Mass Effect 3: It's not the endings, its the final battle (And synthesis)

[Eclectic Dreck]

I actually agree entirely with the OP. The ending, such that it is, works in a lot of ways BUT (and this is a giant exclamation point wearing but) it fails to satisfy. In the past I've argued this in different ways with different people. Thematically it fails (obviously) but, then, I also don't see how it could have succeeded. The threat generated was far to large to be overcome with a little togetherness and can-do attitude. A deus ex machina was going to be necessary thus many of the themes are going to be discarded along the way.

Still, I had never considered how much the last hour really failed. I fought across London largely alone. Sure, I was being told about stuff happening elsewhere but it was wildly generic. I didn't get geth fire support missions zipping around or heavy armature support on the ground. No desperate Krogan charges against a line of reapers. Instead, all my work was relegated to snippets as you make that final walk around at chat with everyone.

That mechanically it was nothing more than raising an integer and, in the end, comparing it to a fixed set of scores to determine possible endings is fine. I understand the limitations of time and resources that made that compromise necessary. But, during that final sequence on earth, if they simply had incredibly brief cut-scenes from time to time showing the impact of things you did it would improve dramatically. For example, showing a geth armiture arriving via a hot drop in a contested zone makes the geth alliance seem all the more important. Showing a pressed set of troops on earth calling for fire support be rewarded with a broadside from a Quariaian frigate makes their participation seem more useful.

In total, perhaps a minute or two of video would make that integer seem like something more than just a number. It would have reminded the player of the meaning behind the number and all the people Shepard picked up along the way.

 

[Risingblade]

Most of the stuff was cut out sadly, they're are some audiofiles on the disc that prove it

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

And besides, if being a "Biodrone" means I enjoy a great game and don't ***** and whine about it whenever the topic comes up, then sign me up.

No it means you enjoy games with the standards of bad fan fiction, clumsy homoerotic love stories that border on homophobia and expressionless, emotionless animations and voice acting.

I'm still the one who's having fun.

Life's too short to whine about things.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Indoctrination Theory.

Shepard Lost.

That makes the game so much better in my eyes, I don't give two shits if that isn't what actually happened, that is what I believe my Shepard went through!

I've argued against this time and again so I'll give the brief version. In short, Indoctrination Theory relies on the complete inversion of the core theme of Mass Effect - that is, the importance of choice. In order for this theory to be true, it fundamentally undermines every decision Shepard makes since his first contact with a Reaper. While this becomes meta-appropriate (the player has little capacity to affect the outcome in the long run) it's internal thematic inconsistency is far greater than a literal interpretation of the game's ending.

Beyond that, the theory relies on evidence that, in every case, has a simple alternate explanation. Finally, one has to call into question just how Shepard would have been indoctrinated in the first place. The Reaper's reliance on conventional military power demonstrates that the power has tremendous limitations and in any observed case of indoctrination required significant close range exposure before it took root. Shepherd, in the entire game, has minutes of contact with Soverign on Eden Prime, perhaps hours on Virmire, a few hours in a dead Reaper in Mass Effect 2, and less than a day's exposure to an artifact in Arrival. By that same note, the Earth Resistance maintained close contact with reapers for months, an STG team had weeks of close contact with Sovereign, and scientific teams had close contact with both the dead Reaper and the Rho Artifact for months.

Thus, because the theory is founded on evidence far too easily dismissed, and the theory violates every theme explored in Mass Effect, and because there is simply no demonstrated mechanism that would allow for the indoctrination to occur, I have to conclude that the theory simply doesn't hold.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

*Snips*

Okay, you'll do. I've been looking for someone to ask about this, because it's my biggest problem with the ME3 ending and it hasn't been solved for me yet.

How does the plot of Mass Effect 1 make sense after the revelation of the Catalyst? In ME1, we get told by Vigil that a handful of Prothean scientists survived the Reaper invasion, and were able to fiddle with the Citadel to stop it working as a relay for the Reapers. But Vigil never mentions the Catalyst at that point. How did the Protheans manage to sabotage a sentient and virtually omniscient space station from within, leaving it unable to fix itself? And given that they did, how did they manage it without even noting the Catalyst's existence and leaving it with Vigil?

 

[Megalodon]

Combined from the evidence of the conduit at Ilos-or did that get destroyed?

Yes, that gets specifically mentioned in the second game.

When does that happen? The only times I can remember Ilos being mentioned in 2 were the gardener on the Citadel talking about it being used to bring back flowers, and a picture of it in Liara's apartemnt in Lair of the Shaodow Broker.

EDIT-Also they mentioned that Vigil stopped working, but I can't remeber the Conduit being mentioned.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Don't care. I still believe it as it makes Shepard's struggle all the more enticing.

Indoctrination theory asserts there is no struggle and you were a Puppet since god knows when.

 

[ThriKreen]

Thus, because the theory is founded on evidence far too easily dismissed, and the theory violates every theme explored in Mass Effect, and because there is simply no demonstrated mechanism that would allow for the indoctrination to occur, I have to conclude that the theory simply doesn't hold.

Ding!

Also think about a similarly strong-willed individual like Saren, how long the exposure he needed before he was affected by Sovereign - oh right, since the end of the novel til ME1, which was quite awhile.

But what about The Illusive Man, he's somewhat strong willed too right? Sure he incorporated Reaper tech for control, but that meant he's basically setting himself up as a Reaper communication antenna, and the comm could (did) go both ways.

And face it, for both of them, one of the best ways to get someone under your control is to basically give them what they desire, then obviously yank it away at the last moment. And you saw all the damage both did, being lured and mislead by the Reapers: "We join with them to defeat our enemies ... who are the rest of you ... that we're trying to save from the group we joined .. as their slave army ... "

Then there's Shepard. Every talk with the Reapers was basically "We want to understand you!" then "Screw you, you're going down." And for a group that views all organics as ants, they certainly spent a lot of time trying to find and hunt down a specific one. Why is that?

 

[themilo504]

Something that always bugged me is how utterly pointless the destroy ending was why?
Because you could achieve the same thing with control just fly the entire reaper fleet into the nearest sun.

 

[ThriKreen]

But Vigil never mentions the Catalyst at that point. How did the Protheans manage to sabotage a sentient and virtually omniscient space station from within, leaving it unable to fix itself? And given that they did, how did they manage it without even noting the Catalyst's existence and leaving it with Vigil?

The Protheans knew the Citadel was a focal point for the Reapers - hence why all that stuff happened with the Keepers, disabling the Mass Relay for the invasion and such. Hence needing the Crucible to hook up to it, as it would have controlled the other Mass Relays and spread whatever the Crucible did across the galaxy.

Spoiler

They didn't know the Citadel was self-aware, and the cause of the Reapers.

 

[votemarvel]

How do you know what previous cycles were like? The only one we have enough information on is the Protheans' cycles. There could have been plenty of previous cycles where they had greater technology than the current cycle.

We have no great knowledge of their technology level but we do know something.

In every previous cycle the Reapers came through the Citadel rely and took control over the relay network. This effectively isolated every system from re-enforcements and supply lines, all while allowing the Reapers to move around around at will.

As to conventional victory it may well have been possible. We know from previous events that Reapers can be destroyed with enough standard armaments.

So rather than throwing all those resources into building the Crucible, which you don't know will work because you don't know what it does or how it is activated, how about throwing them into equipping every vessel with Thanix cannons and using the Reapers own weaponry against them. Weaponry we know to be effective against Reaper based shielding.

Then fit as many ships as you can with the the multi-core shielding and Silaris armour that we know to be effective against Reaper based weaponry.

Personally up until the very end I was thinking that the Crucible was a Reaper plant. A plan to get races to divert precious resources into it instead of into better weapons and armour for their ships.

 

[Kizi]

Something that always bugged me is how utterly pointless the destroy ending was why?
Because you could achieve the same thing with control just fly the entire reaper fleet into the nearest sun.

Anyway, I chose Synthesis but after seeing the consequences I immediately regretted my decision and felt like an idiot.
Also, did anyone like the Rejection ending they added in the EC a bit? It's really depressing and all but almost kind of cool in a way.

 

[Kingjackl]

Another problem with the indoctrination theory is that if you accept it as true, you have to accept that the moment those hallucinations begin, Shepard is finished. It's established in the story that you cannot permanantly defeat indoctrination and any respite from it is only temporary. That's why Benezia was lucid for about a minute before going right back to trying to murder you. It's also why Saren and The Illusive Man both shot themselves as soon as they realised they were being controlled. Even if Shepard did break indoctrination in the manner the theory suggests (by picking the option that supposedly commits genocide and pre-EC playing a lot of multiplayer, incidently) he'd just be back where he started and no closer to winning. If he did realise he was being indoctrinated, what else could he do other than shoot himself or fall right back into it?

As for the final battle, that was pretty lackluster, though the goodbye scenes before it began were well done. I will say that everything from the missile defence to the Illusive Man confrontation was actually pretty tense and suitably climactic. It just could have done with a few less Brutes and Banshees because even with squadmates, powers, upgrades and that hidden missile launcher, fighting those guys is like trying to deflate a cushion by sticking pins into it.

t's better to just that accept the Extended Cut versions of the endings as is. Sure, they're a little silly but the intent behind the choices themselves are well-realised and if you did well enough, anyone of them could be considered a happy ending.

 

[DrunkenMonkey]

Indoctrination Theory.

Shepard Lost.

That makes the game so much better in my eyes, I don't give two shits if that isn't what actually happened, that is what I believe my Shepard went through!

I've argued against this time and again so I'll give the brief version. In short, Indoctrination Theory relies on the complete inversion of the core theme of Mass Effect - that is, the importance of choice. In order for this theory to be true, it fundamentally undermines every decision Shepard makes since his first contact with a Reaper. While this becomes meta-appropriate (the player has little capacity to affect the outcome in the long run) it's internal thematic inconsistency is far greater than a literal interpretation of the game's ending.

Beyond that, the theory relies on evidence that, in every case, has a simple alternate explanation. Finally, one has to call into question just how Shepard would have been indoctrinated in the first place. The Reaper's reliance on conventional military power demonstrates that the power has tremendous limitations and in any observed case of indoctrination required significant close range exposure before it took root. Shepherd, in the entire game, has minutes of contact with Soverign on Eden Prime, perhaps hours on Virmire, a few hours in a dead Reaper in Mass Effect 2, and less than a day's exposure to an artifact in Arrival. By that same note, the Earth Resistance maintained close contact with reapers for months, an STG team had weeks of close contact with Sovereign, and scientific teams had close contact with both the dead Reaper and the Rho Artifact for months.

Thus, because the theory is founded on evidence far too easily dismissed, and the theory violates every theme explored in Mass Effect, and because there is simply no demonstrated mechanism that would allow for the indoctrination to occur, I have to conclude that the theory simply doesn't hold.

I always thought that the Shepard's indoctrination (as it pertains to the indoctrination theory) only truly started when he/she encountered the modified illusive man for the "boss battle". He had reaper tech implanted just for the express purpose to propagate indoctrination unto others. Which is why Shepard acts uncontrollably.

The real problem with the theory (if it was true) is that we don't have an ending. The game ends with Shepard buried in the rubble, and possibly waking up in the destroy ending. That is in itself is why the indoctrination ending fails.

Anyways just wanted to point that out.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

How does the plot of Mass Effect 1 make sense after the revelation of the Catalyst? In ME1, we get told by Vigil that a handful of Prothean scientists survived the Reaper invasion, and were able to fiddle with the Citadel to stop it working as a relay for the Reapers. But Vigil never mentions the Catalyst at that point. How did the Protheans manage to sabotage a sentient and virtually omniscient space station from within, leaving it unable to fix itself? And given that they did, how did they manage it without even noting the Catalyst's existence and leaving it with Vigil?

The Protheans sabotaged the Keepers. When it was time for the cycle to begin, the Reaper vanguard would send a signal to the Keepers to have them trigger the Citadel Relay. The Protheans altered the Keepers so that the Keepers would not respond to the Reaper signal, hence their need to have someone else activate the Citadel Relay - Saren and his geth army.

Yes, but surely the Catalyst must have noticed something was wrong? Couldn't it modify the Keepers back, or make new, untampered ones? If it couldn't, what would it do if any species in the long history of the Galaxy simply decided to exterminate the Keepers? Why didn't Sovereign send a message to the Catalyst, asking the boss what's wrong? I could understand if the Catalyst shows it wants to intervene in the process as little as possible, but he's coming up with a solution and then doing nothing to aid it when it falls apart. As I say in my response to ThriKeen below, I can buy that the Protheans managed to sabotage the Keepers, but not that they managed to do it while remaining completely unaware of their true taskmaster. They must have delved pretty thoroughly into the Citadel to manage it, and yet they discovered nothing about its true nature?

Oh, and another thing while I'm thinking about it. Near the end of ME3, it gets mentioned that the Reapers have 'moved' the Citadel all the way to Earth. This only makes any sense if the Citadel had built in mass effect drives of its own. Does that mean that the Catalyst could drive it? How come no one ever mentioned these mass effect drives before? Surely someone must have noticed them. I mean, you can't move something faster than the speed of light without a mass effect drive, that's the rule in ME. Yet no one questions it. And they must have taken it faster than the speed of light, or else it would take centuries to drag halfway across the galaxy.

But Vigil never mentions the Catalyst at that point. How did the Protheans manage to sabotage a sentient and virtually omniscient space station from within, leaving it unable to fix itself? And given that they did, how did they manage it without even noting the Catalyst's existence and leaving it with Vigil?

The Protheans knew the Citadel was a focal point for the Reapers - hence why all that stuff happened with the Keepers, disabling the Mass Relay for the invasion and such. Hence needing the Crucible to hook up to it, as it would have controlled the other Mass Relays and spread whatever the Crucible did across the galaxy.

Spoiler

They didn't know the Citadel was self-aware, and the cause of the Reapers.

That doesn't answer my question. I was asking how they managed to sabotage a system overseen by an ancient, incredibly powerful sentient AI without even noticing the AI is there. I get that they went for the Keepers rather than the AI itself, but you're telling me that the Catalyst had no idea how to fix this, or even what to tell the Reapers? It didn't even think "Well, I can't fix this, better give Sovereign a heads up. Maybe tell him about the Conduit that the Protheans used to invade me".