Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[Seneschal]

I have to say, I like (or rather, I appreciate) the endings. I found it gratifying that the galaxy could not be saved quickly and cleanly by the McGuffin weapon, and that galactic society must be almost undone completely if it's to break the cycle.

Everyone seems to forget the races still have FTL travel. From the ME Wikia:

With a mass effect drive, roughly a dozen light-years can be traversed in the course of a day's cruise.

This means that the Milky Way (~110,000 light years) can be crossed in about 25 years (not accounting for stopping to discharge the drive core). Besides, the very nature of colonization and fabrication technology (the omni-tool is an all-purpose fabricator) means that most space colonies and habitats DON'T depend on interstellar trade to supply them with food. Self-sufficiency is almost guaranteed, so the only thing they have to face is isolation. Not that much of a downer, is it?

In any case, I don't need a happy ending. ME is already a bit too much wish-fulfilment.

 

[Raesvelg]

The huge laserbeams of death disagree with you. Look I understand that the Reapers would protect themselves which is why they get shooty but where the hell does the harvesting come in when all I could see in the game was Reapers blownig shit up and husks finishing off people they miss. If the Reapers are millions of years old surely they could come up with a non-violent/no struggle method of harvesting.

The logic of the Reaper position is internally consistent; their execution is... weird.

In theory it could be that they were simply designed to harvest in that particular way, and that the same process that previously kept the Catalyst from deciding to pull the Option 3 ending on its own during a previous cycle kept the Reapers from deciding to find a less horrific way of accomplishing their goals.

Though, oddly enough, they did find a less horrific way: The Collectors. Who represent one of the oddities of the whole concept, really. EDI at one point implies that the Reapers couldn't convert the Protheans into new Reapers, so they went with turning them into Collectors instead, but while the Protheans do have their own unique talents, it seems odd that they'd be the only race in the history of the galaxy that would be impossible to convert.

Also why would the Reapers say they are preserving the old races when they are using them to power Reapers that are fighting on the front line. That's like attaching an automated gun to a museum piece, it makes no sense.

Lack of choice, designed that way, perceived invincibility, etc. Lots of hand-waving you can do to explain that away.

 

[boag]

*snip*

other stuff like why the catalyst is the child I'd simply believe that the catalyst is presenting itself in a manner in which shepherd can understand. The catalyst isn't actually the child, just how it wishes to present itself to shepherd so his mind doesn't explode. As to why your squadmates are on your ship I have no fucking clue

Good analysis. I enjoyed reading it.

As to why your squadmates are on the ship, I'd assumed it was because the assault had failed, things were going boom and they were getting the hell out of there before it went the way of Aratoht.

I'm shocked that people thought the endings were a surprise. The entire series is filled with themes of transhumanism and posthumanism. From the first game, we deal repeatedly with synthetic intelligences, transformative technology and cyborgs. Shepard herself has been significantly changed both by the Prothean beacon and cipher and by becoming a cyborg. (My main Shepard is also a biotic, so has cyborg implants for that.)

It wasn't sprung on you any more than the choice at the end of Deus Ex (the first one) was sprung on you. To me, it felt inevitable.

Besides, you didn't just push button A, B or C. Depending on how much content you'd completed and the choices you'd made, some options may be unavailable or have different outcomes. This is a game where it's possible to make it all the way to the end and still heroically fail, which I love.

Yes, but they were never the main theme, if Sheppard had been questioning him/herself from the beginning of the game instead of on the last mission, then it would have made sense in context, but the ending comes about just after we dealt with Synthetic vs Organic choice in the Geth Quarian war.

As is the game has lots of themes, but the main rallying theme is about survival, and the ending pushes everything back to restate something that we already dealt with, thematically speaking.

 

[wicket42]

And as regrettable as the dislike of so many is, it is even more regrettable that people find themselves in the right of demanding a different ending or clamouring about the demise of quality writing in games. Because I know what that means, sadly; it means conformity to the established formulae, in complete disregard for the internal logic of the setting. It means sacrificing quality for the sake of the mob's appeasing. And that is the death of the original artist.

See I really like your argument here, excellently argued. But man, that ending was such a downer!

If it made a lot of fans angry, as it appears to have done, I think it's fine that they ask for a change, as the power still ultimately rests with the artist; it is up to that artist to make the decision, and I don't believe asking for a change means that they are removing the artist's control. The death of the original artist actually rests with the integrity of the artist themselves, not the mob clamouring for change, doesn't it? If the mob took the game and altered everyone's ending for them, then it would be their fault. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics though.

You speak of disregard for the internal logic of the setting, and I've seen some pretty good arguments that the ending does just this. If the fans are truly pointing out a mistake, rather than an artistic difference, is it unjustifiable to point it out and have it rectified, or at least get a rationalisation? If the artist decides they agree with the fan, is unjustifiable that they make a change, is a piece of art ever finished, or just released to the public for consumption?

 

[Ernil Menegil]

And as regrettable as the dislike of so many is, it is even more regrettable that people find themselves in the right of demanding a different ending or clamouring about the demise of quality writing in games. Because I know what that means, sadly; it means conformity to the established formulae, in complete disregard for the internal logic of the setting. It means sacrificing quality for the sake of the mob's appeasing. And that is the death of the original artist.

See I really like your argument here, excellently argued. But man, that ending was such a downer!

If it made a lot of fans angry, as it appears to have done, I think it's fine that they ask for a change, as the power still ultimately rests with the artist; it is up to that artist to make the decision, and I don't believe asking for a change means that they are removing the artist's control. The death of the original artist actually rests with the integrity of the artist themselves, not the mob clamouring for change, doesn't it? If the mob took the game and altered everyone's ending for them, then it would be their fault. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics though.

You speak of disregard for the internal logic of the setting, and I've seen some pretty good arguments that the ending does just this. If the fans are truly pointing out a mistake, rather than an artistic difference, is it unjustifiable to point it out and have it rectified, or at least get a rationalisation? If the artist decides they agree with the fan, is unjustifiable that they make a change, is a piece of art ever finished, or just released to the public for consumption?

Hm, well reasoned and pointed out there, it is true. I yield to your argument.

The same for the comment on the mistakes. I have spotted a few since my writing of the post, after giving it some more thought; the mass relays' destruction, for instance, is one major hole which threatens to undo any of the hope that any of the choices might possibly pose for the future.

I still stand as satisfied, however. It seems clear, after consideration, that the ending does present consistency flaws, yet the game was solid enough that I can still live with claiming this to be a stupendous achievement of a title, endings included. I can rationalize much of what takes place in the ending into coherence via literary interpretation, though a bit more clarity on what effectively happens would be rather nice.

 

[Deathninja19]

The huge laserbeams of death disagree with you. Look I understand that the Reapers would protect themselves which is why they get shooty but where the hell does the harvesting come in when all I could see in the game was Reapers blownig shit up and husks finishing off people they miss. If the Reapers are millions of years old surely they could come up with a non-violent/no struggle method of harvesting.

The logic of the Reaper position is internally consistent; their execution is... weird.

In theory it could be that they were simply designed to harvest in that particular way, and that the same process that previously kept the Catalyst from deciding to pull the Option 3 ending on its own during a previous cycle kept the Reapers from deciding to find a less horrific way of accomplishing their goals.

Though, oddly enough, they did find a less horrific way: The Collectors. Who represent one of the oddities of the whole concept, really. EDI at one point implies that the Reapers couldn't convert the Protheans into new Reapers, so they went with turning them into Collectors instead, but while the Protheans do have their own unique talents, it seems odd that they'd be the only race in the history of the galaxy that would be impossible to convert.

Also why would the Reapers say they are preserving the old races when they are using them to power Reapers that are fighting on the front line. That's like attaching an automated gun to a museum piece, it makes no sense.

Lack of choice, designed that way, perceived invincibility, etc. Lots of hand-waving you can do to explain that away.

Fair enough with the explanations and honestly the Reapers could have made sense much like the Monoliths from 2001 given enough time and better writting but the problem I'm having is how poorly this explanation for the Reapers fits in to the canon of the Mass Effect universe. I believe Bioware came up with the Reapers motivations during ME3 production and as such it really feels tacked on.

I would have given Bioware a complete pass if they had kept the Reapers shrouded in mystery but giving such a simplistic motivation for the Reapers feels like something that was shoehorned in and doesn't really fit the main theme (overcoming massive odds by uniting the galactic community) of the series

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

I have to say, I like (or rather, I appreciate) the endings. I found it gratifying that the galaxy could not be saved quickly and cleanly by the McGuffin weapon, and that galactic society must be almost undone completely if it's to break the cycle.

Everyone seems to forget the races still have FTL travel. From the ME Wikia:

With a mass effect drive, roughly a dozen light-years can be traversed in the course of a day's cruise.

This means that the Milky Way (~110,000 light years) can be crossed in about 25 years (not accounting for stopping to discharge the drive core). Besides, the very nature of colonization and fabrication technology (the omni-tool is an all-purpose fabricator) means that most space colonies and habitats DON'T depend on interstellar trade to supply them with food. Self-sufficiency is almost guaranteed, so the only thing they have to face is isolation. Not that much of a downer, is it?

But the problem is that ship travel are still very much limited by fuel supplies, so unless someone goes through with the painfully slow method of building a long line of fuel depots, travel can pretty much only happen within local clusters.

Also, many of the species' heavily populated homeworlds are hit very hard by Reaper attacks, and without supplies from the outside, rebuilding is going to be an extremely difficult process.

 

[Raesvelg]

[
Fair enough with the explanations and honestly the Reapers could have made sense much like the Monoliths from 2001 given enough time and better writting but the problem I'm having is how poorly this explanation for the Reapers fits in to the canon of the Mass Effect universe. I believe Bioware came up with the Reapers motivations during ME3 production and as such it really feels tacked on.

What conflict with the canon is there?

And no, as I said previously, Harbinger basically spells out the Reapers' motivation in his dialogue snippets in ME2. The Reapers are the galaxy's salvation, after all, according to Harbinger.

On an entertaining note, I was trying to think up reasons why the Reapers might be so horrific in their practices, other than the sheer military advantages it affords them, and I had a thought that seemed... compelling, right up until I remembered the last little bit of Reaper lore.

Specifically, that the Reapers are horrific precisely because their creators (presumably the first Reapers, in fact) want them to be resisted, and fought, and ultimately defeated, because they genuinely want the universe to find a better solution than the one they found. Sadly, this theory fell apart when I remembered that the last thing the Reapers do once they finish a harvest is to erase all evidence of their existence that they can find.

 

[Deathninja19]

[
Fair enough with the explanations and honestly the Reapers could have made sense much like the Monoliths from 2001 given enough time and better writting but the problem I'm having is how poorly this explanation for the Reapers fits in to the canon of the Mass Effect universe. I believe Bioware came up with the Reapers motivations during ME3 production and as such it really feels tacked on.

What conflict the canon is there?

And no, as I said previously, Harbinger basically spells out the Reapers' motivation in his dialogue snippets in ME2. The Reapers are the galaxy's salvation, after all, according to Harbinger.

On an entertaining note, I was trying to think up reasons why the Reapers might be so horrific in their practices, other than the sheer military advantages it affords them, and I had a thought that seemed... compelling, right up until I remembered the last little bit of Reaper lore.

Specifically, that the Reapers are horrific precisely because their creators (presumably the first Reapers, in fact) want them to be resisted, and fought, and ultimately defeated, because they genuinely want the universe to find a better solution than the one they found. Sadly, this theory fell apart when I remembered that the last thing the Reapers do once they finish a harvest is to erase all evidence of their existence that they can find.

Well the whole fact that the Mass Relays are a way to railroad species to evolve in a specific way in terms of technology. Now that doesn't make sense sense to me that they are doing this cycle to prevent life from evolving to a point where they create aggressive AI and yet they are railroading technology, so are the Reapers forcing life into a position where they create AI thus creating a self fulfilling prophesy? Or am I giving it to much thought and Bioware just didn't put much logic in to this.

So it's not so much conflicting with cannon as the logic of the Reapers make little sense in context of the canon.

 

[wicket42]

I would have given Bioware a complete pass if they had kept the Reapers shrouded in mystery but giving such a simplistic motivation for the Reapers feels like something that was shoehorned in and doesn't really fit the main theme (overcoming massive odds by uniting the galactic community) of the series

I really agree with you, the Reapers in the past 2 games I always saw as mecha-Cthulhus, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I really like it (I'm a Lovecraft fan bigtime)

Check out the start of Call of Cthulhu, you can see a lot of the themes I think Bioware were going for, but Cosmic Horror relies on humanity not being able to understand or comprehend the evil or their own insignificance, explaining away the Reapers like they did undoes this awesome psychological element to the enemy, and it's a real shame.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
-H.P. Lovecraft, The Call Of Cthulhu

 

[Omnific One]

Ah, plot holes:

 

[SilentVirus]

All the endings pissed me off. Why would Bioware make it so that it didn't matter what you did in the first two games, you'd f*ck everybody in one way or another. What bothers me is, there is literally nothing you could do, that would change the ending significantly at all. I played Mass Effect 1 casually. Then played Mass Effect 2, doing every possible good thing I could imagine that would make my paragon go at it's max, then I saw the possibility of Mass Effect 3 and decided to play Mass Effect 1 & 2, making all good decisions and being a pretty cool guy. Then I finally played Mass Effect 3. Importing my two year old save game into Mass Effect 3, waiting to see all my good deeds fall into place. But then I got to the ending...I asked my friends who did a lot of things differently in the first two games, and even one who didn't even play the first two games at all, and they TOO got the same endings, albeit with minor differences. "What. The F*ck." Was my reaction. What a major b*tch slap to long term fans of the game. Wow, Bioware, way to put an end to your final major Mass Effect title. It's like if the President, at the end of his inauguration speech, he pulls down his pants and takes a sh*t on the stage. Nice ending, Bioware.

 

[wicket42]

http://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/qu96l/why_the_ending_fails_as_a_tragedy_spoilers_and/

I thought this was a good one.

 

[Deathninja19]

I would have given Bioware a complete pass if they had kept the Reapers shrouded in mystery but giving such a simplistic motivation for the Reapers feels like something that was shoehorned in and doesn't really fit the main theme (overcoming massive odds by uniting the galactic community) of the series

I really agree with you, the Reapers in the past 2 games I always saw as mecha-Cthulhus, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I really like it (I'm a Lovecraft fan bigtime)

Check out the start of Call of Cthulhu, you can see a lot of the themes I think Bioware were going for, but Cosmic Horror relies on humanity not being able to understand or comprehend the evil or their own insignificance, explaining away the Reapers like they did undoes this awesome psychological element to the enemy, and it's a real shame.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
-H.P. Lovecraft, The Call Of Cthulhu

Yeah I don't really think people were begging to know what the Reapers are exactly (although I may be wrong) but if they had kept the Reapers shrouded in mystery all of my personal problems with the series would be gone. As it stands I just don't want to revisit the series because I'll always have that nagging feeling in my head that I was heading for a trainwrek.

 

[hazabaza1]

Given the game's theme of unifying the races, I was thinking that the Reaper's cycle was a sort of trial-and error system. What I mean by that is, the Reapers appear every 50,000 years, and they serve to unite the races. If the races cannot unite, the will inevitably fail. When they fail, the Reaper's leave behind the next generation to allow them to try again.

I would have liked this.
Dammit, that ending was bad. What's wrong with having a happy ending, eh Bioware?

 

[boag]

Given the game's theme of unifying the races, I was thinking that the Reaper's cycle was a sort of trial-and error system. What I mean by that is, the Reapers appear every 50,000 years, and they serve to unite the races. If the races cannot unite, the will inevitably fail. When they fail, the Reaper's leave behind the next generation to allow them to try again.

When I saw the "God-Kid", I thought I nailed it, but that's not the direction they went in. Forgetting for a moment the lack of choice or the depressing nature of the ending, I found the sudden trans-human theme to be odd. I think the unification theme would have been more fitting for the series.

I would have been so very ok with that, the whole ending would have made more sense if that was the principle driving the reapers.

 

[flipthepool]

Check out the start of Call of Cthulhu, you can see a lot of the themes I think Bioware were going for, but Cosmic Horror relies on humanity not being able to understand or comprehend the evil or their own insignificance, explaining away the Reapers like they did undoes this awesome psychological element to the enemy, and it's a real shame.

Aarg, yes, this is another reason why the endings are so frustrating. The Reapers were the Dark Elder Gods of the ME universe. They had tremendous, unknowable power. They had no morals, absolutely no humanity, and they only existed to further their own existence. They were able to drive people insane and to their will just by merely existing.

So...I don't know what about that made the ME writers say, "Hey, you know what? How about the Reapers ACTUALLY existed to SAVE organics? Ooooh, what a twist!" The Reapers already HAD a reason for existing: to make more of themselves, and to eat the galaxy. The fact that they didn't have any other motivation besides that was what made them so freaking scary.

Which made it so much more satisfying when you could tell them to fuck off with their, "Ooh, we're the baddest bitches in the universe," rhetoric. It was basically the ability to tell GOD, "Hey, we're going to make our own choices, our own decisions, and you can try to eat us if you want but we're not going to go down without a fight."

And then...you get to the ending, where Shepard just decides to do whatever the Big Space God says to do without any question or discussion, or chance to tell him to fuck off. That's basically taking all of the "standing up to a god and telling him that we do things our own way," from the other games and flushing it down the toilet.

Grrrr, the ending simultaneously makes the biggest enemy of the games stupid as hell ("Wait, so you created the Reapers to save organics from synthetics by killing organics? That was your big solution? THAT was the only thing you could come up with? I'm surprised you haven't killed yourself with stupid already. This is embarrassing. We're being beaten by an enemy that has as much reasoning power as a box of chicken nuggets."), AND ruins Shepard's character.

 

[Ziame]

the motivation for reapers stated in me3 contradicts the first game. try to recall sovereign's words: organics are pathetic, a genetic mutation, rudimentary creatures etc.

as for harbinger in me2: come on, clearly that was just indoctrination, he tried to plant doubt in Shepard.

"You can't understand this, organic, we, the wise say that we are your salvation! bow down and die". at least that made sense to me. their motivation should be left in the shroud in my opinion.

besides, i love how 80% of people cant spell Shepard right.

 

[Deathninja19]

the motivation for reapers stated in me3 contradicts the first game. try to recall sovereign's words: organics are pathetic, a genetic mutation, rudimentary creatures etc.

Ah yeah nice one I forgot all about what Sovereign said, well that proves the Reapers where a poorly retconned mess. I know ME1 and ME3 do not share all of the writers but come at least have a little consistancy.

 

[Falsename]

[Illusive Man]
*smokes cigarette and breaths out slowly*
"Shepard. By now you should be reading this in my voice, which may speed up the process. We need you to infiltrate Bioware and retrieve or create an alternate DLC for Mass Effect 3"

[Shepard]: DLC?

[Illusive Man]: Downloadable Content. It would appear not too many humans are pleased with the ending of Mass Effect 3 *smokes some more* Cerberus believes that it is in the best interest of our species to rectify this terrible mistake.

[Shepard]:

-I'll do it, but because I want to help humanity not Cerberus
-Where do I start?
-I'm gonna twist Bioware's Quads!

[Illusive Man]: Good to hear. And Shepard... You better still be reading this in my voice.