Mass Effect 3 endings [SPOILERS OBVIOUSLY]

[deano2099]

You've been watching too much X-factor there Deano. It's addled your brain.

The Sing Off, actually.

When people are making hour long videos... well that's a 6,000 word screed at 100wpm. Just seems a bit excessive.

[Kadayi]

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/201...mass-effect-3/

Did everyone read this? Apologies if already posted, it's a pretty cool article.

See I think these are the interesting things. The complaints are complaints (and one can certainly question the validity of some of the more extreme views and actions of the fanbase). But when you get into the actual critical breakdown of why the ending seems to fail to deliver for so many people it becomes really fascinating. This sort of critical dissection is why things went wrong is really insightful. There's some post grad dissertations to be mined from this entire situation with regard to the nature of interactive media, the role of the creator and the audience and traditional models of ownership within a trans media world. Let alone the circling of the wagons by the gaming press over 'artistic integrity' Vs the broader views by sites like Forbes, and of course how Bioware eventually address matters, and how that plays out for them and others in the long term. This is a really critical juncture in terms of the medium. I find it ...exciting.

When people are making hour long videos... well that's a 6,000 word screed at 100wpm. Just seems a bit excessive.

An hour long video breaking down a 100 hour gaming excessive? Is there some hard rule on brevity? Is anyone forcing you to watch said video Deano? Do you think a 6000 word article outlining why something doesn't work would be a better choice when talking about an interactive medium, Vs using Video footage to demonstrate its shortcomings in a more digestible fashion? The medium is the message and video is a lot more accessible through a computer screen than a wall of text.

[Shane]

Just finished the game and, well, fuck. If that fucking kid was the citadel why the hell did Sovereign try to destroy it/him in Mass Effect 1? And why did the Reapers not try to destroy the Citadel when they came to know of the Crucible rather than ferry it throughout the galaxy?

Also, those slow-mo dream sequences and that kid just made me want to hit something every time they popped up.

About the endings, why did that kid allow Shepherd to destroy the Reapers if it was going to lead to synthetics screwing organic life over? And why would that happen anyway? The Geth showed that it was possible for AI to coexist with their creators.
Then there was the even more fucked up blue ending. Wouldn't the Relays' exploding kill everyone off like they did the Batarians in Arrival? And Shepherd turns out to be more lethal for the galaxy than even the reapers.

[deano2099]

An hour long video breaking down a 100 hour gaming excessive? Is there some hard rule on brevity? Is anyone forcing you to watch said video Deano?

No, but when someone links a video and just goes "this makes an interesting point" and it's 20 minutes long I'd rather they just tell me what that point is. And they're preaching to the converted, I can't see anyone like me who thinks the ending is okay is going to watch a 70 minute video of testimonials on why it's not.

Do you think a 6000 word article outlining why something doesn't work would be a better choice when talking about an interactive medium, Vs using Video footage to demonstrate its shortcomings in a more digestible fashion?

It's significantly less digestible. With an article I can skim it, read the sub-heads, determine if I want to read it in more detail or not, and read it fairly quickly. I can't do that with a video. I don't find them useful to the debate is all and I'm really baffled by who watches them (unless they're entertaining in their own right of course, but few people manage to pull that off).

[Kadayi]

No, but when someone links a video and just goes "this makes an interesting point" and it's 20 minutes long I'd rather they just tell me what that point is. And they're preaching to the converted, I can't see anyone like me who thinks the ending is okay is going to watch a 70 minute video of testimonials on why it's not.

Fair point I guess. It was late (I'm getting over back surgery atm so I've been keeping odd hours) and I thought it was kind of interesting in terms of listening to some of the retake movements opinions as people (rather than posters). I should really of prefaced it as to what it was. I apologise for not clarifying in that respect (too many forums...not enough time).

It's significantly less digestible. With an article I can skim it, read the sub-heads, determine if I want to read it in more detail or not, and read it fairly quickly. I can't do that with a video. I don't find them useful to the debate is all and I'm really baffled by who watches them (unless they're entertaining in their own right of course, but few people manage to pull that off).

I think it's a good way to crystallize your own thoughts, if nothing else.

[Theblazeuk]

It's significantly less digestible. With an article I can skim it, read the sub-heads, determine if I want to read it in more detail or not, and read it fairly quickly. I can't do that with a video. I don't find them useful to the debate is all and I'm really baffled by who watches them (unless they're entertaining in their own right of course, but few people manage to pull that off).

Fuck yes. This also applies to 99% of all the "my opinion/my conspiracy theory/my pet hates/my favourite thing" video diary/rants that are around, no matter what their topic is.

[Nalano]

Kadayi, I'm not entirely sure you can get through a whole post without misrepresenting somebody's argument and insulting them.

I'd love to tell you what I really think, but I'm pretty sure somebody would report it.

[deano2099]

Fair point I guess. It was late (I'm getting over back surgery atm so I've been keeping odd hours) and I thought it was kind of interesting in terms of listening to some of the retake movements opinions as people (rather than posters). I should really of prefaced it as to what it was. I apologise for not clarifying in that respect (too many forums...not enough time).

No worries, my comment was snarky but came a desire to engage with the debate but not having the time to invest in long vids just for the one interesting/different point they would make.

[Kadayi]

Kadayi, I'm not entirely sure you can get through a whole post without misrepresenting somebody's argument and insulting them.

I'd love to tell you what I really think, but I'm pretty sure somebody would report it.

Any particular reason for that left field commentary suddenly? Or are you intending to pull an Ansob and thought better of it but wanted to tell me anyway?

Anyway crazy rant (10 minutes) by some dude about Mass Effect 3, that isn't bizarrely about the ending but does feature some gem lines: -

[archonsod]

But really, all of this pales in comparison the simple fact that the catalyst/reapers are exceptionally stupid. They picked one of the worst possible ways to accomplish their goal, and even my primitive human brain can think of plenty of ways to preserve organic life with far less risk of synthetics taking over the world.

Like I said earlier though, the key difference between your human brain is that it actually understands organic life on a rather fundamental level (assuming you're not a sophisticated spambot or brain in a jar anyway). The Reapers on the other hand are machines. So to them, the solution may well make perfect sense - all they're doing essentially is compressing life and putting it in storage, which would be a pretty valid solution if your idea of organics were 'machines with slightly squishier surface area'.
You get a rather interesting mirror with Legion in ME2 when you discuss the idea of 'body' to the Geth. One of the conversation lines has Shepard struggling to grasp the idea that to the Geth, a 'body' is simply a vehicle which one or more 'drivers' (i.e. sentients) can climb into or out of at will.

Do we really have the infrastructure to suddenly go back to horse and cart without major fallout and consequence?

Some places in the UK are still dependent on the horse and cart for travel. I'm not saying it wouldn't be without consequence; it wouldn't however result in a complete collapse of civilisation. As we'll no doubt prove when the fuel strike kicks in.

(Fun fact the UK can only physically sustain about 6 -10 million people based on agricultural output..that's how reliant we are on modern day infrastructure).

Fun fact - the same has been true for around the past 400 years. That's why everyone since Napoleon has taken a "starve them out" approach to defeating Britain.

So you're basically saying the God Child is wrong? Because he's just told me that I'm a synthetic (rather than a cyborg) and I will die. God Child is never wrong.

Right. And weren't we arguing over the fact that in one of the cutscenes after the destroy ending Shepard is seen to be alive? So precisely where does the God Child derive this infallibility from precisely? The game demonstrates he's wrong about thirty seconds after you finish conversation with him!

Sure Shepard questions it, but if you recall back in ME2 TIM makes it clear that they need to bring Shepard back to as is, because they needed your knowledge and experience regarding the reapers and the proteans. If you were truly an AI simulation I'd of expected Miranda or TIM or someone to confirm it along the way by now.

Yes. One thing you may have noticed throughout the series is that TIM has this tendency to lie. Quite a lot. Even to his own people. Particularly when it means getting what he wants. He's nothing to gain from telling Shepard he's artificial, nor would it make sense for him to have told Miranda (remember that she, like most of the Normandy 2 crew, are hand-picked specifically to convince Shepard to work with Cerberus; TIM expected and anticipated they would defect so are hardly likely to have been entrusted with Cerberus' deepest secrets, no matter what they themselves might have believed).
And that's assuming that TIM even knows what Shepard is in the first place. In the video scene he simply tells the doctor to 'fix it'; the next thing we see it's been 'fixed'. The actual means by which this was achieved aren't specified, and there's no reason to think TIM would actually care enough to enquire - all he wants is a Shepard capable of doing the job he wants him to.

Please no more quote war posts.

Don't like it, don't read them. Problem solved.

[Kadayi]

Fun fact - the same has been true for around the past 400 years. That's why everyone since Napoleon has taken a "starve them out" approach to defeating Britain.

We didn't have a population of 60 million to support back then though. Up until the industrial revolution the UK population was around 6 million, after that with the increase in urbanisation and the migration of people to the Cities growth rates increased dramatically.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interac...ex_embed.shtml

Despite what you may think, our current population level isn't sustainable (and not by a long shot either) without the present infrastructure system to maintain it.

Some places in the UK are still dependent on the horse and cart for travel. I'm not saying it wouldn't be without consequence; it wouldn't however result in a complete collapse of civilisation. As we'll no doubt prove when the fuel strike kicks in.

1) Where? Apart from your imagination? 2) Indeed because after all it's not like if we run out of fuel that all the supermarkets won't be able to get their food delivered.......oh no wait that's totally what would happen and why the government, etc will have to cave on the oil strike issue.

Right. And weren't we arguing over the fact that in one of the cutscenes after the destroy ending Shepard is seen to be alive? So precisely where does the God Child derive this infallibility from precisely? The game demonstrates he's wrong about thirty seconds after you finish conversation with him!

Only if you've been a good boy and gathered all your war assets. You don't get that ending otherwise.

Yes. One thing you may have noticed throughout the series is that TIM has this tendency to lie. Quite a lot. Even to his own people. Particularly when it means getting what he wants. He's nothing to gain from telling Shepard he's artificial, nor would it make sense for him to have told Miranda (remember that she, like most of the Normandy 2 crew, are hand-picked specifically to convince Shepard to work with Cerberus; TIM expected and anticipated they would defect so are hardly likely to have been entrusted with Cerberus' deepest secrets, no matter what they themselves might have believed).

And that's assuming that TIM even knows what Shepard is in the first place. In the video scene he simply tells the doctor to 'fix it'; the next thing we see it's been 'fixed'. The actual means by which this was achieved aren't specified, and there's no reason to think TIM would actually care enough to enquire - all he wants is a Shepard capable of doing the job he wants him to.

All well and good apart from the fact that Miranda's been personally overseeing the Lazarus project as the Lead for the last two years, and knows Shepard like the back of her genetically perfect hand, so the notion that she's somehow blissfully unaware of Shepards true AI nature is a hard to take seriously as a claim. Let alone even if she did know, that having been given the cold shoulder by Cerberus she wouldn't tell you (even on her deathbed) the truth of things.

Don't like it, don't read them. Problem solved.

Although it's tempting to put you on ignore, someone's got to take you to task.

[DetCord]

Any particular reason for that left field commentary suddenly? Or are you intending to pull an Ansob and thought better of it but wanted to tell me anyway?

Anyway crazy rant (10 minutes) by some dude about Mass Effect 3, that isn't bizarrely about the ending but does feature some gem lines: -

I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thank you.

[Kadayi]

I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thank you.

I don't share his view that the game is terrible, but certain things like Allers & Kai Leng as well as the 'wtf in the galaxy am I supposed to go exactly?' points are all spot on...also just motormouth funny.

[DarthBenedict]

Like I said earlier though, the key difference between your human brain is that it actually understands organic life on a rather fundamental level (assuming you're not a sophisticated spambot or brain in a jar anyway). The Reapers on the other hand are machines. So to them, the solution may well make perfect sense - all they're doing essentially is compressing life and putting it in storage, which would be a pretty valid solution if your idea of organics were 'machines with slightly squishier surface area'.
You get a rather interesting mirror with Legion in ME2 when you discuss the idea of 'body' to the Geth. One of the conversation lines has Shepard struggling to grasp the idea that to the Geth, a 'body' is simply a vehicle which one or more 'drivers' (i.e. sentients) can climb into or out of at will.

I meant that more from a practical standpoint rather than ethical. The reapers were putting themselves in a whole lot of unnecessary danger by allowing organic life regularly develop to the point where it could start piecing together an anti reaper superweapon, rather than preserving it at a level where it was no threat. Even if they wanted advanced organic life (and nothing in the games provides any evidence of this), it would have been far safer to just leave one reaper around to become god king of a dune/40k style technophobic galactic empire and get the organics to suppress their own advancement.

Also, this motivation doesn't really fit with their earlier characterisation in the series. They acted like moustache twirling cartoon villains, not self appointed saviours. If Sovereign and Harbinger had lines like "You will transcend the flesh. Consent is irrelevant", this motivation would fit better. Instead, they seemed to enjoy gloating over the suffering of organics.

AI goes crazy and does strange things can make for a great story, but it works better for me when its an early prototype AI which hasn't had any time for bugs to be fixed a la HAL or skynet. Even here, where they AI superficially seems to be extremely advanced, it would make the ending a lot more coherent and satisfying. Unfortunately, if it was biowares intention they did not communicate it inside the game and for now it is merely good fanfic.

[Joseph-Sulphur]

Kadayi, I'm not entirely sure you can get through a whole post without misrepresenting somebody's argument and insulting them.

I'd love to tell you what I really think, but I'm pretty sure somebody would report it.

Talk about glass houses.

[Kadayi]

This is a long one, and visually it's just some guy talking into his webcam about the game, the overall story arc of the entire trilogy, the dropped ending and the actual ending, as well as how he's have had it played instead, but it's actually pretty good and he makes some very pertinent points: -

[Nalano]

Talk about glass houses.

I defy you to back up your claim.

[monk]

The problem isn't artistic integrity, the point that the end is not satisfying, negative bias, etc. It's that the ending is hardly affected by C&Cs made throughout the game. Additions to the game or more "clarity" regarding the ending will not fix that problem.

[Tritagonist]

Thanks for linking some of those video's Kadayi. I do think by now most of what is worth saying about the ending has been said, and, like that one video noted, it's obscuring some of the other valid points that can be made about the rest of the game; like the rather monotonous enemy goons.

Found the following on the BSN. Got to give the guy credit for being original.

[archonsod]

I meant that more from a practical standpoint rather than ethical. The reapers were putting themselves in a whole lot of unnecessary danger by allowing organic life regularly develop to the point where it could start piecing together an anti reaper superweapon, rather than preserving it at a level where it was no threat.

They're not - the Catalyst was built by the same race who built the Reapers; in effect it's a bit like the Romans modifying our nuclear weapons to work with catapults.
The practicality argument doesn't work. The Reapers are machines built for a purpose by someone; how much free will they actually have themselves is questionable. If their original creators coded them to swoop in and harvest life every 50 000 years, then that's what they're going to do, even if they themselves are aware of how stupid a plan it is.

Even if they wanted advanced organic life (and nothing in the games provides any evidence of this), it would have been far safer to just leave one reaper around to become god king of a dune/40k style technophobic galactic empire and get the organics to suppress their own advancement.

Yes, but again we're questioning the motivations of the builders of the Reapers, about whom we know nothing. They could well be, as you say, a prototype AI that's been out of control for millenia. It could be there was specific reasons they focused on advanced life, or a specific reason for the timing of the cycles. Unfortunately, whoever they were vanished an incredibly long time ago and the only things they left are the Reapers, who are unlikely to answer questions.

Also, this motivation doesn't really fit with their earlier characterisation in the series. They acted like moustache twirling cartoon villains, not self appointed saviours.

It does and it doesn't. The Reapers do indeed 'store' life which does fit in with the motivation. Thing is however there is no reason to assume the Reapers themselves are aware of any 'higher purpose'. It seems pretty clear they were designed to make use of terror and confusion (indoctrination et al) so perhaps the whole cartoon villain approach is simply another facet of that aspect. Or in other words, you code your reapers to hunt and consume as effectively as possible and simply design the process by which they do so to fulfil your goals.