MASS EFFECT 3- Was the ending bad enough to ruin THE ENTIRE GAME?

People actually defending the ending...

Sagem28

Spoilers after first sentence.

Boy , I'll miss Garrus and Miranda's ass , but on topic , the ending was kinda sad for me , abrupt of course and well , while it wasn't enough to ruin my favorite series it was bad.Don't know how an extended cut will save it , I mean , what could've happened in between the citadel that we missed , and if we did "miss something" it was something involving a barely playable injured shepard.

Wrong. And both games ARE comparable....they both had endings that had to be fixed because they lacked clarity and closure.texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="Peredith"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] First off, the Reapers cannot shut down all the Mass Relays, the Protheans sabatoged the Citadel in ME1 where they couldn't do it. And really in ME3 they only need the Citadel once TIM gave away the Crucible plans. Second, the Collector's....its clear they want to harvest humans....that is made apparant at the end of ME3, thats why they are at Earth. Third, the Reapers actually do go after the Crucible and if you take too long making the final choice, the Crucible will be destroyed. They just try an dstop you from reaching the Citadel at first. Fourth, The Catalyst plainly states that teh Crucible gave him new possibilties. Synthesis wasn't a solution to him until he saw the Crucible. Fifth, a Bioware employee called the Catalyst a "being of light"...see Klencory in both ME1 and ME3. And last, did you forget about the Overlord DLC in ME2? Where you have to stop rogue intellegence from taking over the galaxy?texasgoldrush

[spoiler] 1. The Protheans sabotaged the Keepers to not send the signal to Dark Space, not the Citadel.

2. The Collector arc was entirely pointless in my opinion. You can go from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 3 to continue the main plot.

3. So why are the Crucibles controls built into the Citadel? Saying "The Crucible changed me" doesn't explain anything. How did it change it? What is a "Being of Light"? A cheap Deus Ex Machina?

4. The Klencory codex entry about the Being of Light was obviously a reference to a VI (Vigil?) warning us about the Reapers invasion (Machine Devils). Unless you're implying the only foreshadowing of the Being of Light was an obscure codex entry from Mass Effect 1?

5. Rogue AI threatening to taking over the galaxy =/= will wipe out all organic life.

The Catalysts Solution is so farfetched, it's borderline troll logic.

And you never explained how the Solution stopped working because Shepard managed to meet the Catalyst (even though Shepard is practically dead before the Catalyst beams him up with that magical elevator.)

Why doesn't the Catalyst ignore Shepard and continue the cycle?

[/spoiler]

:?

The Collectors were specifically targeting humans because the original plot was a Human Reaper had the best chance to stop the Dark Energy spread. How does specially targeting humans tie in the with Technological Singularity twist?

And Jessica Merizen is a community manager. She knows as much as we do. She even said "presumebly". So please tell me, what is a "Being Of Light"? It looks like a supernatural being to me. Ghosts don't exist in a universe grounded in the Evolution Theory. :roll:

And the Catalyst says he created the cycle to prevent Synthetic life from wiping out all organic life. Are you honestly justifying the logic that killing trillions of people every 50,000 years to prevent synthetic life from possibly wiping out all organic life (remember, it's never happened, so presuming it will is a fallacy), is the most easiest solution the Catalyst could come up with? And again, why not just create giant synthetic killswitches in each star system to wipe out any rogue AI?

Why do they interfere with evolution by leaving tech behind to rapidly advance organic life to the Technological Stage? The real reason, due to the original plot, was because they needed to harvest most prospering, advance organic life in the shortest amount of time to fight the dark energy spread. Please explain why it'll make sense using the Technological Singularity twist.

Organic life might evolve without the need to create synthetic life, but due to the Reapers interfering, organic life will always end up creating synthetic life. :roll:

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]Wrong. And both games ARE comparable....they both had endings that had to be fixed because they lacked clarity and closure.SciFiRPGfan

Spoilers after first sentence.

Boy , I'll miss Garrus and Miranda's ass , but on topic , the ending was kinda sad for me , abrupt of course and well , while it wasn't enough to ruin my favorite series it was bad.Don't know how an extended cut will save it , I mean , what could've happened in between the citadel that we missed , and if we did "miss something" it was something involving a barely playable injured shepard.

RoOodriGowW

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Peredith"]

[spoiler] 1. The Protheans sabotaged the Keepers to not send the signal to Dark Space, not the Citadel.

2. The Collector arc was entirely pointless in my opinion. You can go from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 3 to continue the main plot.

3. So why are the Crucibles controls built into the Citadel? Saying "The Crucible changed me" doesn't explain anything. How did it change it? What is a "Being of Light"? A cheap Deus Ex Machina?

4. The Klencory codex entry about the Being of Light was obviously a reference to a VI (Vigil?) warning us about the Reapers invasion (Machine Devils). Unless you're implying the only foreshadowing of the Being of Light was an obscure codex entry from Mass Effect 1?

5. Rogue AI threatening to taking over the galaxy =/= will wipe out all organic life.

The Catalysts Solution is so farfetched, it's borderline troll logic.

And you never explained how the Solution stopped working because Shepard managed to meet the Catalyst (even though Shepard is practically dead before the Catalyst beams him up with that magical elevator.)

Why doesn't the Catalyst ignore Shepard and continue the cycle?

[/spoiler]

:?

Peredith

The Collectors were specifically targeting humans because the original plot was a Human Reaper had the best chance to stop the Dark Energy spread. How does specially targeting humans tie in the with Technological Singularity twist?

And Jessica Merizen is a community manager. She knows as much as we do. She even said "presumebly". So please tell me, what is a "Being Of Light"? It looks like a supernatural being to me. Ghosts don't exist in a universe grounded in the Evolution Theory. :roll:

And the Catalyst says he created the cycle to prevent Synthetic life from wiping out all organic life. Are you honestly justifying the logic that killing trillions of people every 50,000 years to prevent synthetic life from possibly wiping out all organic life (remember, it's never happened, so presuming it will is a fallacy), is the most easiest solution the Catalyst could come up with? And again, why not just create giant synthetic killswitches in each star system to wipe out any rogue AI?

Why do they interfere with evolution by leaving tech behind to rapidly advance organic life to the Technological Stage? The real reason, due to the original plot, was because they needed to harvest most prospering, advance organic life to fight the dark energy spread. Please explain why it'll make sense using the Technological Singularity twist.

Organic life might evolve without the need to create synthetic life, but due to the Reapers interfering, organic life will always end up creating synthetic life. :roll:

I can't believe you're defending this.....

If you were in a Council meeting discussing the possible Rogue AI threat, and another Council member said "I know, lets created a race of organic machines hybrids that wipe out advance organic life every 50,000 years, (killing trillions of people and stemming evolution to never pass that mark, making the fundemental purpose of life pointless), harvest them against their consent and make them continue the cycle in Reaper form, killing trillions upon trillions of their own kin, simply because synthetic life might wipe out all organic life", would you honestly say that's a good idea? Or would you call him batsh!t crazy?

I would laugh him out the door.

I can't believe you're defending this.....

If you were in a Council meeting discussing the possible Rogue AI threat, and another Council member said "I know, lets created a race of organic machines hybrids that wipe out advance organic life every 50,000 years, (killing trillions of people and stemming evolution to never pass that mark, making the fundemental purpose of life pointless), harvest them against their consent and make them continue the cycle in Reaper form, killing trillions upon trillions of their own kin, simply because synthetic life might wipe out all organic life", would you honestly say that's a good idea? Or would you call him batsh!t crazy?

I would laugh him out the door.

Peredith

it could just as easily be something that started and then evolved into something that the original creators didn't intend.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Wrong. And both games ARE comparable....they both had endings that had to be fixed because they lacked clarity and closure.texasgoldrush

wrong again,TW2 ends in a cliffhanger because they are continuing the franchise, mass effect 3 was promised to answer all questions and end the trilogy.

in b4 texas imaginary argument

I can't believe you're defending this.....

If you were in a Council meeting discussing the possible Rogue AI threat, and another Council member said "I know, lets created a race of organic machines hybrids that wipe out advance organic life every 50,000 years, (killing trillions of people and stemming evolution to never pass that mark, making the fundemental purpose of life pointless), harvest them against their consent and make them continue the cycle in Reaper form, killing trillions upon trillions of their own kin, simply because synthetic life might wipe out all organic life", would you honestly say that's a good idea? Or would you call him batsh!t crazy?

I would laugh him out the door.

Peredith

starchilds' logic, defiling whole trilogies since 2012

And also, Technological Singularity ties in with Saren as well....he wanted organics and synthetics to be one. Hell, the green ending was Saren's view what the future should be. Nevermind ME3's Klencory description is easily DLC bait.texasgoldrush

The synthesis ending makes no sense. If one takes what Javik says to heart, as you often want to do, the Zha'Til (the destructive machine rise during the Prothean time) were originally the Zha before implanting themselves with technology for whichever reason. The Reapers exploited that and managed to turn the Zha'til into a huge offensive threat - there is nothing stopping similar parties from subverting organic-techno races and still wiping out all life. Considering the rogue VI on Luna, the rogue AI on the Citadel, and the Geth's ascension to indepedent thought, the series doesn't instill much faith in a lasting peace.

Given that, combining mechanical and organical beings doesn't really do anything. It's another huge leap of logic: synthesizing organic and technological races MAY stop war, or it might not. Killing all organics ever 50,000 MAY stop them from destroying themselves, or it might not.

or that Mass Effect is a far more popular franchise and has a far greater legacy....I will give you the fan demand though, but TW2's endings were criticized as well. And really compare the old TW2 endings to the first game....TW1 had far better endgame and ending. And also take into acccount, the entirety of Act III was weaker than the rest of the game. They had to add to it. But both were dishonest about the number of varied endings the game has.texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] You've proven my point about you enough for one day, no need to continue.Krelian-co

wrong again,TW2 ends in a cliffhanger because they are continuing the franchise, mass effect 3 was promised to answer all questions and end the trilogy.

in b4 texas imaginary argument

Organic life might wipe themselves out by the time they evolve to the Nuclear stage. Lets create a looping cycle to kill all advance organic life before they can reach the Nuclear age :lol:

And again, why do the Reapers help advance organic life to the Technological Stage? It doesn't make sense. Why do they use the Geth against organic life, further egging on a Synthetic vs Organic conflict? Why don't they "cull" them before they reach the technological stage, completely iradicating the Synthetic threat?

Organic life might wipe themselves out by the time they evolve to the Nuclear stage. Lets create a looping cycle to kill all advance organic life before they can reach the Nuclear age :lol:

Peredith

Organic life might wipe themselves out by the time they evolve to the Nuclear stage. Lets create a looping cycle to kill all advance organic life before they can reach the Nuclear age :lol:

And again, why do the Reapers help advance organic life to the Technological Stage? It doesn't make sense. Why do they use the Geth against organic life, further egging on a Synthetic vs Organic conflict? Why don't they "cull" them before they reach the technological stage, completely iradicating the Synthetic threat?

Peredith

How does the Crucible change the Catalyst? No organic life knows it exists, so how did they create the Crucible to "change him"? A mere coincidence? :lol:

I thought it was a wonderful ending. I really dont see what people are getting so upset aboutIantheone

nope, the game was amazing. best game this year so farmems_1224

Short answer:

No

Long answer:

The ending wasn't even that bad. Fanboys need to stop being so butthurt. If an ending isn't perfect, that's no excuse to throw a hissy fit and DEMAND a new ending. Especially if the rest of the game is pretty good. The ending is only one small, sub-par part of an otherwise great game.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]nope, the game was amazing. best game this year so farlordreaven

Tales of Graces f would like to have a word with you two. :P

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]nope, the game was amazing. best game this year so farGeoffZak

Tales of Graces f would like to have a word with you two. :P

What annoys me most is that there will be no DLC set after the game, just during it, that's why the game rolls you back to before the Cerberus mission and gives you the oppurtunity to "Build Your Legend"

......I leave for a few months only to comeback and see the people are still talking about this over here?:shock:

I thought it was a wonderful ending. I really dont see what people are getting so upset aboutIantheone

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]I thought it was a wonderful ending. I really dont see what people are getting so upset aboutdreman999

......I leave for a few months only to comeback and see the people are still talking about this over here?:shock:

dreman999

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

......I leave for a few months only to comeback and see the people are still talking about this over here?:shock:

wis3boi

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="dreman999"]

......I leave for a few months only to comeback and see the people are still talking about this over here?:shock:

dreman999

Dremann999 you have returned...is your mourning period over? I must I was very worried thought you might have commited Harakiri:lol:

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="wis3boi"] Coincidence? No, you high tailed it when the indoc theory was shot down by bioware :lol:musalala

Dremann999 you have returned...is your mourning period over? I must I was very worried thought you might have commited Harakiri:lol:

I just did other things.....

http://social.bioware.com/1376675/blog/212630/

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12023755

But I'm not here to argue IT.....Being that BW has yet to say anything about it....

I think the fact Shepard and Anderson are being controled by TIM in the end of ME3 with Indoctrination is all the proff I need.;)

(Ps...I don't expect you to click those links...read them or comprehend them.)

The refined gunplay and skills were the best in the series, and some of the missions were absolutely stunning. Tuchanka and the shear number of permutations the developers put into that simply astounds me. That mission did a very good job of making it feel like it was my story. I only wish the final battle on Earth had done the same.

Speaking of other problems, Bioware did an absolutely terrible job with the sidequests. The collection sidequests were just tedious with very little reward because war assets*Galactic Readiness >5000 is apparently all that matters. The frustration in the sidequests was only exacerbated by the terrible journal; if I had already collected the artifact, the journal should tell me that. As others have said, I was also disappointed with the treatment of Mass Effect 2's characters; not a single one of the characters introduced in Mass Effect 2 could join my, giving inane excuses in most cases. The lack of a Krogan squad member also upset me.

The ending also pretty much means I'm not giving Bioware my money as a pre-order or day 1 purchase ever again. Either way you spin it (space child or indoctrination theory), the ending sucked. Space child was just utter nonsense. Indoctrination theory means I purchased an incomplete game. In my game, Shepard would have survived indoctrination and was last seen taking a breath while the war was still raging. Then, the credits roll followed by some talk about The Shepard. That's like ending Star Wars with Luke being tortured by the Emperor, cutting to the credits, and then ending with a scene of two New Republic senators talking about how great The Skywalker was.

I would believe the Indoc theory, but after what they did with Talis picture, the huge amount of bugs, cutting corners, ect, the ending is just rushed, so they had to tack on some nonsensical Deus Ex Machina.

dreman in serious damage control :lol:

dreman in serious damage control :lol:

wis3boi

Nah..
He's just spewing his indoctrination theory again like some freaking cultist.

It's quite sad, really. Some people just can't seem to accept the fact that the ending is just plain sh*t, no strings attached, no hidden messages.
Just pure sh*t.

dreman in serious damage control :lol:

wis3boi

I would believe the Indoc theory, but after what they did with Talis picture, the huge amount of bugs, cutting corners, ect, the ending is just rushed, so they had to tack on some nonsensical Deus Ex Machina.

Peredith

agreed

The indoctrination theory is false, bioware confirmed this they have explicitly said they aren"t changing the ending just giving clarification and are not adding any new endings.They knew the endings were crap but Like DA2 they hoped the backlash would be minor, boy were they wrong.

At this point I Have zero faith in bioware, its all just PR double talk mixed with smoke and mirrors..Pffft "16 differnt endings with wildly differnet conclusions"

Bumping with some biowaru lulz

Classic Bioware "choices matter" moment:

Bumping with some biowaru lulz

Classic Bioware "choices matter" moment:

Sagem28

LOL the casey hudson tweet about colours expalins alot:lol:

I still don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand the Reapers' motivation. They rid the galaxy of organics. so they can't create synthetics that destroys every species in the galaxy. What is it that's so hard to understand about this!? Seriously?

If the Reapers didn't kill off every advanced species every 50.000 years:

1. Organics create synthetics.

2. Synthetics gets out of control, and starts killing their creators.

3. Synthetics keeps multiplying, and starts to move throughout the galaxy, destroying everything they come across.

4. They keep doing this, until they're the only one left. Organic life is doomed, forever.

If the Reapers DOES kill off every advanced species every 50.000 years:

1. Organics create synthetics.

2. Synthetics gets out of control, but before they start moving through the galaxy killing everything, the Reapers appear.

3. The Reapers kill off every advanced organic species, so that they won't create anymore of these out-of-control synthetics.

4. Primitive lifeforms on other planets gets to evolve because of this.

Now, I don't know why the Reapers didn't appear before the Geth started fighting the Quarians. Maybe the Reapers knew that the Geth would be defeated eventually. What's important, is that during the cycle in the games, no species has created any synthetics powerful enough to wipe out all advanced organic life. But if the Reapers had waited another 50.000 years, they might have done that, and all the underdeveloped primitive would get killed before they even get a chance to evolve.

They 'save' the galaxy by killing the species that has the potential to create these dangerous synthetics.

I still don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand the Reapers' motivation. They rid the galaxy of organics. so they can't create synthetics that destroys every species in the galaxy. What is it that's so hard to understand about this!? Seriously.

001011000101101

Why not simply destroy the synthetics instead? The Reapers leave synthetics untouched, which would seem to run counter to their stated goal. Synthetics have indefinite lifespans and could persist into the next cycle to threaten future organic species! Destroying organics while leaving synthetics alone is not conducive to the stated purpose of the Reapers.

His argument is logically fallacious. A synthetic intelligence possesses the same self-determination as an organic and is therefore not predisposed to any particular behavior simply by virtue of his physiological makeup. It is equally as likely, if not more so, that organics kill other organics. "Chaos" resulting from intra-organic conflict is far more prevalent and persistent than any conflict between synthetics and organics.

The only instance of synthetic-organic conflict in this "cycle" was a result of heinous acts on the part of organics - the Quarians' enslavement and subsequent attempted genocide of the Geth. Despite the irrational hostility towards the Geth these organics displayed, the Geth deliberately chose to allow the Quarians to flee Rannoch because they no longer posed a threat. The game contains an entire mission meant to convey the docile nature of the Geth to the player. The only instances in which a Geth ever harmed an organic for reasons other than self-defense were under influence from the Reapers. In other words, the only instance of the problem the Reapers exist to solve was a result of the Reapers intentionally causing the problem that they exist to solve. This makes absolutely no sense.

Everything the Starchild says directly contradicts all other previously established plot points and facts.

I still don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand the Reapers' motivation. They rid the galaxy of organics. so they can't create synthetics that destroys every species in the galaxy. What is it that's so hard to understand about this!? Seriously?

If the Reapers didn't kill off every advanced species every 50.000 years:

1. Organics create synthetics.

2. Synthetics gets out of control, and starts killing their creators.

3. Synthetics keeps multiplying, and starts to move throughout the galaxy, destroying everything they come across.

4. They keep doing this, until they're the only one left. Organic life is doomed, forever.

If the Reapers DOES kill off every advanced species every 50.000 years:

1. Organics create synthetics.

2. Synthetics gets out of control, but before they start moving through the galaxy killing everything, the Reapers appear.

3. The Reapers kill off every advanced organic species, so that they won't create anymore of these out-of-control synthetics.

4. Primitive lifeforms on other planets gets to evolve because of this.

Now, I don't know why the Reapers didn't appear before the Geth started fighting the Quarians. Maybe the Reapers knew that the Geth would be defeated eventually. What's important, is that during the cycle in the games, no species has created any synthetics powerful enough to wipe out all advanced organic life. But if the Reapers had waited another 50.000 years, they might have done that, and all the underdeveloped primitive would get killed before they even get a chance to evolve.

They 'save' the galaxy by killing the species that has the potential to create these dangerous synthetics.

001011000101101

Why only kill organics then, why not wipe out synthetics as well, Not to mention the fact that the reapers appear to be egging on the synthetics to kill the organics and triggering the war in the first place. The war between organics and synthetics may not always be inevitable.

Also circular logic

[QUOTE="001011000101101"]

I still don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand the Reapers' motivation. They rid the galaxy of organics. so they can't create synthetics that destroys every species in the galaxy. What is it that's so hard to understand about this!? Seriously.

Why not simply destroy the synthetics instead? The Reapers leave synthetics untouched, which would seem to run counter to their stated goal. Synthetics have indefinite lifespans and could persist into the next cycle to threaten future organic species! Destroying organics while leaving synthetics alone is not conducive to the stated purpose of the Reapers.

His argument is logically fallacious. A synthetic intelligence possesses the same self-determination as an organic and is therefore not predisposed to any particular behavior simply by virtue of his physiological makeup. It is equally as likely, if not more so, that organics kill other organics. "Chaos" resulting from intra-organic conflict is far more prevalent and persistent than any conflict between synthetics and organics.

The only instance of synthetic-organic conflict in this "cycle" was a result of heinous acts on the part of organics - the Quarians' enslavement and subsequent attempted genocide of the Geth. Despite the irrational hostility towards the Geth these organics displayed, the Geth deliberately chose to allow the Quarians to flee Rannoch because they no longer posed a threat. The game contains an entire mission meant to convey the docile nature of the Geth to the player. The only instances in which a Geth ever harmed an organic for reasons other than self-defense were under influence from the Reapers. In other words, the only instance of the problem the Reapers exist to solve was a result of the Reapers intentionally causing the problem that they exist to solve. This makes absolutely no sense.

Everything the Starchild says directly contradicts all other previously established plot points and facts.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

dreman in serious damage control :lol:

Sagem28

Nah..
He's just spewing his indoctrination theory again like some freaking cultist.

It's quite sad, really. Some people just can't seem to accept the fact that the ending is just plain sh*t, no strings attached, no hidden messages.
Just pure sh*t.

He asked. I'm not here to prove it ether.I just showing that the theory is far from dead. And besides....

http://www.holdtheline.com/threads/do-you-believe-in-the-indoctrination-theory.1909/

It's not like BW hasn't been hinting it.;)