetic life couldn't. Also, as a transhumanist, it is my fondest desire to overcome those traditional boundaries of the human condition, and attempts to reinforce them are fundamentally against everything I believe about life and the universe.

Another minor point is that the original Destroy ending featured a dark age of civilization. My goal in the trilogy was to stop the Reapers and save my civilization, it was never about something as abstract as "all life" or even "all organic life". It also wasn't just about a few characters who had become close to me. I wanted to save the species of Citadel space, their culture and their technology. The EC retconned the dark age, but it's still present in my mind.

So you see, I *can* choose Destroy, but only with a Shepard who's very much unlike me in their beliefs about life and the universe, and it won't change that I despise it.

To me, Destroy, like all the endings, reinforces the Catalyst's point that peaceful coexistence between organics and synthetics is impossible, and provides three "solutions" to that problem:

 

Destroy:  One side annihilates the other.  Essentially what the Reapers have been doing all along, only now it's the organics doing unto others.

 

Control:  One side dominates the other.  In this case, synthetics rule the organics.  No destiny achieved unless it gets the Overlord's okay.

 

Synthesis:  Everyone on both sides is forcibly converted into a hybrid life form.  Everyone achieves the Reapers' ideal of "perfection" in order to be allowed to live.  

 

There's also Refusing, but that's just a middle finger to the audience for daring to not choose.

 

Frankly, I find this theme rather depressing and pessimistic.  I'd like to think we can figure out our own problems and, while humanity isn't perfect, we are in a constant state of change and growth.  We're better than this, or can be.  We don't need a techno-god telling us what we are and are not capable of.

[iM3GTR]

There's also Refusing, but that's just a middle finger to the audience for daring to not choose.

However, the "SO BE IT" line in Harbinger's voice makes me think that all the starchild was saying was a trick to get Shepard to let the reapers carry on harvesting everyone.

I never play ME3 anyway. I think it's a complete joke because it makes the reaper's origins stupid, and Cerberus is the main villain instead for some reason.

I really wish Drew Karpyshyn stayed as lead writer instead of going off to write his fantasy novels which, no offense to him, hardly anybody's going to read anyway.

[CosmicGnosis]

Alright, it must be said now: The Indoctrination Theory, and all its variants, are boring and lazy. It conveniently dodges the entire moral quandary of the ending choices, and encourages its proponents to dismiss the synthetic annihilation in the Destruction ending. In my opinion, it is far more interesting to tackle the moral quandary head-on, and consider the merits and demerits of every ending.

[rossler]

One of the themes of the trilogy was victory though sacrifice. So destroying the Reapers at the cost of all synthetic life fits this theme. If EDI and the Geth were to live, it would go against it.

 

There's many examples of victory through sacrifice throughout the game.

[Ieldra]

There's also Refusing, but that's just a middle finger to the audience for daring to not choose.

I do not agree. Refusing is for those people with deontological morality, those who say "I just can't do any other ending, regardless of the cost, because they're all wrong". Choosing Refuse, however much I disagree with it, is maybe the hardest choice, but it's the only one left if you think like that. Someone I debated with two years ago, asked by me why she would choose Refuse, answered with one word: Hope. After a moment of cognitive dissonance, i actually came to understand that. You choose Refuse in the hope that someone, someday will come up with an acceptable way out of the Reaper cycle and keep your world intact - and the story actually hints that some future cycle did solve the problem. We just don't know how. IMO the world doesn't work like that - our morality means nothing at all in the greater scheme of things and it's all wishful thinking - but the story wasn't just written for people like me.

 

The difference between Refuse and the other endings is that you aren't taking an active hand in the outcome. That this means the cycle continues, at least for now, is an inescapable outcome. The story wouldn't work if that didn't happen. If your morality is strongly deontological, however, it is the only way to come out of the scenario without feeling irrevocably tainted.

 

The three main endings, as a concept, worked for me because I'm more consequentialist. Of course not all ends justify extreme means, but the survival of galactic civilization is worth dirtying your hands considerably. For the same reason, I didn't have a problem with sabotaging the genophage cure. Not that I didn't feel like sh*t afterwards, but that was more because I had to shoot Mordin. In the end, it was the only possible decision after running the numbers on the krogan.

 

I would like to add that the endings achieved something by spawning debates like this, however flawed they might have been. There's too much stuff I hate in the story to ever enjoy it again, but these debates are interesting.

[Alfonsedode]

man, i m too lazy to read everything again, but some interesting stuff here

 

I m with you OP, i love ME3 and even its ending (preferred me2 though). As for the execution, i m not sure it was easy to implement it much better.

Would have preferred a drew kasjhpshkinkstuff dark energy ending though

[LineHolder]

I would like to add that the endings achieved something by spawning debates like this, however flawed they might have been. There's too much stuff I hate in the story to ever enjoy it again, but these debates are interesting.

 

Which is a shame because the endings by themselves do not have the tiniest bit of substance to warrant such discussion. I argue that the only reason that these debates have been sustained for so long is because of the fans' attachment to the story, characters and universe of Mass Effect. This attachment was so strong that people, like yourself, made great philosophical meanings out of the scraps you were *grudgingly* given.

 

It's like when a person loses a loved one due to random chance like accidents, natural disasters or disease and they try to find a higher meaning or purpose behind such a calamity.

 

I played the trilogy almost a year after ME3. The feelings I am left with is regret and pity. Regret for the destruction of something that could have been great and pity for people like you who were with the series from the start. You deserved better.

[UpUpAway95]

Which is a shame because the endings by themselves do not have the tiniest bit of substance to warrant such discussion. I argue that the only reason that these debates have been sustained for so long is because of the fans' attachment to the story, characters and universe of Mass Effect. This attachment was so strong that people, like yourself, made great philosophical meanings out of the scraps you were *grudgingly* given.

 

It's like when a person loses a loved one due to random chance like accidents, natural disasters or disease and they try to find a higher meaning or purpose behind such a calamity.

 

I played the trilogy almost a year after ME3. The feelings I am left with is regret and pity. Regret for the destruction of something that could have been great and pity for people like you who were with the series from the start. You deserved better.

 

Pity-parties are often two-way streets... You pity people who were with the series from the start and who, apparently, try to find a higher meaning or purpose" in it.  I have a little pity for people who can invest a number of hours of their time into anything and not even be able to eventually work out any meaning for themselves in that activity beyond "pity" for those who do.

 

I think it's perfectly OK (great in fact)  to "find a higher meaning" for oneself embedded in the endings of ME... whether or not they are what was "given" as scraps of info that could be interpreted in a variety of different ways or are just badly executed intentions by the writer.  The joy in reading any book comes from what the reader interprets that book to mean to them.  While I've derived a lot of my "meaning of life" from great literature, some of it has come from "not so great literature" as well.  Don't knock yourself out pitying me in order to run Bioware into the dirt... I'm doing just fine.

[Iakus]

I do not agree. Refusing is for those people with deontological morality, those who say "I just can't do any other ending, regardless of the cost, because they're all wrong". Choosing Refuse, however much I disagree with it, is maybe the hardest choice, but it's the only one left if you think like that. Someone I debated with two years ago, asked by me why she would choose Refuse, answered with one word: Hope. After a moment of cognitive dissonance, i actually came to understand that. You choose Refuse in the hope that someone, someday will come up with an acceptable way out of the Reaper cycle and keep your world intact - and the story actually hints that some future cycle did solve the problem. We just don't know how. IMO the world doesn't work like that - our morality means nothing at all in the greater scheme of things and it's all wishful thinking - but the story wasn't just written for people like me.

 

Our world doesn't work like that, no.  History is full of valiant last stands against hopeless odds which ended quite predictably.

 

But Mass Effect wasn't like that.  It was a quintessential action game where if you shot enough enemies in the face, or talked a good enough game, you win.  The Catalyst in the end pulled the rug out from under that.

 

 

 

The difference between Refuse and the other endings is that you aren't taking an active hand in the outcome. That this means the cycle continues, at least for now, is an inescapable outcome. The story wouldn't work if that didn't happen. If your morality is strongly deontological, however, it is the only way to come out of the scenario without feeling irrevocably tainted.

 

 Sorry, even this ending feels tainted, for reasons I will explain below.

 

 

 

 

The three main endings, as a concept, worked for me because I'm more consequentialist. Of course not all ends justify extreme means, but the survival of galactic civilization is worth dirtying your hands considerably. For the same reason, I didn't have a problem with sabotaging the genophage cure. Not that I didn't feel like sh*t afterwards, but that was more because I had to shoot Mordin. In the end, it was the only possible decision after running the numbers on the krogan.
 

The Refuse ending doesn't work for me because for me it reveals all of ME3, indeed, all of Mass Effect, to be a lie.  There was never any hope to stop the Reapers.  The Crucible was just as much a trap as the relays.  Galactic civilization put all their hopes, sank all their resources into this mysterious device that turned out to be a Diabolus Ex Machina.  Everything Shepard does, all the lives saved, the plans thwarted, allies gained, were for naught.  No matter how much of a difference Shepard makes, it didn't make any difference.  It was never enough.  Because that frakking magic wand HAS to be used to stop the Reapers.  Even that Refuse ending implies the next cycle used it to stop the Reapers.

 

ME3 had no ending worth living or dying for.

 

 

I would like to add that the endings achieved something by spawning debates like this, however flawed they might have been. There's too much stuff I hate in the story to ever enjoy it again, but these debates are interesting.

I'd say that this is probably the worst possible way they could achieve this goal.  For four years the debate has been less on the merits of the endings but on the drawbacks.  They didn't inspire debate, they broke the base.  

 

The endings aren't so much famous as infamous.  

[Iakus]

One of the themes of the trilogy was victory though sacrifice. So destroying the Reapers at the cost of all synthetic life fits this theme. If EDI and the Geth were to live, it would go against it.

 

There's many examples of victory through sacrifice throughout the game.

How many such victories come through betrayal and being shot in the back?

[rossler]

How many such victories come through betrayal and being shot in the back?

 

Well EDI was made of parts of Sovereign. The Geth were upgraded with Reaper tech. So anything part Reaper or whole gets destroyed in the process.