Co-Optimus

[Biohzrd451]

Anyone else though pisses about the massive amount of disregard Bioware had for their own Lore?

Spoiler: show

In Mass effect Sovereign tells us their purpose is something organics cannot comprehend yet in ME 3 it boils down to this Also in ME2 the Arrival DLC when Shepard destroys the Mass Relay it creates a super nova that wipes out the system.... so therefore the ending of ME3 would have Shepard wiping more life quicker than the Reapers ever could. Also WTF was Joker doing making a Relay jump when the battle for earth is going down?

[Macrocephalus]

Anyone else though pisses about the massive amount of disregard Bioware had for their own Lore?

Spoiler: show

In Mass effect Sovereign tells us their purpose is something organics cannot comprehend yet in ME 3 it boils down to this Also in ME2 the Arrival DLC when Shepard destroys the Mass Relay it creates a super nova that wipes out the system.... so therefore the ending of ME3 would have Shepard wiping more life quicker than the Reapers ever could. Also WTF was Joker doing making a Relay jump when the battle for earth is going down?

I don't think that's inherently bothersome. If you look around the real world, plenty of people essentially argue that

Spoiler: show

"to save the <whatever> we have to destroy the <whatever>"

for many different values of <whatever>. (Does that even count as a spoiler?) So the logic (if you can call it that) is hardly unique, though I would've liked to see its true nature addressed a bit more directly. As to the destruction of

Spoiler: show

the mass relays, I'm willing to accept that the designers would have known how to pull it off in a much less collaterally damaging fashion, though presumably trade disruption would still cause a lot of suffering, and loads of aliens would be stuck in the Sol system and its immediate vicinity effectively forever.

That leaves the issue of the penultimate scene, in which

Spoiler: show

Joker tries to evade the blast front of the nearest mass relay's destruction and then crash-lands on some unspecified planet, seemingly with the whole surviving crew aboard.

And yeah, that makes no sense at all. What the hell, did galactic civilization suddenly develop Star Trek transporters at the last second?

EDIT: Another thing I forgot to mention in earlier posts about that first issue occurred to me, though.

Spoiler: show

The whole "order vs chaos" thing the catalyst entity talked about is a bunch of crap. Regularly trashing galactic civilization doesn't promote "order". A truly, maximally "ordered" galaxy would probably require a single sentience governing everything with no other sentient entities present at all, and that sentience would most likely have to be synthetic to exist and function in the first place. And certainly synthetic creatures and societies could be more orderly than biological ones driven by conflicting urges and compulsions evolved under highly disparate and generally no-longer-relevant conditions. So it's arguable that letting synthetics wipe out organics might, at least eventually, actually lead to more "order" and less "chaos".

The argument, such as it is, actually has nothing to do with the window-dressing terms "order" and "chaos". It's simply that in the estimation of the catalyst (and, probably, its creators) allowing organic civilization to develop unchecked would surely result in organic civilizations' synthetic creations rebelling and exterminating all organic life for good, and that regularly culling galactic civilization was, despite its violence and collateral damage, less harmful to the long-term prospects of organic life in general than allowing the unchecked growth and development of synthetics.

You can at least have a reasoned debate about that, whereas nebulous, abstract and highly malleable terms like the two used at the end of the game can mean just about anything to just about anyone.

[justabaldguy]

There are a few reasons for this.

Those are good reasons, and yes clearly none are new. The "doom and gloom" has been around longer than RPGs themselves. For me, the end of Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas were more enjoyable than the "it's the end of the world if we fail" endings of the Gears of War, Halos, and ME3 games. It's just personal taste now, and I'm risking derailing the thread so I'll stop here, but I enjoy the smaller scale big endings than the end of life big endings.

Another gripe I could mention is the idea of the one race terrifying to all others. Reapers in ME, the aforementioned Flood in Halo, Borg in Star Trek, etc. There are parallels here to other groups too naturally, in real life or mythologies. Perhaps there's a valley now where we've reached the "there is nothing new under the sun" limitations of endless plots and characters. It can still be enjoyable of course, though again I'd like to see new ground broken.

Better bring this ship back on course, I saw executive producer Casey Hudson say this about the ME3 ending on a Joystiq article:
"I didn't want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people -- debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in -- that to me is part of what's exciting about this story."

Agree? Disagree?

[Macrocephalus]

Better bring this ship back on course, I saw executive producer Casey Hudson say this about the ME3 ending on a Joystiq article:
"I didn't want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people -- debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in -- that to me is part of what's exciting about this story."

Agree? Disagree?

In the general sense, I like huge-stakes stories well enough, particularly when the stakes turn on interesting ideas. The Mass Effect kinda sorta qualifies in that regard — there are some interesting ideas, but also some stupid ones, and the writing is uneven.

As to the Hudson quote… mystery is important, so in a larger sense he's right, but again, the execution was seriously flawed. Some measure of mystery — some sense that the world of the story is larger and deeper than the story taking place within it and that not every corner of the world has been exposed to light and not every room and cavern has been explored — is, I think, essential to an epic story's enduring appeal. But writers can't just punt and leave vital, central elements of the story unexplained, or everything just winds up feeling arbitrary, like it happened by fiat and for no particular reason other than authorial ineptitude.

Lost is a great example of what not to do in that regard. The end of the series largely gave us solid conclusions to the characters' personal stories, but it did absolutely nothing to wrap up the show's larger mythological understructure. The whole mythology wound up feeling like a random bunch of crap, making the show, in the end, feel like a huge con job, even though large parts of it were genuinely excellent, particularly when considered in a narrower, more local context.

I actually think The Lord of the Rings trilogy — the books, not the movies — provides an excellent counterexample of how to cultivate and maintain mystery without undermining narrative satisfaction in the least. Everything we see transpire over the course of the narrative feels complete and internally consistent and makes sense in terms of the characters involved, and yet while we understand the overall gist of the larger mythology and it seems internally consistent and fairly utilized rather than feeling like an arbitrary, random collection of ad hoc cheats, there's still a lot that's left unexplained. What exactly is Gandalf, for example? What is the secret flame of Anor? Exactly what happened in Dol Goldur? What precisely compels the elves to leave Middle Earth after the destruction of the One Ring? And so on and so forth. There are a great deal of un-explicated references that feel fair and consistent with what we know of the world and with each other, and which thus serve to make the world feel much larger and deeper than the picture we'd get from focusing solely on what happens directly to the characters in the course of the narrative. And yet for all the remaining mysteries, the central narrative is effectively and comprehensively resolved.

The creators of Lost didn't need to explain every last detail of the show's mythology. If they had, they would've reduced it, made it seem small and made-up. But they did need to explain some things.

The problem with Mass Effect 3 is that the developers didn't explain the right things or enough of them, and a number of the things they explained weren't explained in a satisfactory way. Not to mention that some of what happens is actually inconsistent with other elements of the the story.

Spoiler: show

Joker and Shepard's allies suddenly being on the Normandy at the end is a trivial but perfect example. It makes absolutely no sense, but rather than posing an intriguing mystery, it just feels like gross authorial sloppiness.

I could imagine an alternate version of ME3 in which the full nature and implications of synthetic-organic synthesis wasn't explained in detail but was only hinted at by the game's coda(s), but the version we got doesn't even remotely qualify. Joker's "transformation", which apparently has no practical impact on him, is silly and doesn't embody any actual change, and the far-future coda is completely unaffected by Shepard's final choice. The differences in both should have been substantial, especially in the latter one.

So I agree in principle, but the people behind the Mass Effect series made a real hash of it in practice.

[Silentstriderm]

The problem with Mass Effect 3 is that the developers didn't explain the right things or enough of them, and a number of the things they explained weren't explained in a satisfactory way. Not to mention that some of what happens is actually inconsistent with other elements of the the story.

Very well put. It felt to me as if they plotted the ending from the start of the trilogy, and in the time between inception and execution they strayed away from that motif, and snapped back at the end of ME3. The elements were always present, but never fully expressed in any of the games, especially not two or three.

Spoiler: show

It was always much more focused on the big bad monster in the shadows then the conflict between synthetics and organics. You can even ally with the Geth for crying out loud! Why paint the Geth as sympathetic figures, let me "fix" them, then turn around and tell me what I have already done is impossible?

[Macrocephalus]

It was always much more focused on the big bad monster in the shadows then…

Spoiler: show

the conflict between synthetics and organics. You can even ally with the Geth for crying out loud! Why paint the Geth as sympathetic figures, let me "fix" them, then turn around and tell me what I have already done is impossible?

Focusing attention on a foreground conflict when the real conflict is elsewhere can be a great technique, though, especially when the two are thematically and narratively related, as they are in the Mass Effect series. That said, obviously I don't think Mass Effect's developers did a good job with this, or I wouldn't have spent so much time spilling blood on the subject here on the forums. As to the impossibility issue, though…

Spoiler: show

I don't think that's a problem, per se. The catalyst is saying that in its experience, the development of synthetic AIs by organic life always eventually results in conflict between the two, and that sooner or later, this process, if left unchecked, will result in the extirpation of organic life by synthetic. I'm not sure if the catalyst is suggesting that every single synthetic species will eventually turn on its makers and then, if given the chance, on all organic life, but it doesn't necessarily matter. As long as organic life survives any given iteration of organic-synthetic conflict, there's the chance for more synthetic life to be created, but if a synthetic species wins any given war and then exterminates all organics, there'll never be any more organic species, at least as long as the winning synthetic one endures. So even if any given conflict turns out well for organics, or even ends in friendship and alliance, as Shepard has the potential to achieve with the Geth, the long-term danger would persist.

I think this is entirely consistent with the catalyst warning that some of Shepard's possible uses for the crucible will end in disaster. The catalyst believes, rightly or wrongly, that if Shepard simply destroys the Reapers (as well as the Geth, and EDI, and most high technology in the galaxy) some new strain of synthetic life will eventually be created and then go on to destroy all organic life. I also got the distinct impression that the catalyst believed the same would happen if Shepard merely used the crucible to send the Reapers away — that even if the Geth themselves wouldn't go on the warpath against organics, some future synthetic species eventually would.

But the point is also that the completion of the crucible has at long last given organic life a new way to break the Reaper cycle that would actually work — synthesis between organic and synthetic life. Thus, what was impossible before, or at least what was considered impossible by the catalyst and probably its creators, has now become possible.

There are some fascinating moral dilemmas there that could be dramatized by good writing and game design. It really is too bad the series missed so much of the mark, but at least some of the developers really seem to have been trying to do something meaningful, which is more than you can say of most.

[Mrxknown_JG]

Finished the game last night. Boy do I wish I lived in a bubble. With talk of the ending and what, I feel I can only react to people's complaints than to have a more natural reaction to the ending and not the discussion of the ending.

I definitely noticed the similarities with DX:HR as I own that game. However, ME3 doesn't allow you to save during that last mission so you have a lot of work to do to get to the choice of different endings. In DX:HR, I just saved in the room with the three options so experiencing the endings was very easy.

One point I have to say in terms of what Casey Hudson said. Yes, it's good to have a memorable ending and one that gets people talking. But...BUT...having an ending that gives more questions than answers is ridiculous. Aside from the actual plot holes, we don't see what the immediate consequence of our actions.

At the end of Return of the Jedi, we see the Empire destroyed and the rebellion succeeded. Characters are in love, resolution to Luke's journey and understanding of the Force, and no doomsday weapon anymore. It was satisfying (outside of the ewoks).

But the galaxy as a whole wasn't changed so dramatically to the point where at one moment carbon-based lifeforms are talking and then suddenly they are all copper-based or space travel technology no longer works. We leave the Star Wars films at the end knowing the basics remain, but the politically situation has changed hands. But overall the basic truths were have been told remain the same.

In ME3:

Spoiler: show

you just make a choice and game-over no epilogue or explanation on whether the Krogan indeed went to war with the galaxy again or what have you.

The choices are made and then the credits roll.

It's true, that the Synthetic vs. organic was the focus of ME, but in ME2 the topic of synthetic's conflict with organic's was only touched in two/three missions. (What the hell was going on with Haelstrom's star anyway?)

I maintain my belief that BioWare should have spent more time on ME3 than 2 years or less.

[CoopBob]

I finished the game earlier this week and like a lot of people I thought it was an overall poor showing by BioWare. It had some good moments, for example I really enjoyed the last battle up to the actual end story.

I don't have much to add over and above what other posters have already gone over. I think what let me down the most is that I had always hoped ME would evolve wholly with each game and that didn't really happen. I feel like the whole moral choice thing and dialogue wheel just became over simplified and my choices didn't really matter in this game. The only ramifications with your dialogue choices were a) Be polite b) Be a jerk c) ask for more information and then choose a or b.

Bio's earlier "Yo dawg!" meme post pretty much sums up how I felt during the end sequence. I really wish I had a camera rolling just to capture my wtf expression as it unfolded. I suppose a lot of people enjoyed but I thought it was just really lame and not original, deep, or thought provoking in the least. Sure you don't want it to be forgettable and for people to keep talking about the ending but it shouldn't be because of how awful it was.

With that said, I've read today that BioWare is indeed working on alternate endings to satisfy all us disappointed fans and surprisingly I don't agree. I kinda feel that what's done is done and it wouldn't satisfy me to have another ending. I'm not big on "games as art" but I do think that this was the creators' vision and story that they wanted to tell and it should be left there. I didn't like it. I think they made a lousy finish to a good franchise, but so what? It should be a learning experience for all involved and move on. BioWare gets a chance to improve their game creation in the future if they choose to, and I will be more wary to buy their future products. That's kinda just how it works.

[Mrxknown_JG]

Here's another point I wanted to make. They essentially told the same story as Battlestar Galactica just without a huge emphasis on the whole synthetics vs. organics theme.

[Macrocephalus]

Here's another point I wanted to make. They essentially told the same story as Battlestar Galactica just without a huge emphasis on the whole synthetics vs. organics theme.

Yeah, and with slightly more explanation of "god" / the version of #6 in Baltar's head but with substantially less excellence in other areas. Good point.

[Biohzrd451]

I read the original leaked ending which was taken out of the game and the explanation why the reapers wiped out civilization made more sense in that it had to do with Dark Energy which was alluded to in ME2 when you rescued Tali from the Geth infested planet and overall made more sense.

I've read a few quotes from the write of ME3 and his explanation of why they ended the game like they did is bizarre one of his quotes had im saying that players didn't need the closure or something along those lines. I really wish they nailed a homerun with the ending on three because I can't help but here awesome stories about the journey through ME3 only to be let down by the ending.

[CoopBob]

I read the original leaked ending which was taken out of the game and the explanation why the reapers wiped out civilization made more sense in that it had to do with Dark Energy which was alluded to in ME2 when you rescued Tali from the Geth infested planet and overall made more sense.

I've read a few quotes from the write of ME3 and his explanation of why they ended the game like they did is bizarre one of his quotes had im saying that players didn't need the closure or something along those lines. I really wish they nailed a homerun with the ending on three because I can't help but here awesome stories about the journey through ME3 only to be let down by the ending.

It's funny, when I started this thread I didn't actually intend it to focus on the negatives. The game just did a few things that bothered me right off the bat, and then that made me just focus in on all of its faults. You're right though, there are a lot of good bits mixed in. When you do finally pick it up it's not like it's a total loss or anything.

You're also right with the change in endings. It would have been much better to create an ending that incorporates things you learn throughout the first two games. Personally, I hate endings where the writer goes "Surprise! I just thought of all this random stuff that wasn't mentioned previously and no one could have possibly thought of and therefore I've just blown your mind with this super secret ending that gives no closure and totally unsatisfying but somehow that makes it a smart ending!!"

[Mrxknown_JG]

I read the original leaked ending which was taken out of the game and the explanation why the reapers wiped out civilization made more sense in that it had to do with Dark Energy which was alluded to in ME2 when you rescued Tali from the Geth infested planet and overall made more sense.

I've read a few quotes from the write of ME3 and his explanation of why they ended the game like they did is bizarre one of his quotes had im saying that players didn't need the closure or something along those lines. I really wish they nailed a homerun with the ending on three because I can't help but here awesome stories about the journey through ME3 only to be let down by the ending.

It's funny, when I started this thread I didn't actually intend it to focus on the negatives. The game just did a few things that bothered me right off the bat, and then that made me just focus in on all of its faults. You're right though, there are a lot of good bits mixed in. When you do finally pick it up it's not like it's a total loss or anything.

You're also right with the change in endings. It would have been much better to create an ending that incorporates things you learn throughout the first two games. Personally, I hate endings where the writer goes "Surprise! I just thought of all this random stuff that wasn't mentioned previously and no one could have possibly thought of and therefore I've just blown your mind with this super secret ending that gives no closure and totally unsatisfying but somehow that makes it a smart ending!!"

You're right that the ending came out of nowhere. Thanks BioHzrd451 for that original ending. That made more sense then anything else. I wondered what ever happened to that star. It's in ME3, but no references are made toward it.

The ending should have been built, not by the player's decisions, but by elements from the previous games like Dark Energy. The whole synthetics vs. organics, isn't a big theme in the series. It's referenced and character deal with it. But for the larger arc of the story it's hardly mentioned that Reapers are machines and more about the lack of evidence that they exist.

[Macrocephalus]

You're right that the ending came out of nowhere. Thanks BioHzrd451 for that original ending. That made more sense then anything else. I wondered what ever happened to that star. It's in ME3, but no references are made toward it.

The ending should have been built, not by the player's decisions, but by elements from the previous games like Dark Energy. The whole synthetics vs. organics, isn't a big theme in the series. It's referenced and character deal with it. But for the larger arc of the story it's hardly mentioned that Reapers are machines and more about the lack of evidence that they exist.

Granted, I only played 2 and 3, but to me, an ending involving synthetics and organics seems like it was well founded in the games even if the endings themselves weren't good, whereas this dark energy thing seems like a bizarre and arbitrary idea that's completely out of left field and doesn't really have any deeper philosophical underpinnings. FWIW.

[CoopBob]

Granted, I only played 2 and 3, but to me, an ending involving synthetics and organics seems like it was well founded in the games even if the endings themselves weren't good, whereas this dark energy thing seems like a bizarre and arbitrary idea that's completely out of left field and doesn't really have any deeper philosophical underpinnings. FWIW.

Ya, man vs. machine was definitely a heavy theme in the games. I'm going to blatantly talk about the ending here, so if for some reason you're still reading this thread and don't want spoilers, don't keep reading.

Something I wasn't totally clear on was whether life had to be wiped out by Reapers because life was chaos, etc and the Reapers brought things back to square one and stability for the galaxy? Or, life created machines that were going to be "evil" and wipe everything out regardless of good intentions and the ending was inevitable? I mean, one of the choices was to destroy robots now but it didn't matter because future generations would build robots that were going to wipe them out anyway...

[Mrxknown_JG]

Or so the logic goes. But CoopBob it is actually both that you mentioned. The

Spoiler: show

Reapers were created because organic life will always create machines that inevitably attack their masters. So it's chaos and the Reapers destroy advanced civilizations every so often by reaping them and creating Reapers in their image or just to add to their collective.

The Reapers are made up of millions (or just a lot) of AI. It's possible by how the child stated it, that the Reapers take a significant portion of the population and adds them to their thought processes so they effectively become apart of the order and still live.

However, the Geth are proof that they do not attack organics until organics attack them. But a portion of them did believe in following Sovereign but not all Geth wanted to fight organics. So the logic is flawed. Besides, the Star Child is an AI, correct? Then how come it doesn't want to destroy all organics, but wants to "save" life.

BTW, BioWare have announced free DLC called an Extended Cut for Mass Effect 3. Coming sometime in the summer.