Mass Effect 3: Casey Hudson's Largest FUBAR
- Thread starter Tomo Stryker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We're rocking the boat, so it's understandable that people think we're making a fuss out of nothing.anthony87 said:
What those people don't realise, is that those of us who are unhappy about the ending have spent several years following a story, growing to love the characters, making universe molding decision, only for it to end with a plothole-ridden mess.
And the biggest offense is that we all got the same ending.
The space magic might have been a different colour, but we all got the same ending.
For a series that put such a huge emphasis on choice, and the affects those choices have on the story, that is unacceptable.
Personally, I might (and I cannot emphasize that "might" strongly enough) have been willing to accept the Star Child scene, but if the Reapers absolutely had to go from "incomprehensible Lovecraftian horrors from beyond space and time" to "we turn organics into organic-killing synthetics to stop organics from creating organic-killing synthetics," then that crap had to get a lot more explanation. They'd also have to explain why, if the thing that made the Reapers has been living in the Citadel the whole time, Sovereign's role in ME1 was even necessary.SageRuffin said:
As for the ending, I still kind of think something like this [http://social.bioware.com/poll.php?user=1183972&poll_id=29101] would be the simplest way to fix it.
(And seriously, Bioware needs to fire whoever's responsible for this travesty.)
It seems like people forgot when Sucker Punch changed Cole's look for Infamous 2 after fans complained. And how Obsidian ret-conned the Neverwinter Nights 2 ending with its expansions after the original ending was so bad and hated it is now THE go-to ending when describing bad endings.(rocks fall, everyone dies). And when Bethesda did Broken Steel which let you play after the main story because fans complained they couldn't play after the final cut-scene.anthony87 said:
But I guess those don't count, for some reason.
But if you were to say that to someone then they'd just hit back with either "Artistic Integrity *proceeds to wank*" or "Duh, you're just too stupid to see the true message of the ending....*proceeds to wank*"Daystar Clarion said:
I suppose it wouldn't annoy me as much if all those people would at least recognise why we're unhappy but then if they did then then that fucking "Art" argument they keep pulling out would carry even less weight than it does at the moment.....
Ugh...I guess I'm just venting now because of Gamesradar. I read an article on it that opened with:
"I don?t know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don?t care. I haven?t even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I?m still working through the first one at the moment."
and then went on for two pages saying we're wrong, entitled, etc. Got under my skin a little what with GR being one of my favourite sites.
Rocking the boat is kinda fun though.
Or how Bioware themselves changed one of their books because of fan outcry. This was only a couple weeks ago and nobody seems to remember!Irridium said:
The company has a history of fixing things the fans don't like. There's GOT to be some reason they're reluctant to take us seriously when it comes to the single most important part of the entire series. Maybe they actually do have something planned to continue the story, or maybe, if this rumor is correct, Casey and Mac are just too proud of their ending to let the filthy fans tarnish their work.
But we're setting back art another 10 years!Daystar Clarion said:
*sarcasm off*
I can't see how anyone who has followed ME for the past 5 years can look at the end and say "Yep, that was alright." Compare what BW promised to what we received and it is just indefensible. How did the writers sit in their room and collectively say, "Yes, this is how we are going to end it all. Champagne time, guys! We're going to make millions from the suckers!."
But the post was made on the confirmed account of one of Bioware's writing staff, several witnesses testify that the post is legit. To not deny this would be tantamount to confirming it, which would put Hudson and Walters in a very unpleasant situation. Not to mention the only possible way this was fake is if someone managed to hack the writer's PA account and post some very realistic misinformation, which hasn't come up in Hudson's denial.Hannibal942 said:
I not going to outright buy the story, but it does explain a lot of things and I don't have much reason to doubt it.
First off, cut it with the antagonistic remarks; I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, which is quite difficult to say when the truth of the matter is that the ending is making leaps of logic which most simply cannot follow. That doesn't mean the average player is "dumb", just that the conveying of the higher-level ideas weren't conveyed well enough. Instead of ideas flowing from A to B to C and so on, they went all the way from A to Z in one step without explaining it. While this can make the game more entertaining for a sophisticated audience... it's still a problem, because that audience quickly shrinks to nothing.Gigatoast said:
Nevertheless, that sort of behaviour is part of what's getting in the way of people understanding the ending -- they're jumping to conclusions. It's a case of where you have to sit back and look at the big picture, not just from your perspective. As I remarked in my earlier post, the patterns are more important than the details. This was repeated several times throughout the series, and the value of information was made quite clear... so why is almost everyone looking at the details? They're easier to wrap your mind around, that's why.
Having read the link, I'm seeing the exact same problem. Getting bogged down in the details, not looking at the big picture. All of the details are hinting towards something which the vast majority of people are overlooking:Gigatoast said:
"The created will always rebel against the creators, leading to the extinction of all organic life."
So who are the creators? For the geth, it was the quarians. The quarians forcibly tried to shut them all down when they started showing signs of sentience, and the geth proved to be much better at self-defense than anyone realized. Even if the geth didn't directly rebel, it was made quite clear that they were much better at fighting than the quarians; the second half of the statement above is true. The first half? The exception doesn't make the rule, and players aren't privy to any other organic-synthetic conflict beyond Javik's offhand referral to the "Metacon War" from the last cycle.
But again, who are the creators?
Who is it that dictates the evolution of organic life along the lines they have determined?
Who built the Mass Relays and the Citadel?
Who is every single advanced organic species fighting against to survive?
Who is quelling a rebellion against the ascension to a higher form of life?
The Reapers are the creators of galactic society.
Sometimes, the answer is simpler than it looks. The Reapers, led by the Catalyst, aren't truly evil. Their methods are harsh, but it is "for the greater good"... from a certain point of view. They control the patterns, the pathways upon which advanced societies evolve; they've had millions of years to learn how to indirectly manipulate societies to bend to their will, in addition of direct manipulation through indoctrination.
---
And now onto some speculation.
As stated, Reapers are working "for the greater good"; guiding sentient species towards galactic society on paths they have determined. They have plenty of methods for indirect manipulation, but indoctrination was always viewed as a negative... but could it be used for good as well? Quite possibly, a way for them to keep things moving on the track they've made without too much deviation; at worst, you have the occassional mad genius who invents something special. Clever, but never stated in the material.
The other thing is... what are the Reapers monitoring for when they start their harvest? Sovereign was watching for something, but everyone is assuming it was a certain technological threshold. How about the development of sentient AIs? As Javik mentioned, the "Metacon War" was underway just before the Reapers hit. For the ME-cycle, it was the geth; the synthetic species were able to defend themselves so well that they drove the quarians from their homeworld, the conflict between organic and synthetic sentients had begun. But before any organic species ended up completely wiped out due to this, it was time for the Reapers to come in for their harvest and to "ascend" those species to the form of a Reaper themselves; but the Protheans had "fixed" the Keepers, preventing things from going as planned. Interestingly, why would Sovereign be insulted by the geth worshiping him as if he were a god? Because he's there to save organic life (not that they'd like it) and (possibly) wipe out the sentient AI synthetics which started the conflict (nothing against using them as a resource, however; preferrably as disposable as possible).
... Or maybe not.
The geth are an anomaly, they did not rebel and only defended themselves; pretty damn well, but they weren't antagonistic. The conflict still existed, but the nature of it had changed. The geth proved the Reapers were wrong. Their belief that all organic life would be destroyed by synthetics was no longer an absolute truth, so perhaps it was time for the cycle of harvesting to end. The Crucible has been passed down from cycle to cycle, perhaps even originating from the Reapers themselves; should it ever come to pass that the Reapers are wrong and the cycle must end, the Crucible is how they would manipulate another species into ending it for them. How it should end couldn't be made by the Reaper themselves, as they were just proven wrong; so the one who proved them wrong should make the decision.
By reaching the Catalyst, Shepard proved the Reapers were wrong.
But this raises an interesting dilemna, could the indoctrination theory be true? Could the Reapers be subtly indoctrinating Shepard to lead him/her down the path needed to end the cycle? As far as I can tell, the only way it makes sense is if the Reapers were deliberately trying to get Shepard to end the cycle. Why would the Catalyst appear before him as a child in order to make him/her feel the guilt of not being able to save everyone and all the more driven to stop the Reapers?
Which brings us to the final decision... the Catalyst brought both Shepard and the completed Crucible to itself, and leaves the decision of how to end the cycle of Reaper harvests to Shepard. The Catalyst removes any restraints at this point, it is a decision only Shepard can make.
Destroy the Reapers, ending the harvest but allowing for the possibility of a synthetic species to obliterate all organics without anything to stop them?
Control the Reapers, ending the harvest... until another organic-synthetic conflict arises and the Reapers are needed again to preserve organic life? And possibly to set species back to the pre-space-flight technology era so that it doesn't happen constantly?
Or use the Crucible to synthesize organic and synthetic species into a new life form, removing the reason for the conflict in the first place?
So who are the creators? For the geth, it was the quarians. The quarians forcibly tried to shut them all down when they started showing signs of sentience, and the geth proved to be much better at self-defense than anyone realized. Even if the geth didn't directly rebel, it was made quite clear that they were much better at fighting than the quarians; the second half of the statement above is true. The first half? The exception doesn't make the rule, and players aren't privy to any other organic-synthetic conflict beyond Javik's offhand referral to the "Metacon War" from the last cycle.
But again, who are the creators?
Who is it that dictates the evolution of organic life along the lines they have determined?
Who built the Mass Relays and the Citadel?
Who is every single advanced organic species fighting against to survive?
Who is quelling a rebellion against the ascension to a higher form of life?
The Reapers are the creators of galactic society.
Sometimes, the answer is simpler than it looks. The Reapers, led by the Catalyst, aren't truly evil. Their methods are harsh, but it is "for the greater good"... from a certain point of view. They control the patterns, the pathways upon which advanced societies evolve; they've had millions of years to learn how to indirectly manipulate societies to bend to their will, in addition of direct manipulation through indoctrination.
---
And now onto some speculation.
As stated, Reapers are working "for the greater good"; guiding sentient species towards galactic society on paths they have determined. They have plenty of methods for indirect manipulation, but indoctrination was always viewed as a negative... but could it be used for good as well? Quite possibly, a way for them to keep things moving on the track they've made without too much deviation; at worst, you have the occassional mad genius who invents something special. Clever, but never stated in the material.
The other thing is... what are the Reapers monitoring for when they start their harvest? Sovereign was watching for something, but everyone is assuming it was a certain technological threshold. How about the development of sentient AIs? As Javik mentioned, the "Metacon War" was underway just before the Reapers hit. For the ME-cycle, it was the geth; the synthetic species were able to defend themselves so well that they drove the quarians from their homeworld, the conflict between organic and synthetic sentients had begun. But before any organic species ended up completely wiped out due to this, it was time for the Reapers to come in for their harvest and to "ascend" those species to the form of a Reaper themselves; but the Protheans had "fixed" the Keepers, preventing things from going as planned. Interestingly, why would Sovereign be insulted by the geth worshiping him as if he were a god? Because he's there to save organic life (not that they'd like it) and (possibly) wipe out the sentient AI synthetics which started the conflict (nothing against using them as a resource, however; preferrably as disposable as possible).
... Or maybe not.
The geth are an anomaly, they did not rebel and only defended themselves; pretty damn well, but they weren't antagonistic. The conflict still existed, but the nature of it had changed. The geth proved the Reapers were wrong. Their belief that all organic life would be destroyed by synthetics was no longer an absolute truth, so perhaps it was time for the cycle of harvesting to end. The Crucible has been passed down from cycle to cycle, perhaps even originating from the Reapers themselves; should it ever come to pass that the Reapers are wrong and the cycle must end, the Crucible is how they would manipulate another species into ending it for them. How it should end couldn't be made by the Reaper themselves, as they were just proven wrong; so the one who proved them wrong should make the decision.
By reaching the Catalyst, Shepard proved the Reapers were wrong.
But this raises an interesting dilemna, could the indoctrination theory be true? Could the Reapers be subtly indoctrinating Shepard to lead him/her down the path needed to end the cycle? As far as I can tell, the only way it makes sense is if the Reapers were deliberately trying to get Shepard to end the cycle. Why would the Catalyst appear before him as a child in order to make him/her feel the guilt of not being able to save everyone and all the more driven to stop the Reapers?
Which brings us to the final decision... the Catalyst brought both Shepard and the completed Crucible to itself, and leaves the decision of how to end the cycle of Reaper harvests to Shepard. The Catalyst removes any restraints at this point, it is a decision only Shepard can make.
Destroy the Reapers, ending the harvest but allowing for the possibility of a synthetic species to obliterate all organics without anything to stop them?
Control the Reapers, ending the harvest... until another organic-synthetic conflict arises and the Reapers are needed again to preserve organic life? And possibly to set species back to the pre-space-flight technology era so that it doesn't happen constantly?
Or use the Crucible to synthesize organic and synthetic species into a new life form, removing the reason for the conflict in the first place?
It's far too easy to focus on the "What?", but it's often the "Why?" which is more important.
Inclined to question as to how you know it's a money issue and not bad writing.isometry said:
It was more fun playing with his fairly-transparent self fellatio. "People who don't get it are the lowest common denominator I AM TOTALLY IN ON IT!"Zen Toombs said:
Couple of months, wasn't it?Gigatoast said:
But anyway, it also demonstrates the sloppier writing going on more recently.
And nobody really dropped the "E" word.
You're hoping that they intentionally withheld an ending, just so they could charge you additional money to complete the game and do as promised.Tono Makt said:
Well, that's reasonable.
Some day the people will look back, the pile of corpse that have rotted and decade, when only bones remain and the scavengers have left for fresher death to feast upon, the undertake will place the grave marker, and it shall read....
THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING CONTROVERSY
2012-2012, LEFT US TOO SOON...
IL be honest here, I'm getting a little bit annoyed by all this when, the top gaming news, form topics and matters of discussion are all ME3 ending.
THE MASS EFFECT 3 ENDING CONTROVERSY
2012-2012, LEFT US TOO SOON...
IL be honest here, I'm getting a little bit annoyed by all this when, the top gaming news, form topics and matters of discussion are all ME3 ending.
My point wasn't about the starchild being dem, it was the Crucible - And then only IF you consider the series as one story in regard to the main story. For example a mention of the Crucible or a hint at it from, y'know, the badass prothian VI at the end of ME1 who oversaw all that the survivors did would have been nice, and since its hinted at as a key point of how to beat the reapers back near the start, it'd be less dem. Starchild isn't dem, but its still horrible writing.deathbydeath said:
As for the characters, they certainly were not "great" in 2, they just felt far more real than in 1. This could be more to do with increased dialouge, more of them and the work of the animators, its hard to tell. The fact that you literally have no goddamn idea how to beat the reapers after years of preparing then BOOP oh look something to break 'em all pops up at the start of the 3rd game just stinks of bad writing.
It should never really have existed, and it should all have been about literally trying to gather enough ships to defeat enough of them, then for the "ground battles" required by gameplay mechanics have it so that cerb's ships are helping the reaper fleet and thats what is throwing the balance off. So, you board the normandy towards the flagship of the cerb fleet, TIM is the "avatar" of Harbringer ala Saren in ME1's ending fight, Normandy breaks into the flagship, you fight your way to TIM, joker leaves to attack Harbie head on at the same time - You take down TIM, cerb's forces are called back when TIM see's that he was just indoc'd, harbringer is weaker due to defeat of his avatar, normandy destroys it, reapers keep fighting but are clearly fighting a loosing battle. Choices affect success, with no fleet galaxy is fucked, mid fleet heavy losses, etc etc.
God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.ruthaford_jive said:Nice picture, made me giggle a bit.rhizhim said:thats unfair.ruthaford_jive said:
the reapers somewhat had a point!
Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.