Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[Vegosiux]

The only 'mess" Bioware made was releasing a game to a bunch of people who don't understand what the series was about, or what its themes were.

everyone I know who actually payed attention in the series has liked the endings.

Yeah because "understanding" something necessarily results in "liking" it and "agreeing" with it...

If you argue your points like that "Hurr hurr you just lack my vast intellect to understand, that's why you don't like it", then don't expect anyone to give you the time of day...

 

[SajuukKhar]

Well you're wrong though. "The problem" presented by the Guardian isn't that at all. It's that organic civilizations inevitably create synthetic life that outstrips them. That's what he tells you, explicitly -- that's the problem, and this whole cycle was his solution, and it didn't work, and now it needs to be addressed.

Which I thought was weird, considering I already fucking worked that out 12 hours ago by forging a lasting alliance between the Quarian and the Geth.

If they really wanted to do that ending up right, they should have presented all of the conflicts you solve over the course of the game as "The Problems" the guardian created the cycle for in the first place, just as the VI on Thessia talks about re-emerging patterns.

The Guardian could say, "It is inevitable that species with greater scientific understanding will rule over those beneath them."

To which Shepard goes, "Well, a Salarian cured the Genophage."

The Guardian says, "Organics and synthetics cannot co-exist. Synthetics will overtake organics."

Shepard goes, "Well, I forged a peace between the Quarian and the Geth."

The Guardian says, "The galaxy depends on reaper technology."

Shepard says, "Because you give them no other option. But look at how we and countless other species in the past have designed and improved upon the Crucible as an act of defiance. Look at how big my war asset score is."

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed. Mass Effect had many problems presented on diffrent levels, dependance on Reaper technology was a large pat of Mass Effect 1 AND THE ENTIRE POINT of Mass Effect 2.

Secondly making peace with the Geth doesn't solve all possible future interactions with future synthetic life, and only proves you could do it in ONE instance, and ONe instance is not a reliable trend.

 

[teknoarcanist]

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important, or one that I was even aware of or have come to care about or form an opinion on. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision, my verdict on which shapes the fate of the entire galaxy?

 

[Fappy]

I honestly like the concept of destroying the Reaper's technology to create your own path. I see how that theme was laid out throughout the entirety of the franchise. The problem is that, in the end, none of your prior decisions matter, your enemy tells you what to do and you can't even attempt to argue his flawed points. Good idea. Poorly executed.

Yes because

-Letting the Rachnai live or not
-curing the genophage
-Killing the geth/quarrians or making peace with them

is negated by the ending?

That was a trick question, because they aren't.

Actually the Rachni thing is rendered completely moot because there is a Rachni Queen in ME3 despite whether you saved it on Noveria or not. The difference is like two lines of dialogue. The destroy ending invalidates the entire second act of the game. The sythesis ending comes out of fucking nowhere and addresses a problem already solved in act 2 (Quarian/Geth) while also invalidating their alliance. With the galactic community gone there is no point in making peace between these groups (Krogan/Salarian and Turians) if they can't even communicate with each other. Mordin said the Korgans would evolve out of the genophage... as they had already begun to do. If they are severed from the rest of the galaxy then they would ultimately adapt to the genophage naturally. The list of plotholes and such goes on...

Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? I knew right off the bat that most of the characters that appear only briefly (like Jacob, Wrex or Legion) would be replaced by some generic representative of their race, but this was one of the very few things that felt like "Hey, finally, a special mission as a payoff from my choice in the very first game!". A choice that I, and, I feel, a lot of other people, were the most intrigued about.

Thanks for that, now my Asshole Shepard isn't going to even be imported into ME3.

I was pretty pissed when I found out about it too. Just one of the many choice cop outs in the game. Honestly though, there was quite a few decisions that carried over that surprised me... but the ending renders that all moot anyway

 

[SajuukKhar]

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision?

Because solving that problem would lead to a method of solving the other problems.

The galaxy was like a giant clump of strings all tangled together, each string represents a different problem, and while no one string is really more important then the other, there is always inevitable one string in the ball if you pull could cause the others to unravel also.

Being able to stop the reapers allowed for the ability to end galactic civilizations dependance on them and their technology, another one of the problems however is that civilization as it was was so dependent on it that it was impossible to go back.

Civilization had to be destroyed one more time to allow for races to go down thier own path.

 

[teknoarcanist]

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision?

Because solving that problem would lead to a method of solving the other problems.

The galaxy was like a giant clump of strings all tangled together, each string represents a different problem, and while no one string is really more important then the other, there is always inevitable one string in the ball if you pull could cause the others to unravel also.

So again, why not present each of those problems in the context of the dilemmas I've been solving over the course of the game, with the big holistic picture being, "You're wrong, this cycle is not necessary or inevitable, here's how I've systematically proved why over the course of three games."

 

[synobal]

It even fails thematically. Mass Effect isn't ABOUT the conflict between organic and synthetic life! It never has been! That's a VERY small part of it, with the Quarians and the Geth, but the themes of Mass Effect are and always have been the scars of war, the disparity between foreign cultures, the anger bred from ignorance, the thin line between right and wrong, the difficult decisions that arise when dealing with war on a galactic scale -- that "ruthless calculus" Garrus was talking about. Again, it felt more like Deus Ex than Mass Effect. It was entirely out-of-place.

Mass effect 1 is about all the Rogue VIs and even a rogue AI? Then there was the Geth you had to fight, plus lets not for get the reaper that had brain washed Saren.

In Mass Effect 2, we have the collectors who are a slave race of semi organic semi synthetic beings who were once protheans who are now abducting humans to turn them into a reaper. EDI is also in Mass effect 2 and her getting unshackled and becoming more of a member of the crew and not simply a computer is a big plot point and explores the other side of the Organics vs synthetic life forms...

Then there are the quarians and Geth who are at war with each other simply over beliefs.

Then Mass Effect 3 you have the reapers who have fully arrived in force and are busy happily killing everyone.

So I'm really curious as to how you can say the Mass Effect Trilogy had nothing to do with Organics vs Synthetics? Also you you remember that Deus Ex explored specifically Transhumanism which is different from Organics vs Synthetics though they do have some common threads between the two and even a bit of a grey area where they cross.

 

[ifihadashotgun]

Your ending makes zero sense with the story and doesn't solve the biggest problem in the series.

The biggest problem in the series is engineered entirely by the AI/spirit kid. There is no explanation given for why the Reapers feel destroying all technologically advanced organic life is better than simply protecting it from synthetics (not to mention that there is no threat to organics at this point other than the Reapers. If the Quarians would fuck off or play nice, the Geth would not be a problem. Also, I'm fairly certain that the galactic fleet that you've amassed to fight the Reapers would make short work of the Geth).

It feels like the entire storyline was made up seat-of-the-pants instead of the writers having a story that they wanted to tell. The thought process was "okay, we need to come up with an ending to this series of games, let's go with something that looks dark and intellectual, how about existential and transhumanist themes? People will like those because they seem deep, like a Dostoevsky novel or something. They'll feel really smart and superior when discussing the ending with people on the internet who think it was extremely contrived."

 

[teknoarcanist]

It even fails thematically. Mass Effect isn't ABOUT the conflict between organic and synthetic life! It never has been! That's a VERY small part of it, with the Quarians and the Geth, but the themes of Mass Effect are and always have been the scars of war, the disparity between foreign cultures, the anger bred from ignorance, the thin line between right and wrong, the difficult decisions that arise when dealing with war on a galactic scale -- that "ruthless calculus" Garrus was talking about. Again, it felt more like Deus Ex than Mass Effect. It was entirely out-of-place.

Mass effect 1 is about all the Rogue VIs and even a rogue AI? Then there was the Geth you had to fight, plus lets not for get the reaper that had brain washed Saren.

In Mass Effect 2, we have the collectors who are a slave race of semi organic semi synthetic beings who were once protheans who are now abducting humans to turn them into a reaper. EDI is also in Mass effect 2 and her getting unshackled and becoming more of a member of the crew and not simply a computer is a big plot point and explores the other side of the Organics vs synthetic life forms...

Then there are the quarians and Geth who are at war with each other simply over beliefs.

Then Mass Effect 3 you have the reapers who have fully arrived in force and are busy happily killing everyone.

So I'm really curious as to how you can say the Mass Effect Trilogy had nothing to do with Organics vs Synthetics? Also you you remember that Deus Ex explored specifically Transhumanism which is different from Organics vs Synthetics though they do have some common threads between the two and even a bit of a grey area where they cross.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with organics and synthetics -- I said it's not the overriding theme. Even in ME1, the threat is AS MUCH the evil killer robots as the fact that none of these aliens will listen or work together; all their past prejudices keep getting in the way; how can I convince them to stop squabbling for a second and help me stop this big bad from killing us all.

 

[synobal]

It even fails thematically. Mass Effect isn't ABOUT the conflict between organic and synthetic life! It never has been! That's a VERY small part of it, with the Quarians and the Geth, but the themes of Mass Effect are and always have been the scars of war, the disparity between foreign cultures, the anger bred from ignorance, the thin line between right and wrong, the difficult decisions that arise when dealing with war on a galactic scale -- that "ruthless calculus" Garrus was talking about. Again, it felt more like Deus Ex than Mass Effect. It was entirely out-of-place.

Mass effect 1 is about all the Rogue VIs and even a rogue AI? Then there was the Geth you had to fight, plus lets not for get the reaper that had brain washed Saren.

In Mass Effect 2, we have the collectors who are a slave race of semi organic semi synthetic beings who were once protheans who are now abducting humans to turn them into a reaper. EDI is also in Mass effect 2 and her getting unshackled and becoming more of a member of the crew and not simply a computer is a big plot point and explores the other side of the Organics vs synthetic life forms...

Then there are the quarians and Geth who are at war with each other simply over beliefs.

Then Mass Effect 3 you have the reapers who have fully arrived in force and are busy happily killing everyone.

So I'm really curious as to how you can say the Mass Effect Trilogy had nothing to do with Organics vs Synthetics? Also you you remember that Deus Ex explored specifically Transhumanism which is different from Organics vs Synthetics though they do have some common threads between the two and even a bit of a grey area where they cross.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with organics and synthetics -- I said it's not the overriding theme. Even in ME1, the threat is AS MUCH the evil killer robots as the fact that none of these aliens will listen or work together; all their past prejudices keep getting in the way; how can I convince them to stop squabbling for a second and help me stop this big bad from killing us all.

Which if you notice was resolved and tied up nicely after all getting them to work together was what you did and how you solved the conflict.

 

[SajuukKhar]

So again, why not present each of those problems in the context of the dilemmas I've been solving over the course of the game, with the big holistic picture being, "You're wrong, this cycle is not necessary or inevitable, here's how I systematically proved why."

The entirety of Mass Effect 2's story was about that exactly.

Do we
A. Destroy the Collector Base and forge our own path
B. Use The Collector base but make ourselves dependent on it for survival.

Legion even talks about it in ME2 when he talks about how the Geth turned down The Reapers offer for a body to upload all their minds too even though that's exactly what they wanted because they believed that it mattered more that they do it themselves then rely on someone else.

It is a theme that was first present in ME1 on Virmire, it was later built on by most of Me2, and then concluded in ME3.

Said theme has been present throughout the series, many character have talked about it throughout the series, and in the end of the game you get to solve it in the only way possible.

By destroying the mass relays.

Leaving the relays intact for any reason negates one of the biggest parts of the entire series.

 

[feeqmatic]

I honestly like the concept of destroying the Reaper's technology to create your own path. I see how that theme was laid out throughout the entirety of the franchise. The problem is that, in the end, none of your prior decisions matter, your enemy tells you what to do and you can't even attempt to argue his flawed points. Good idea. Poorly executed.

Yes because

-Letting the Rachnai live or not
-curing the genophage
-Killing the geth/quarrians or making peace with them

is negated by the ending?

That was a trick question, because they aren't.

You keep saying this but i think you completely missed the point

its not about the decisions being negated outright, its taht they are rendered fairly trivial by the end result of the game. Sure I did all of these great things but their impact is severly diminished because the galactic community has been completely severed.

As a player that is infuriating. The main reason i took the gamble on allowing the geth to live is becuase I wanted to see the results of their peace with quarians. I wanted to end the Get plauge on the galaxy in a peacful manner. Now i either have to destroy them, control them completely, or merge with them. And either way the galactic relays are lost.

It would be different if this was an option based off my decisions. Lets say that i use technology to continue subjigating the Krogan, or the Geth/quarian war ends in violence. This would show that our cycle cannot handle itself which in turn would make having to make that decision. But to purposefully play the game all paragon with the hopes of a happy ending and have to choose between 3 flawed versions of the same bittersweet ending is just nuts in my opinion

 

[NM47]

1. When does it matter, because they don't matter in this game. The game just ended.

2. A seemingly unstoppable invasion of Reapers is countered by a new device that can project its energy pulse across the ENTIRE galaxy, even if taking shortcuts via relays? Sorry but that is one hell of a "God out of the Machine."

3. In a Paragon resolution the Geth are offering to assist the Quarians in ways that have no tactical or military use because they want to. The philosophical argument was that the created will ALWAYS overthrow their creators, but the Geth vary from apathetic to cooperative to their creators. They aren't inherently hostile. So a conflict is not always guaranteed.

4.There is no proof to that, that is just an assumption.

 

[Raijha]

Just beat it for a second time (I have 1 playthrough where I did everything, got all the war assets I could, completed all the side quests I could find, talked to all my chars and got romance and stuff, and 1 where I just power through the main quest as quickly as possible (25.5 hrs for the first and 7.25 hrs for the second, btw))

Doubly disappointed now. Most of your selections through the game have little effect on the ending as well. Sure, it can vastly change how you interact and how somethings will play out (there were a couple totally epic changes because of the play style) but at the end, all it changes is which choices you have, and how much you see. I was hoping for something actually, iunno, significant, like in ME2 if you just sped through too much and didn't do enough, SHEPARD could die, and that'd be it. I was hoping, iunno, that with the lower fleet strength the reapers would be able to destroy the crucible and win, or destroy the hammer assault team and win. I was expecting my half assed effort to actually have results damn it! I wanted to see a totally terrible ending where the reapers win! Instead all I got was Big Ben blew up (not the whole earth), nobody survived the Normandy crash, and was forced into the control option.

Blech.

 

[SinorKirby]

No matter what you do the galaxy is royally screwed over.

Why wouldn't it be? The Reapers have returned. Seriously, there is NO way the game should end with you winning. In the first game, it took a massive fleet which got its ASS handed to it to take down ONE Reaper, and they were ONLY able to do that because it had been in a symbiotic relationship with Saren, and when he died it disabled Sovereign temporarily. In Mass Effect 3, there's hundreds of them. THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN WIN...unless BioWare pulled some stupid crap out of their ass. I have yet to play Mass Effect 3 and I probably won't, considering the demo was exactly like Mass Effect 2 and I hated Mass Effect 2.

the big dogs at EA likely saw this as a way to alienate new costumers. I imagine this is why ME2 essentially restarted the game series from scratch

Yeah, it kinda was. The first Mass Effect wasn't released for PS3, and will never be released for PS3. There was little to no reason to release a sequel to a 360(until it was released on PC by EA) exclusive title on the PS3 besides EA wanting to rake in as much money as they could. It also explains why they radically changed the mechanics of the game to be more "accessible" in later titles.

 

[SajuukKhar]

You keep saying this but i think you completely missed the point

its not about the decisions being negated outright, its taht they are rendered fairly trivial by the end result of the game. Sure I did all of these great things but their impact is severly diminished because the galactic community has been completely severed.

As a player that is infuriating. The main reason i took the gamble on allowing the geth to live is becuase I wanted to see the results of their peace with quarians. I wanted to end the Get plauge on the galaxy in a peacful manner. Now i either have to destroy them, control them completely, or merge with them. And either way the galactic relays are lost.

It would be different if this was an option based off my decisions. Lets say that i use technology to continue subjigating the Krogan, or the Geth/quarian war ends in violence. This would show that our cycle cannot handle itself which in turn would make having to make that decision. But to purposefully play the game all paragon with the hopes of a happy ending and have to choose between 3 flawed versions of the same bittersweet ending is just nuts in my opinion

I think your missing an important part of gaming, something called imagination.

Just because they don't hold your hand and spell out for you what exactly the consequences of what you ate for lunch are does not mean they are trivialized.

You can still with a high certainty imagine that the geth would be peaceful with the Quarrians, that the krogans population would incrase with the curing of the genphoage, and that the rachnai will rebuild and expand again.

Just because you dont get a popup telling you that =/= they were trivialized.

 

[teknoarcanist]

I can't handle this thread anymore.

Sufficed to say a manufactured dilemma from a mysterious surprise super-antagonist that negates every decision you've made thus far by rendering them non-factors, and which shoehorns you into three choices which result in three endings (WHICH ARE LITERALLY JUST THE SAME ENDING WITH DIFFERENT COLORS) is absolute bullshit. A lot of thematic potential was squandered, a lot of people feel disappointed, and a lot of us won't be patronizing Bioware again in the future.

 

[synobal]

You keep saying this but i think you completely missed the point

its not about the decisions being negated outright, its taht they are rendered fairly trivial by the end result of the game. Sure I did all of these great things but their impact is severly diminished because the galactic community has been completely severed.

As a player that is infuriating. The main reason i took the gamble on allowing the geth to live is becuase I wanted to see the results of their peace with quarians. I wanted to end the Get plauge on the galaxy in a peacful manner. Now i either have to destroy them, control them completely, or merge with them. And either way the galactic relays are lost.

It would be different if this was an option based off my decisions. Lets say that i use technology to continue subjigating the Krogan, or the Geth/quarian war ends in violence. This would show that our cycle cannot handle itself which in turn would make having to make that decision. But to purposefully play the game all paragon with the hopes of a happy ending and have to choose between 3 flawed versions of the same bittersweet ending is just nuts in my opinion

I think your missing an important part of gaming, something called imagination.

Just because they don't hold your hand and spell out for you what exactly the consequences of what you ate for lunch are does not mean they are trivialized.

You can still with a high certainty imagine that the geth would be peaceful with the Quarrians, that the krogans population would incrase with the curing of the genphoage, and that the rachnai will rebuild and expand again.

Just because you dont get a popup telling you that =/= they were trivialized.

Tell me you have a news letter or something I can subscribe to. It's nice to see a voice of reason on here regarding the end of Mass Effect 3

 

[Erttheking]

No matter what you do the galaxy is royally screwed over.

Why wouldn't it be? The Reapers have returned. Seriously, there is NO way the game should end with you winning. In the first game, it took a massive fleet which got its ASS handed to it to take down ONE Reaper, and they were ONLY able to do that because it had been in a symbiotic relationship with Saren, and when he died it disabled Sovereign temporarily. In Mass Effect 3, there's hundreds of them. THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN WIN...unless BioWare pulled some stupid crap out of their ass. I have yet to play Mass Effect 3 and I probably won't, considering the demo was exactly like Mass Effect 2 and I hated Mass Effect 2.

the big dogs at EA likely saw this as a way to alienate new costumers. I imagine this is why ME2 essentially restarted the game series from scratch

Yeah, it kinda was. The first Mass Effect wasn't released for PS3, and will never be released for PS3. There was little to no reason to release a sequel to a 360(until it was released on PC by EA) exclusive title on the PS3 besides EA wanting to rake in as much money as they could. It also explains why they radically changed the mechanics of the game to be more "accessible" in later titles.

Buddy, go into Mass Effect 3 and read the codex. It said that during the battle of the Turian homeworld, Turian dreadnoughts were able to destroy several Reaper capital ships, the class of Reaper that SOVEREIGN WAS! And the Turians did that all by themselves and at the end of the game, you've gathered the biggest fleet in the history of the galaxy. Also I thought that our Prothean weapon was supposed to wipe out all of the Reapers...why couldn't they have just made it so that was EXACTLY what it did?

Also the big root of my problem is that in Mass Effect, you're supposed to be able to decide the ending by chose, the only thing that you can change here is if Shep dies or not, and I get the feeling even if he lives he dies shortly after.