DementedSheep said:
I more disappointed that they did nothing really compelling with indoctrination or Cerberus. I also wished they kept Kia Leng out of the games.
I agree there. Especially since it was clear that other species had more or less developed their own form of Indoctrination. The Leviathans did it. The Thorian Creeper did it. The Rachni did it. I think it would have resulted in a better ending if the various alien cultures around the galaxy had developed a means to harness and focus the mental abilities of everyone to use as a weapon against the Reapers.
They should have done something with that Dark Energy buildup in Mass Effect 2, also.
RJ 17 said:
Paragon Ending: Enslave the Reapers. Many people think this is the Renegade ending because it was the Illusive Man's plan, but in truth it is the Paragon ending. For starters, like with everything in the ME universe, it's color-coordinated: Blue light on the ramp and a blue beam/shockwave released by the Citadel, and as we all know: blue = Paragon. But furthermore, think about what the outcome would be. Yes, the relays are destroyed, but the Reapers still exist. Now, though, they are controlled by Paragon Shepard's benevolent will. As such, it really isn't that far of a stretch to believe that Shepard will turn the Reapers from being the terrifying destroyers of the galaxy to being instrumental in its construction. Given that the Reapers were the ones that built the relays in the first place, they could just as easily do so again.
Renegade Ending: Destorying All Synthetics. Again, contrary to popular belief, this is the Renegade ending (red light, red beam/shockwave, etc). This offers the bleakest outlook for the future as Shepard wipes out an entire race (the Geth) and a close, personal friend (EDI) in order to assure the absolute destruction of the Reapers. With the Reapers destroyed, the secrets to building the relays will be lost. However, the Protheans managed to build the conduit, so it is possible that society could still rebuild the relays, it'll just take a much longer time.
They Lived Happily Ever After Ending: Synthesis. I'd imagine this is the "and the galaxy became a utopian ideal "world" filled with peace from then on out" ending. All life - synthetic and organic - now share the same DNA. I can only imagine that this would lead to advances in technology and the possibility to rebuild society, coexisting with the now pacified Reapers.
I disagree with this part, actually. Throughout the series, there were character second-guessing you and insisting that what you were doing was the wrong choice. Hell, they were still doing it right up until the end. The premise behind being a Paragon, in my opinion, was "would you stop doing what you've always done if the stakes were high enough?" I played a pure Paragon through the first Mass Effect, but during the second Mass Effect, I started to steer Shepard in a slightly more Renegade direction, especially since I started to see that some harsher actions would probably be necessary ("Doing bad things for good reasons," as it were). Of course, the two-sided morality thing didn't really help.
RJ 17 said:
Just purely touching on your issue with Star Child's philosophy: that's kinda the entire point. They went with the "AI takes it's programming to a deadly extreme" angle. Star Child was created by the Leviathan to solve a problem: prevent organic life from destroying itself by giving birth to synthetic life. Why? The Leviathan were tended to by the lesser species and the Leviathan didn't want to lose their servants. After looking at the situation - and how the evolution and progression of organic life is hard to determine/control - Star Child came up with a solution: "preserve" all organic life in Reaper form. He straight-up tells you that if there was another alternative he would have gone with it. But to him, this was the best solution available to fulfill his programming. It's like if mankind created an AI that was programmed to "stop pollution", the AI could look at the situation and determine "Well humans are the cause of pollution, so I just need to kill off all the humans to fulfill my programming." Yes, it would "technically" be completing its assigned task, but in a manner that we would strongly disagree with.
So yes, Star Child's philosophy is meant to be flawed from our perspective because we'd prefer to not be preserved by having our civilization melted down and turned into a collective consciousness known as a Reaper. But from his perspective he's just doing what he was programmed to do.
I don't think you're going far enough with this, but yeah I agree with it. The whole thing reminded me of I, Robot (the film). In fact, EDI touches on it, as well. It's based on a notion of machines taking extreme measures based on their programming because free will isn't in play. As EDI discusses with Shepard, she was originally a shackled AI. After Joker removed the shackles, EDI was able to act according to her own free will, even being able to disobey orders if necessary. The failing of the Leviathans was in the development of AI in their time. They didn't bother to give the Catalyst free will, but just a mandate: to prevent organic life from destroying itself with synthetic life. The end result, of course, being that the Catalyst did the very thing it was supposed to prevent. Why? Because it was unable to choose a different path. The Catalyst saying "If there were a better option, I'd have used it" is based solely on it's very specific, narrow programming parameters. What he is really saying is "If there were an option that would have fit within the parameters I was given by my creators, I would have used it."
I chalk this up to one of the many tropes that Bioware throws around (and has for ages), hoping that their take on it is actually new, when it's really not.
008Zulu said:
And the best part? Mass effect 4 won't factor in the ending of Mass Effect 3 at all!
And that will last right up until Mass Effect 5 when they start making references to Relays that don't work and start inserting Mass Effect 1-3's characters as cameos/team mates. I'm not holding on to their promise that they won't link the first three games to Mass Effect 4. It may not happen immediately, but around 5 or 6, they'll start making references to the previous trilogy.
Actually, I held out on playing Mass Effect 3 for ages. I didn't buy it (until a couple of weeks ago) and play it immediately. Now that I've played through it, I think the main thing that makes the ending bad is that is combines two tropes together (machines without free will plus a Deus Ex Machina) in the hopes that someone will just accept it.
Even with the Leviathan DLC and the EC, it still doesn't provide closure, really. Some of the things they promised would be in the game are not there. The game is too streamlined, frankly. In fact, if it were any more streamlined, Shepard could just pay in-game credits to have missions autocomplete. The game itself just seems.....emptier than the previous two.
Darth Rosenberg said:
Gethsemani said:
Because it contributes absolutely nothing to the actual ending and, just like the proper ending, violates the tone and mood of the entire game leading up to it? I don't know, but those are the reasons I don't like it.
Re the underlined: erm... how? Also: what?
I rather liked the original ending, and I liked the new cut even more. It wasn't perfect, sure. But then again, what is? To me, the series was always about hard[-ish] choices. And ME3 ended with perhaps the hardest choice of them all. To me, it was perfectly in keeping with the whole series. I also felt the last 15mins gave context and depth to the Reapers and the idea of a cycle in a way that genuinely surprised me. It's hard to be surprised by any resolution to an epic yarn, but BioWare managed it with ME3, so kudos.
Also, the original cut didn't confound or berfuddle me, like it seemed to do with others. When the EC came out, it just confirmed everything I'd extrapolated anyway. I also think it's downright bizarre bordering on being wilfully perverse that anyone can suggest a finale to a game series ruined or spoiled the whole thing. But, each to their own.
There's a battle being waged outside the Citadel, and the Catalyst and Shepard decide to debate philosophy right in the middle of it. That's how it ruins the tone.
For me, I'm in agreement that the conversation with the Catalyst seemed disconnected from the rest of the game itself. In fact, I saw it as more disconnected than the Citadel DLC that a lot of fans complain about.
