Mass Effect 3!

[Age_of_Truth]

Well I went through the thread and saw Destinizish explained the issues pretty well here:

Spoiler

1.)Possibly the most major reason - it's ridiculously brief. Bioware has built a really rich universe, other games take about 50 hours to complete with DLC included - you've made tons of choices through those games that Bioware has repeatedly said will matter.

And then they didn't deliver. Instead you're given an ending that lasts about 10 minutes if you include the entire part starting from the laser. Even that's hard to include as no matter what you do during that sequence (which is pretty much Shep limping through a railway) the final choice comes down to 3 options. All of which end in VERY similar cinematics that gives no epilogue or followup - all you know is what happened to shep.

2.) What the fuck is happening factor. The end of the game seems like an afterthought in which very little makes sense or is developed. Not only do they introduce new characters, they introduce entirely new concepts in the last minute of the game. Not only that but there are plot holes all over and they're absolutely crazy:

How did Anderson - who not only charged the conduit AFTER you, but is also significantly older than you - reach the control room faster? Where in the fuck did the Illusive man come from? He just walks in with no explanation. What in the actual fuck is the catalyst? An AI? A VI? Harbinger? God? He simply says "he" came up with the whole system as "his" solution. Why does he take the form of the child? Was the child real? etc. And not only that, what kind of solution is: "Hey you guys are eventually going to make synthetics that can kill all of you organics. So instead, I made some super advanced synthetics to kill you all so that you wouldn't make synthetics to kill you all. What?

3.) There is no epilogue, and the game REALLY DESPERATELY needs one. In every ending, you destroy all the mass relays. In the arrival, it's revealed that the destruction of a mass relay results in an ENTIRE SYSTEM being destroyed. So not only did you completely fuck everyone no matter what you picked (presumably) even if you didn't you fucked space travel forever, and I doubt all those ships have the supplies to get somewhere without the relays. So you screwed everyone over anyway? Because if you didn't, you should be told that you didn't.

What the fuck, normandy? Did all my allies just flee the fight for Earth? All those guys that all were saying they had wanted to STAY at earth the entire game... They just abandoned the final fight? I'm supposed to believe that?

4.) What happened to all the themes the ME series was building up to an ending for? Free will/the meaning of life? Synthetics vs organics? Unity? Where the hell did all of that go? You're pretty much told - unity can never happen, you're retarded, go kill yourself Shepard. I just spent an entire game and ended up getting EVERY RACE INCLUDING THE GETH to unite for a common cause. And I'm told that that can never happen. What.

So yeah, the complaints are pretty valid.

Spoiler

Nope, even this doesn't make sense. VI on Thessia says that Shep is free of indoctrination. And if for some reason that were to mean he was only free AT THAT POINT and not that he wasn't in the process, then we come to the ending and that means that there was only one correct choice: destroy the reapers. And not only that, it means that Bioware still hasn't provided an ending, as all you've done is pass the indoctrination test, or something.

And I think...

Spoiler

I disagree with 2, 3 and 4, because I think the ending actually addressed these issues really well, but I can see if you take it as a simple conversation, and not as a final desperate attempt to indoctrinate you, then I get how it would seem really pointless and like a cheap way to end the game.

[SERIOUS SPOILER!!!] And the last bit about the VI... well I think that they did give an ending, because even though the final scenes are 'like' a dream, I think that the choices Shepard is given are genuine. I imagined she / he's in a semi-concious state and is trying to understand what the Crucible is and how it works. I don't know whether the Citadel is a Reaper or if the Star Child AI is some other kind of being trying to preserve order in the galaxy like it says it is. But I think that Shepard is genuinely in a position to 'control' the reapers (or perhaps they would control her / him) or to wipe out sentient machine life. So I don't think Shepard wakes up still in the battle in London, I think she wakes up after the battle is over and the Reapers are destroyed.

But the point being that the proximity of previous influential people to the Reapers (Saren, TheIllusiveMan etc.) eventually caused them to be indoctrinated. And it could also indoctrinate Shepard, and this final choice is the final test to see if Shepard can be the first to overcome indoctrination and end the Reaper threat.

But it's just what I thought when I was playing. It's an RPG game so your story isn't my story. So you can just as easily interpret that the AI is genuine and the consequences are how the Star Kid suggests.

About point 1, well yeah, Destinizish is definitely right. All choices, even massive choices like choosing whether or not to commit massive genocide on races such as the Geth, Krogan, Rachni etc. etc. have no effect on the endings you choose. All that follows is left up to your imagination, and that's not really what Bioware implied with all their pre-release spiel.

The only thing I can say in Bioware's defense on this one is that Mass Effect is now an absolutely massive franchise. Making games is pretty huge business, and once you have a brand this big, it would be borderline crazy to sabotage it. And the fact is, if your Shepard's actions made a galactic future wildly different to that of another player, Bioware would make it incredibly difficult for themselves to produce any material for that future, especially the near future.

It's a shame to end on a note about business though, because I really do think the idea of a climactic choice like this was an ingenious way for the game to end.

 

[Ghengis_John]

So, yeah, I really don't get the massive backlash Bioware suffered as a consequence of the ending. For me it was one of the best endings ever. If anyone wants to explain why it was bad, please do.

Did you play through the previous titles Age? I find a lot more people who've only played Mass Effect 3 are fine with the ending. If that's not the case though I'd only say, you didn't see the ending as it originally was, you saw the do-over. Picture if you will, Joker suddenly abandoning Shepard, dead team mates appearing at the ending of the game and a future that looked like certain doom for the universe. We were left with a million questions and when it was all over a screen popped up that said "Hey gj guys, now go buy some DLC!".

"It ended at the same place" It really didn't. You have to remember there was no epilogue like you saw before. It didn't end at the same place. And even if you can say "star grandpa comes along and talks to star-kid" The details of the destination are different, and the ultimate destination isn't even the "go buy some DLC" screen anymore.

How can you say that you experienced something different than we did and think you have any right to judge us? Even if you watch the original ending now, you have ruined the blow to yourself forever. You have the benefit of the new extension in your memory. You can never really know what the original was like, you didn't experience it, you didn't live through it, it was never the only reality there was for you. To get melodramatic for the sake of a simile it's like the difference between being a kid that lives through a genocide and being the kid that reads about the genocide.

I can only ask you to imagine it. "One of the best endings ever?" That's cool, it's not the same ending we got though. All three of our endings basically looked like "You lose." and the kid didn't explain anything. We chose our endings completely blind, we were blind to what would happen before we chose and blind to what the consequences were after we chose and all star-child would say when we asked for objections was "NO!", in the tone of a pet owner stopping his dog from crapping on the rug. Now on top of that imagine this: Imagine you were sucker-punched by the ending as I have described it. There's a difference between getting to brace yourself and not getting to brace yourself.

People just bitch about everything. People are already bitching about RE6 (which looks omfg god as shit!) And DoA5 and they aren't. Even out yet!

Case in point. Please take your angst about apples out of the oranges thread, it's unconstructive, but I guess it takes less thought to hurl an insult than it does to explain why you might disagree. If you have something to actually say instead of doing some bitching of your own, then say it. Otherwise, go rage in the RE6 and DOA5 threads where it might actually do some good.

The worst thing is, I agree with you about the people tearing down games that haven't come out yet. However we were talking about a game that was released , a game we bought, a game we played through and a game that we finished. That is not the same as criticizing a game you have not even played yet.

I honestly thought it was too much of a deus ex machina at first, but I finally embraced it and actually appreciate the ending now.

Which one? Was that AFTER the extended cut or before?

As for me, even after the DLC I found it pretty unsatisfactory. The star-kid's claim that organics and synthetics can't make peace for themselves is at the core of my objection. It places so little faith in the races of the galaxy, and makes everything the player has done up until now seem invalid. There is absolutely no way to refute what the arrogant little bastard could see if he'd just take one look up. I still hate that we get nothing in the way of info if Shepard lives. It's still just half a breath and nothing more so in that respect, nothing changed. The series has always been about THE MAN. Casey Hudson himself even said in interviews about Dragon Age that Mass effect was Shepard's story, about Shepard the individual. And then in the end it becomes about THE UNIVERSE. I think that is the most personal narrative betrayal.

 

[LP]

Dude, seriously, get over yourself. I've said what I had to say on this topic. You want to read something constructive, go back and read what I had to say on the matter. On top of that, who are you supposed to be? I don't have to write a dissertation explaining myself to you. The game's over who knows how many months old so, if you want to hear some argument you haven't heard before, go Google that shit because you're not going to find it here.

 

[Ghengis_John]

Dude, seriously, get over yourself. I've said what I had to say on this topic. You want to read something constructive, go back and read what I had to say on the matter. On top of that, who are you supposed to be? I don't have to write a dissertation explaining myself to you. The game's over who knows how many months old so, if you want to hear some argument you haven't heard before, go Google that shit because you're not going to find it here.

LP, normally I like you so I'm gonna drop this here.

 

[LP]

LP, normally I like you so I'm gonna drop this here.

I didn't say I don't like you but the way that sounded rubbed me the wrong way and I just said what was on my mind. I'm not here to get into any huge debates on this game. I've already said my thoughts (I love it) and there's really nothing more to say on the matter of it. AoT said he didn't understand why people didn't like stuff and I gave my opinion on the matter (which is not at all ME3-exclusive).

One thing you should know is that I only tend to get into arguments based around logic. I often feel like people want to argue with me for not sharing the same tastes they do here (and on the Internet in general) though.

 

[Alexandra]

Which one? Was that AFTER the extended cut or before?

I like either to be honest, the Extended Cut is pretty much a bunch of extra thirty second scenes and slide shows. I usually pick Destroy, but I forced myself to do Synthesis on my latest playthrough. I actually enjoyed Extended Cut Synthesis, I felt bad for killing EDI in my previous playthroughs!

 

[Age_of_Truth]

How can you say that you experienced something different than we did and think you have any right to judge us?

Whoa whoa calm down. Let's not talk about judging, this isn't supposed to be an attack. I know a lot of people really loved the series, and were upset by the ending. If I was judging I would've just come in and said "LOL suckers didn't get the ending!" I want to know why people didn't like it. That's why I asked these questions, so I could try to get a picture of the original ending without the pre-emptive low expectations, and without the added DLC content.

Did you play through the previous titles Age? ...

Yes I did. They were never my favourite games, but I did enjoy them a lot. I really liked some of the characters, their voice acting and their personalities; I also really liked the vision of the galaxy they created, the explorative environment, and the way they presented really tough choices for Shepard to make. But after I finished ME3, I thought back on the whole journey and realised that the series had become one of my favourite gaming experiences of all time.

"It ended at the same place" It really didn't. You have to remember there was no epilogue like you saw before. It didn't end at the same place...

Ok, but then where did it end? As far as I could tell, the only difference was some added FMV sequences. Did the Star Child explain things differently the first time round? As that's also what SophieChan suggested:

I like either to be honest, the Extended Cut is pretty much a bunch of extra thirty second scenes and slide shows.

SERIOUS SPOILERS ALERT

Spoiler

All three of our endings basically looked like "You lose." and the kid didn't explain anything. We chose our endings completely blind, we were blind to what would happen before we chose and blind to what the consequences were after we chose and all star-child would say when we asked for objections was "NO!", in the tone of a pet owner stopping his dog from crapping on the rug...

Ok but the Star Child is basically asking to you control the Reapers. And literally 5 minutes before that, the Illusive Man had been saying "Shepard! We can control the Reapers!". And Shepard and Anderson had been exclaiming, "No TIM, you can't, the Reapers control you, they've indoctrinated you, they've made you think you can control them". And then you get a ghost-like child, who looks like the dead kid on Earth who you feel terribly guilty about failing to save, who represents the innocent deaths of all those exterminated by the Reapers, all in a massive 20 minute sequence that resembles all the dream sequences throughout the game. So the consequences are kind of there to see, even if you have to think about them for a bit.

Btw I'm not saying Shepard was indoctrinated, I'm saying that's what I thought, but you could equally say that Shepard had the chance to end the war by controlling the Reapers for the forces of good etc., and that only she/he had the force of will to do so uncorrupted. The Shepard in my story was wary of the Star Child, and had to make a horrible sacrifice to save as many people as she could, a choice that had been preempted by conversations with Garrus, Adams and Dr. Chakwas amongst others. Because she wanted to give humanity and the other races a chance not to exterminate each other. But you could equally say that that would be a reckless way to throw away the chance to end the wars for eternity, and that Shepard should control or synthesise with the Reapers to make way for a new dawn of galactic life.

Now on top of that imagine this: Imagine you were sucker-punched by the ending as I have described it. There's a difference between getting to brace yourself and not getting to brace yourself.

Yeah you're right, I can't imagine what it was like, which is why I'm trying to understand. Cos when I finished it, I expected that the game had ended after the meeting with the Illusive Man, or maybe even before, so I was kind of surprised to see the game ended with exactly the same choice. Unless it wasn't the same choice, if the Kid had previously explained things differently.

As for me, even after the DLC I found it pretty unsatisfactory. The star-kid's claim that organics and synthetics can't make peace for themselves is at the core of my objection. It places so little faith in the races of the galaxy, and makes everything the player has done up until now seem invalid...

Well yeah, I can see how it didn't seem to reflect your galactic choices with that much weight. But I do think this ending was better. Whichever you chose, you had to make huge sacrifices, terrible sacrifices, and all the games throughout had had these kinds of sacrifices at the forefront of the gameplay. All the way through, you have to make choices whether to try to be a hero, or to let some help themselves so that you can help others more in need. IMO these aren't supposed to be easy 'Oh let's just save everybody in the galaxy and be home in time to watch Blasto (or whoever that was)'. And the nature of the final sacrifice is suggested in some conversations. I remember Garrus asking whether it's ok to let 5 billion die to save 10 billion. And when Chakwas argued with Adams about organic life being more precious than synthetic life, I spent absolutely ages trying to decide who to support, because I get so immersed in these games.

I still hate that we get nothing in the way of info if Shepard lives. It's still just half a breath and nothing more so in that respect, nothing changed. The series has always been about THE MAN. Casey Hudson himself even said in interviews about Dragon Age that Mass effect was Shepard's story, about Shepard the individual. And then in the end it becomes about THE UNIVERSE. I think that is the most personal narrative betrayal.

I dunno, at first I was actually a little disappointed that Shep woke up! Because I thought it was a bit cheesy, and dampened the impact of the sacrifice she'd made. But then I found out that she/he only wakes up if you make specific choices, so after that I figured it was pretty cool, especially if you'd finished it before and didn't wake up the last time. But it is all about Shepard, and that's why the original ending gave little about the future, because for Shepard there was no future. You'd saved the galaxy! Shepard had become a legend! And changed the cycle forever! And to commit to anything more would be risky, in case they make more stuff based on the ME lore, and tbh I also think kind of unnecessary. Maybe you do go live on a beach and drink piña colada. Maybe you do retire, and build a house with Tali on Rannoch. The fact that you miraculously lived through it makes it all possible.

 

[Engared]

I really dont want to get started on my problems with the ending (including the extended cut) from a poor writing perspective.

 

[Age_of_Truth]

I really dont want to get started on my problems with the ending (including the extended cut) from a poor writing perspective.

Then why make this comment?

 

[Alexandra]

I really dont want to get started on my problems with the ending (including the extended cut) from a poor writing perspective.

If we continue to discuss the game, how about we agree on constructive criticism of it?

 

[Destinizish]

Late to the party!

Ok, but then where did it end? As far as I could tell, the only difference was some added FMV sequences. Did the Star Child explain things differently the first time round? As that's also what SophieChan suggested:

Spoiler

There are quite a few different FMV sequences that attempt to explain a lot of the plot holes. For example, in the original ending, your sequence was pretty much:

Shep gets beamed, shep limps through hallway, confrontation with illusive man, star child, shep dies, your crew is on a new planet, CREDITS.

So lets look at why this is strange exactly:

This entire series has had quite a few core concepts. One of the biggest most important ones is racial tension. Many races don't like each other, yet it's shep's job to unite them. Hell, all of ME3 was about this as well. It was a core concept. Organics didn't really like each other, yet they'd have to band together to fight the bigger threat.

Starchild takes this concept, completely diminishes it, and throws it in your face. It's no longer Organics vs Organics. It's Organics vs Synthetics. Not only this, in his words, it's absolutely impossible for all these races to band together. Eventually, they will also create synthetics that will revolt and kill them all. So they are doomed to a cycle.

Isn't that what Shep just proved wrong? He/She just united all of the organics AND the synthetic geth against the Reapers. Yet Starchild says, "nope. Destroy/control/combine thx."

And pretty much everything Starchild says does literally the same thing to the story in many different ways.

But lets not forget that pretty much everything else doesn't make sense, too. Why did my crew abandon the fight? Why are they running away from earth, especially after all of them talked to me all game about how they wanted to be in the fight and that they'd die there? Why are they on some abandoned planet? Are all the relays gone? If the relays are gone how did I save the galaxy? Everyone should be dead now as they can't leave earth, etc. etc.

Way too many things are unanswered about the universe. At least the remade endings attempted to explain things, then gave a slideshow of the fruits of shep's labors.

 

[Age_of_Truth]

Ok, I see why you and so many others disliked it for those reasons. But I still want to have a go at explaining why I thought it was good...

Spoiler

This entire series has had quite a few core concepts. One of the biggest most important ones is racial tension. Many races don't like each other, yet it's shep's job to unite them. Hell, all of ME3 was about this as well. It was a core concept. Organics didn't really like each other, yet they'd have to band together to fight the bigger threat.

Starchild takes this concept, completely diminishes it, and throws it in your face. It's no longer Organics vs Organics. It's Organics vs Synthetics. Not only this, in his words, it's absolutely impossible for all these races to band together. Eventually, they will also create synthetics that will revolt and kill them all. So they are doomed to a cycle.

Isn't that what Shep just proved wrong? He/She just united all of the organics AND the synthetic geth against the Reapers. Yet Starchild says, "nope. Destroy/control/combine thx."

Shepard didn't really prove anything though. There was always the risk that, by saving or promoting any of the races (Geth, Krogan, Rachni etc.), that conflict may begin anew after, or even during, the reaper threat. That's what made these choices so hard. You can assume that the Geth and Quarians won't fight again, or that the Krogan won't go about building a huge army colonising more worlds, but really you can only assume so because you want them to be true. Maybe you're right and maybe you're not.

Just because they banded together this time, in the face of a galactic threat, doesn't mean the peace will necessarily hold. What Starchild says is nothing new, in fact the warnings have been there all along. I'm not saying that all races are necessarily warmongering, but it is certainly possible. IMO, you have to accept that some of Shepard's choices may have been the wrong ones. I don't think ME was ever supposed to have been about making easy 'good' choices or evil 'bad' choices all the time.

What I'm getting at is that ME is all about tough choices, horrible choices, that normally politicians would make, but in this dire situation, it's a soldier, Shepard, who has to make these decisions on the spot, over and over. I think an early trailer for ME summed it up really well - in fact, wan't this also the title screen cutscene in ME1?

In short, Renegade doesn't equal evil, and Paragon doesn't equal good. Doing the right thing involves making tough choices, some hard line, some benevolent. And the final choice was pre-empted by a conversation between Adams and Chakwas in the mess hall if you remember (not sure what happens if either of these aren't on your crew).

Spoiler

And pretty much everything Starchild says does literally the same thing to the story in many different ways.

Can I ask why? Earlier you said the ending was written poorly, and I've seen others say the same thing on different forums, but why do you think it was poorly written, and how do the Starchild's comments affect the story negatively?

Spoiler

But lets not forget that pretty much everything else doesn't make sense, too. Why did my crew abandon the fight? Why are they running away from earth, especially after all of them talked to me all game about how they wanted to be in the fight and that they'd die there? Why are they on some abandoned planet? Are all the relays gone? If the relays are gone how did I save the galaxy? Everyone should be dead now as they can't leave earth, etc. etc.

I understand that they did add some things in the EC, and that the original version left a lot of unanswered questions. But I think the core ending remained the same either side of the DLC. Personally I don't want every single question answered, and I don't see why some people are so demanding of a total explanation.

The crew did seem to recognise some imminent damger shortly before the crucible activated; maybe hanging around would have clearly been suicide. Obviouly they cared for Shepard but they also cared for each other, and as far as they knew, Shepard had perished on Earth. You could argue that it was a way to force a little extra drama into the ending, but that's no so different to most other video game stories and endings, including the previous ME games.

The Mass Relays were destroyed in terms of being deactivated and damaged, but not blown up, as I think it said somewhere that a relay explosion would destroy the local star system. The damage is repairable, as the Starchild himself says. Those stuck on Earth will have some remaining food supplies from Earth itself and from the assembled fleets that weren't destroyed, and the same goes for other battles in star systems over Palaven and Tuchanka etc. It's not a good situation, as many won't be able to leave the given star system until the relays are repaired or rebuilt (if it's even possible), but that's better than no future at all.

Spoiler

Way too many things are unanswered about the universe. At least the remade endings attempted to explain things, then gave a slideshow of the fruits of shep's labors.

I'm not sure why so many things need to be answered, or indeed whether the slideshows really enhanced the ending. When I was watching them I thought they were good but didn't feel like they were all that important to the ending, which is why I figured that pre-EC the game must've ended much earlier, before the Starchild. The final scene does explain the important stuff, and in a really clever way that tied in beautifully with the key concepts. The important thing is you did it, you saved Earth, and you gave some life forms a chance to carry on living, depending on which outcome you chose, even though it had to come at great cost.

 

[Destinizish]

SNIIIIP

Just going to do one giant post to address things you brought up:

Spoiler

Q: Why does everything need to be explained?

A: Because it's not a short story, it's a trilogy. And beyond that, it's a story. You don't end a story without completing its plot.

I do a lot of writing myself. I'm familiar with a lot of writing tropes (hell I studied and got a degree in lit, creative writing, classics [greco-roman focus] among other things) and while I'll admit, the whole "the end is however you see it!" stuff has it's audience, I'm rather sad that it does.

Warning, this is a BIT of a personal preference rant, but it's something I really feel a lot of writers and readers need to understand: The point of a story is that it is, in itself, a complete story. Therefore, its resolution needs to be complete. There might not be an epilogue, you might not hear where the main characters end up 50 years in the future. However there's a difference with the classic works that end this way and how ME3/some of these artsy "however you think it ended!" endings that are being written recently: The main plot points are resolved in the classics.

For example, you wouldn't write a story where the main focus is a man with cancer and his struggles and then end that story with his son going off to college. You haven't resolved the main focus - this guy has cancer. Sure there may be a subplot about his son leaving for college and the fact he may never see his father again, but this wasn't the son's story. This was the father's story, so you end it focused on the father, not the subplot with the son. You had better bet that a classic about a man with cancer, ends with that man's death or survival. The subplots involving him will either be resolved or he leaves them behind when he dies (but you know the state he left them in).

ME3, however, is a trilogy. There are 3 major plot arcs. All of these arcs are interconnected, but the whole way, Shepard learns more and more about the galaxy, and he/she also causes some pretty big things to happen within the galaxy. These aren't even minor subplots anymore, as Shep has literally committed near-genocide at points. These are big issues in the scheme of things, and I'd argue that the story becomes more about the universe than it does about Shep at certain points. Yet we get a resolution that says: Shep is dead, Reapers leave, yay! But most of these major plot points are not resolved yet, hell I'd say that the only plot arc that really could have been left as is was the krogans. That was a complete plot arc on its own. I really didn't need to know what happened to them. I know what I did regardless of the choice I made, and I know what they'll be doing once the reapers are gone. If any other plot points have resolved as well, I'd have no issue. But they don't. The end of the story changes everything. Hell, you've left the entirety of the united races completely stranded by Earth if the relays are gone. And the last time you destroyed a relay? You blew up a whole system. Is THAT what you just did? Did you just kill countless races by exploding all the relays? Bioware answers that for you with: Shep is dead, reapers leave, yay!

It leaves quite a bit to be desired.


Q2: How is the starchild/ending written poorly? How does Starchild change the story completely?
A: It completely breaks all standards of the genre Bioware is writing, whilst simultaneously introducing new concepts and characters all in the final minutes of a ~100 hour journey.
I mean really, Bioware is writing in the science fiction genre. But it isn't just Sci fi. It's a space opera. Emphasis is put more on interaction and the universe than it is on the "let's go blow shit up!" side of sci fi. In other words - this isn't Starship Troopers, this is Star Trek. The thing about this genre is that everything is explained. Oh, you have hyper weaponry that shoots lasers? Here's how they work. It's all there to create a very believable environment. These universes are based around the question: What if? In ME3's case, it's What if we found a way to create and control mass based around a single element?

For the most part, ME3 pulls this off incredibly well. Their codexes explain things in great detail. It makes the universe believable, the characters are all explained well, organizations and motives all make sense.

Then we hit the final sequence:

I just got shot by a reaper beam, how am I still alive? Well, time to make my way to that beam. Why does everything look like a very dreamlike sequence? Oh hey illusive man - looks like you're indoctrinated - guess we're gonna have a conversation now.

Ok, so we've now resolved the fight on earth, we've resolved the arc of fighting cerberus, all we have to do is activate the weapon! The game should have ended here.But Bioware says no - the game won't end here. Instead, lets introduce you to a completely new character who has less lines than anyone in the series. In fact, let's make it a child. Not just anyone, but the child Shep saw on earth. And you know what? You know what would make this a great idea? Let's not explain who this character is AT ALL, but make it give Shep an ultimatum that he can't deny choosing between.

Really, I mean what the fuck is the starchild? Is it a super advanced AI? Is it the reapers? But it created the reapers! Is it a hyper intelligent being that's off in a remote place? Is it god? You know for all the "Organics vs Synthetics!" stuff it's spouting at me, I have no idea what IT is. Actually, you know what? Why in the absolute fuck did activating a plan that the protheans came up with lead me to talking with starchild? How in the hell did the protheans accidentally create a weapon that has the power to make someone a reaper overlord? How in the hell did they make something with the power to FUSE EVERY LIVING AND SYNTHETIC FORM TOGETHER IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Sorry, but suspension of disbelief got thrown out the window when you stopped explaining things, and completely threw it all in my face.

This ending just doesn't fit in their genre, nor does it follow what they've set up at all.

Point: Shep didn't prove anything though!

Counterpoint: He did, though. He united the races to fight the bigger threat. And while you're right, it's been foreshadowed that conflict will still arise - you're not right that this might not mean anything. After all - through all that effort, Shep made it to the end. And while conflicts might arise, it means they can rise above said conflicts. Shep made it to the reaper control room. Clearly, the galaxy has the will to fight any prophesized synthetics that they might create. And if they don't, then how did they beat the synthetics that the starchild created.. And again, who the fuck is the starchild?

In the end, nothing holds up, everything is far worse off once the starchild exists. I'm still not too happy with the DLC endings, because that entire ending really did ruin the credibility of their universe for me. The fact they kept it makes me pretty sad.

 

[Engared]

Then why make this comment?

I don't know. I think i got tired out from my massive nerdrage on youtube comments lol.

 

[Reave]

The Crucible was a culmination of efforts from races far older than the Protheans and the species in the current cycle. The Protheans themselves did not create it, which would explain how it can "make a Reaper overload".

 

[Destinizish]

The Crucible was a culmination of efforts from races far older than the Protheans and the species in the current cycle. The Protheans themselves did not create it, which would explain how it can "make a Reaper overload".

Spoiler

Even so - this makes little sense. You're pretty much saying - in space opera universe that's meant to be believable - that several cycles have collectively made a "weapon" that has 3 different possibilities. All of those 3 possibilities kill whoever uses it, and they all do incredibly strange things that effect the entirety of the galaxy. Oh, and it also summons a VI or AI or Ghost (who really knows?) of what essentially calls itself god. To have a conversation with you about these 3 options. And almost implies that it is in fact the one who made the crucible (which TBH, is the only thing that makes sense, but again, would be spectacularly bad writing. A literal deus ex machina combined with a sudden introduction of MANY new concepts in the last 5 minutes of a ~100 hour trilogy? Pff, k.)

Spoiler

And let's not forget, that the main theme of ME from the very first game was to get over differences. Yes, you can say that banding together still has the threat of all out war - but at the same time, Starchild brings up the concept of organics vs synthetics, saying that it's already started in this universe.

I think you can beg the question - where? Where has that started? The geth and the quarians were living peacefully, and some OTHER quarians started some shit, and everything went to hell. So the Organics were the aggressors. But let's look past that. What happened after the organics lost that fight? The geth left to go beyond the veil, where they were doing their own thing. Nobody was bothering them, they weren't bothering anyone, either. In fact, all signs lead to them just wanting to be left alone and to be in peace. And when the reapers come, they broker a peace treaty with the quarians and eventually start interfacing with their suits and boosting their immune systems. That's tangible proof that not everything leads to all out war.

The only killer synthetics in the ME universe are the reapers. So why does starchild insist that your universe has already started down the path of imminent destruction?

Oh, and lets not forget that starchild completely and utterly destroys the story of the first two games.

If starchild created the reapers, and the starchild IS the citadel, then why did a double agent need to come in to open the citadel and get the reapers transferred over? Why did the whole collector story arc need to exist? The main villain is the citadel. How does this make any sense?

 

[Reave]

It's not like anyone knew what the crucible would actually do. Basically you're told "This can defeat the reapers...I hope". Having to trust in ancient alien technology you know nothing about to have a future was pretty Sci-Fi to me.

I'm not a big fan of Sci-Fi but I know there are plenty of movies that pull stuff like this and the giant shitstorm that ensued after ME3 had me confused. I expected either a random ending pulled out of nowhere that would make no sense (which we got) or the run and gun ending when I played the first game because that is what the Sci-Fi genre is known for from my experience with it.

The only thing i didn't like was the fact that the game forced you to go along with this unknown technology, that after everything is explained, you couldn't tell if it would be your salvation or annihilation. With the addition of the refusal ending I can accept that the crucible is the most random shit I have ever seen in a game and tbh I like semi unexpected shit.

 

[Age_of_Truth]

...Warning, this is a BIT of a personal preference rant, but it's something I really feel a lot of writers and readers need to understand: ...

Nothing wrong with that, personal preference rants are part of what forums are for! I want to have a go at explaining why I thought the StarChild was very much part of the series and not a completely random new element, but I can't now, I'll come back later. Also I think the key stuff is resolved, but again, it'll take too long now. BRB

 

[Age_of_Truth]

snip

Ok, so, there's too much stuff here to go into detail on this forum. I am not so arrogant to suppose that you deeply care about my theories regarding the issues you raised, but if you do care, I'll link you the posts I made on the Bioware forums (and you can also see the countless issues and objections people raised to what I said).

In a (probably vain) attempt to address the things you said in those last two posts...

Spoiler

Cancer story/trilogy arc: in short, I think most subplots were resolved in ME3, including Genophage, Geth war and, philosophy on synthetic life, Cerberus, etc.

That's not to say I think it was all done well. I'm not saying ME3 is a perfect game, far from it; in fact some things were done really badly imo, e.g. the Zaeed short section resolving his story. It may have been affected by other choices I made in ways I don't know, but the version that I was given in ME3 was extremely poorly executed. I had no idea what was going on, and the short story had no impact on me whatsoever, other than thinking "what the hell was that?" Luckily I didn't care too much about him so it didn't matter hugely to me.

I'm sure there was another big thing that wasn't handled great, but I can't remember what it was... in fact I remember the finale to Miranda's story also being muddled and confused, though again I don't know how much it was affected by prior choices I made. But nonetheless, that part of the game was clunky in my playthrough and it wasn't really clear what was going on, which made the emotional impact of that story pretty weak. Which was bad as she was a pretty important character; the scene was key to the ME3 storyline; and as a character, Miranda wasn't my favourite but I did think she was a pretty interesting character and one I cared for somewhat, so I didn't feel great about it.

Whoops too long, in short I think the StarChild ending was a proper ending to the series in which you finally exterminate the Reaper threat (or try to control or synthesise with them, if you made those choices).

Spoiler

What is starchild: again a full answer to this would take way too long, I'll link my other posts if you really want, but in short I think that he is a mental representation of the Reaper presence in the Citadel, and most of what he says is literally true. He appears as the child from Shepard's dreams because he is portrayed in a innocent light due to the fact that the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate Shepard. He is meant to appeal to Shepard's sense of guilt, just as the Reapers' previous indoctrination attempts appealed to Saren's sense of fear and The Illusive Man's lust for power. So really, the starchild isn't really there, it's Shepard's imagining of a physical form of the Reaper voice trying to indoctrinate him.

If you don't agree that Shepard is being indoctrinated here, then the Starchild would still be an AI with the collective intelligence of the Reapers, though this doesn't explain why he resembles the kid from the dreams.

Spoiler

Galactic conflict, genocide and racism: what I am saying is that... just because the various races you saved / rallied are fighting together now, doesn't necessarily mean that they won't, post-Reaper war, destroy each other just as the Starchild said they will. The reason I chose Destroy is because I think it is not my (or Shepard's) place to decide this, and if ultimately, various life forms will destroy each other, then that's what will happen, but I'm not going to assume it or pre-empt it. I'm going to give them the chance to prove the Catalyst wrong.

The point being, that I'm not saying Geth or Quarians or Humans are inherently evil and want to destroy each other; just that it is possible that they may eventually destroy each other, and it's not "all the Geths' fault" or "all the Quarians' fault", but maybe the fault of some subset of individuals, or maybe even more tragically, no-one's fault at all.

It's kind of like with real wars, e.g. WWII, you could argue that it was Hitler's fault, or certain politicians' fault when making post-WWI or even pre-WWI decisions, but if you argued that "it's the Germans' fault" or something, I think this would be a rather misguided argument. I'm not saying that's what you're saying btw, not at all, I'm just trying to elaborate on my point.

Spoiler

Why does the Crucible have 3 counter-productive and ridiculous choices: well actually I think it only has one choice (Destroy the Reapers), and the other choices involve not using the Crucible but instead joining the Reapers, but that would take a long time to explain. Again, if you care, I'll try my best.

Spoiler

Killer synthetics: as I tried to explain above, I don't think it's about warmongering synthetics. I think it's about the inevitability of stronger races conquering and eventually annihiliating weaker ones. It's a pretty dark concept, and not the fault of any kind of 'evil gene', but just a law of nature that once a race becomes sufficiently advanced over the others, they will control them and eventually destroy them. The point goes, that organics will create synthetic life, and eventually the synthetic life will become so advanced that it will inevitably destroy organics, kind of like the way irl humans have come to dominate animal species and have destroyed some of them.

So the reasoning goes, that I chose Destroy because, while I couldn't predict the future, I'd rather give living beings the chance to live in harmony, rather than assume that they need to be controlled, wiped out, or assimilated. And I believed this firmly enough that I was willing to destroy synthetic life forms to do so. It's a terrible choice, but it is one foreshadowed by Chakwas and Adams on the Normandy earlier, and one that I spent a long long time thinking about.

Wow this is way too long, sorry, I just go off on one when I'm writing about this stuff. I don't expect you to agree with much if any of what I said. I hope at least that you might concede that the ending does open the door for some pretty interesting ideas and speculation. Obviously a lot of people didn't really want that kind of ending, so I guess to many it won't really matter, but at least to some, it mattered.

 

[Destinizish]

snip

Spoiler

What is starchild: again a full answer to this would take way too long, I'll link my other posts if you really want, but in short I think that he is a mental representation of the Reaper presence in the Citadel, and most of what he says is literally true. He appears as the child from Shepard's dreams because he is portrayed in a innocent light due to the fact that the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate Shepard. He is meant to appeal to Shepard's sense of guilt, just as the Reapers' previous indoctrination attempts appealed to Saren's sense of fear and The Illusive Man's lust for power. So really, the starchild isn't really there, it's Shepard's imagining of a physical form of the Reaper voice trying to indoctrinate him.

If you don't agree that Shepard is being indoctrinated here, then the Starchild would still be an AI with the collective intelligence of the Reapers, though this doesn't explain why he resembles the kid from the dreams.

I've already explained multiple times that this indoctrination theory makes little sense considering we've been told that Shep is, in fact, free from indoctrination. However, if we were to take that as a possible falsehood, then this still doesn't make sense. Why would the Reaper presence on the citadel give you information about how to blow up all the reapers? If the reapers have a presence such as this on the citadel, why did the first game happen? Why did the second game happen? They literally didn't need a third party to open the citadel for them, they already have a mental presence there. (and you can't deny that it controls the citadel, it lifts shep up there on its own) The collectors arc didn't need to exist either.

Even if we were willing to accept these things, this is awful writing. It's making a villain that literally can't feel remorse, but without any motive, making said villain give the hero the only weapon that can kill him. So we call it indoctrination. But if the indoctrination is true - there is only one "right" choice in the end. Destroy. That stands against the entire series' theme of "there are no 'right' or 'wrong' choices"

Galactic conflict, genocide and racism: what I am saying is that... just because the various races you saved / rallied are fighting together now, doesn't necessarily mean that they won't, post-Reaper war, destroy each other just as the Starchild said they will. The reason I chose Destroy is because I think it is not my (or Shepard's) place to decide this, and if ultimately, various life forms will destroy each other, then that's what will happen, but I'm not going to assume it or pre-empt it. I'm going to give them the chance to prove the Catalyst wrong.

The point being, that I'm not saying Geth or Quarians or Humans are inherently evil and want to destroy each other; just that it is possible that they may eventually destroy each other, and it's not "all the Geths' fault" or "all the Quarians' fault", but maybe the fault of some subset of individuals, or maybe even more tragically, no-one's fault at all.

It's kind of like with real wars, e.g. WWII, you could argue that it was Hitler's fault, or certain politicians' fault when making post-WWI or even pre-WWI decisions, but if you argued that "it's the Germans' fault" or something, I think this would be a rather misguided argument. I'm not saying that's what you're saying btw, not at all, I'm just trying to elaborate on my point.

We have the same point, then. You said that this devalues Shep's journey and says that he actually hasn't proven anything. That's not correct, for the very same reasoning that you're using. If this devalued everything, there would be no reason for the starchild talk. If starchild legitimately believed that Shep's journey meant nothing because there still is the ever looming question of all out war - then he wouldn't give Shep the chance to change anything. Instead, starchild offers 3 "solutions" and it should be noted that not one of these three solutions lead to anything better - so they aren't solutions. The Starchild is incredibly contradictory. If the main point of contention is that all life will eventually kill each other, then not one of these solutions is necessarily going to work. Destroy leaves the universe doomed to the same fate it was before, only without synthetic presence. Synthesis does not completely halt racial tension. Control only leaves Shep a galactic dictator.

Again, you've created an ending that doesn't make much sense, is bleak and contradicts itself. It's true, I didn't expect Shep to live through the ending, however they should have removed this entire talk completely, rather than creating these new concepts that come across incredibly confusing and self-contradictory. You can keep a bleak ending where there is no "right" choice, whilst still allowing for the same ultimate result. I'd argue that Dragon Age had an ending that was leagues better. In the end - the archdemon died no matter what you did. However, the ending still had an incredible amount of variance based upon what your final decisions were on all of the subplots before it. The choices that changed the ending all culminated to the last hour of the game, but they all made a real difference, and they all left a sense of what you did throughout the game mattering. Here, you had several different ways to go:

-Hero dies, Archdemon is dead.
-Alistair dies, Archdemon is dead.
-Loghain dies, Archdemon is dead.
-All live, Archdemon dies, there is now a baby being held by a rogue witch somewhere.
-If alive, Alistair becomes King.
-If alive, Hero becomes King. (If both alive you still choose between one or the other)
-There is no King.
-Anora is queen with or without Alistair.
-Hero is queen with or without Alistair.

These are the endings you can get only considering the king/queen role and who dies. If I were to add in the effect these last choices can have on all your party members, their relationships, what their status in the kingdom is, where things end up going, etc. The list would get much longer.

But none of these choices are correct. If you get everyone to live, you've left a royal blooded child with a witch who's motives are very questionable. It's not exactly a good thing that you did this. There's still that sense of "Well I might have fucked things up" but there's no confusion. You made these choices, you caused this to happen. In ME3, starchild makes the choices for you, and merely presents them to you, and they all ultimately lead to the same ending with 0 differences outside a color pallet swap.

It's not satisfying.

Why does the Crucible have 3 counter-productive and ridiculous choices: well actually I think it only has one choice (Destroy the Reapers), and the other choices involve not using the Crucible but instead joining the Reapers, but that would take a long time to explain. Again, if you care, I'll try my best.

I know this theory rather well, and put quite simply, BioWare has already trashed that theory with its added endings. The only choice that leads to guaranteed peace is control. And that control ending leaves Shep (or at least the remnants of his/her thoughts) to pretty much be a galactic dictator.

But even if that theory did hold up - again, this is incredibly terrible writing and I can't see it as anything else. Proposing a single choice out of three as correct in a trilogy where choices are presented in a way where there's no "correct" answer is quite simply very lazy. Lauding it as anything else is simply forgiving Bioware for being very lazy on that front. And if we're going to say that yes, this was indoctrination, and you've overcome it by destroying all the reapers! You have created a villain that explicitly gives you three choices - one of which will kill it. If this is the truth of the matter - why would it have proposed the destroy option to you in the first place? If Shep is, in fact, being indoctrinated, the reapers (or mental representation thereof) would not outright give him the information he needed to take them down. If it did, you're once again contradicting every single action the reapers have taken up to this point. The most we can view this as is a test to Shep's will. And he passes that test by picking destruction. But if we passed that test, Shep isn't indoctrinated, and the reapers aren't dead... Then the game hasn't ended. This isn't an ending.

So the reasoning goes, that I chose Destroy because, while I couldn't predict the future, I'd rather give living beings the chance to live in harmony, rather than assume that they need to be controlled, wiped out, or assimilated. And I believed this firmly enough that I was willing to destroy synthetic life forms to do so. It's a terrible choice, but it is one foreshadowed by Chakwas and Adams on the Normandy earlier, and one that I spent a long long time thinking about.

Then what about legion? What about the peaceful geth? What about EDI?

They have all been proven to not be the aggressors. They have entire long story arcs dedicated to them. Yet you are once again committing Genocide and killing innocents to protect those less innocent.

In other words, you made a choice that is in your words to give all living things a chance. Yet you failed to give half of said things that chance. The entirety of ME3's plot and part of ME2's plot (and its dlc) had a running theme to teach you that synthetic life and organic life are one in the same, because they are just that: life. Synthetic life forms are still life forms, so you in fact have not given living beings a chance to live in harmony. The ending that correctly would give them that choice would be "synthesis." Synthesis isn't assimilation from one side or the other. The fact that you think so - leads me to believe the Starchilds lack of explanation was too much even for you - who is defending it.