As I said above, I didn't have an issue with the ending, I only wanted to know the history of the citadel/reapers.
Starting with Arrival DLC, I thought Shepard was being indoctrinated. You could tell throughout ME3 too. I just read this article and everything listed in it was what I was seeing (video included). So, if you think you were screwed out of an ending, you are wrong.
Yes, there is probably a DLC to continue the ending. Why? Because you did not actually destroy the Reapers. Yes, all endings you "wake up". You are not dead for choosing control or choosing synthesis. You wake up fully indoctrinated. If you choose to destroy the Reapers, you wake up as Shepard. Take careful notice of where you wake up....you are in the rubble of the conduit with the beam still functioning.
Now, imagine the DLC for this - it has the potential to branch off into two paths - you awaken as a fully indoctrinated Shepard, the baddest mother fucker in the galaxy, now serving as a Reaper agent, or you wake up still able to tell the Reapers to fuck off and continue the path to destroy them.
To me, that sounds like worthy DLC.
to me its sound like a desperated try to grab more money
I agree they want more money. I didn't say that. However, you could say the same thing for each part of the game. Why didn't they just complete the entire series in one game instead of a trilogy? Money? Time? Story?
I think the most disappointing part of the ending (assuming there is no Indoc theory or other rewrite) is that those 10 minutes practically errases, what I thought, a brilliant series of games.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
It's ok! That is what $10-$15 DLC is for! And I am also sure that there will be oodles and oodles of it! Lucky you guys!
Actually XBox is making a change to the amount of DLC a title can have. IIRC it is going to be 4 updates. Now I am unsure if this is updates that add acheivements, or stuff like weapon packs also.
Also I am not sure if it said per yr.....or per title.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
please explain to me in detail the problems with the ending, without words like 'sucked', and the like.
This is personally for me the straw that borke the camels back
Also SPOILERS:
In "The Arrival" DLC for ME2 we saw a Mass Effect Relay (MER) get destroyed and go Supernova (taking out the whole solar system including the sun). Additionally we had that fact sprinkled thorugh all of the DLC and other games. This is a continuity fact.
In all the endings of ME3 the Mass Effect Relay-network gets destroyed (afaik you see them blow up in all endings) taking out every star-system that a Mass Effect Relay was in.
But we also know that MER are almost exclusively in systems where life is because a. it makes the job of the reapers easier and b. you cant reach star-systems via ME-universe FTL in reasonable times, so colonies do not get established outside the MER-network.
Given these facts, all endings erradicate all sapient life in the galaxy, no matter if its by the reapers or all MERs going supernova. Ergo no matter what you choose, it does not change the end-result and actually -accomplishes- the goal of the reapers (erradicating all life in the galaxy).
The only consolation-prize (in 100% completion mode) is the Normandy that got forced out of a jump and crashes on a planet, making the crew of the normandy the -only- surivors of the galaxy (which will not continue to survive due to civilization-bottle-necking, inbreeding and a too small population-size).
This is not a bitter-sweet ending, this is the "bad" ending in 3 variations.
Everyone is dead, or soon will be, so what did your choices and your struggles matter? Nothing.
With 10 minutes of cutscenes you invalidated 100+ hours of playtime across three games.
This isn't even LOST, at least there The Island didn't go supernova and explode the Earth and kill everyone.
I have nothing about tragic endings for a protagonist and his companions, but killing off -EVERYONE-? Complete and utter ARMAGEDDON? Ending -ALL LIFE-?
Thats not dark and edgy, its sadistic.
how is it sadistic?
sadistic means taking pleasure in cruelty.
the story was about doomsday in space. they never hid that. it is understandable if everyone dies during doomsday, since that is part of what the term means, and people played the entire series under the threat of extintion.
the 'kid' was a sentient creator being. the reapers are his cleaning utensils (angels). because of the choices Shepard made, sapien life was re-introduced into the next repeating cycle of the universe. (as seen by the man telling the legend to his child)
there is the scientific theory of the universe going through a 'big crunch' where after it is finished expanding, it will implode back to nothing, and then, repeat the 'big bang'. the word Ouroborus (can) represents this, as a snake eating its own tail. it represents a repeating cycle, just like the reapers doing their work.
again, through the entire series, no matter what you did, it was all about proving to 'god' that humanity was worthy of existing in the next cycle. that is not sadistic. nor is it 'dark and edgy'. it is profound.
i see a lot of people say things like- 'oh, we understand the ending, we just think *****"- but the thing is, i really don't think some people understand it at all. sure, they see what happened, but they lack the knowledge (occult/religious most of it) to have any clue what it represents. and i'm not trying to be rude or belittle anyone. i'm just shocked that such concepts are beyond people who play fantasy/sci-fi rpgs, which have always had strong allusions to religion/mythology.
please explain to me in detail the problems with the ending, without words like 'sucked', and the like.
This is personally for me the straw that borke the camels back
Also SPOILERS:
In "The Arrival" DLC for ME2 we saw a Mass Effect Relay (MER) get destroyed and go Supernova (taking out the whole solar system including the sun). Additionally we had that fact sprinkled thorugh all of the DLC and other games. This is a continuity fact.
In all the endings of ME3 the Mass Effect Relay-network gets destroyed (afaik you see them blow up in all endings) taking out every star-system that a Mass Effect Relay was in.
But we also know that MER are almost exclusively in systems where life is because a. it makes the job of the reapers easier and b. you cant reach star-systems via ME-universe FTL in reasonable times, so colonies do not get established outside the MER-network.
Given these facts, all endings erradicate all sapient life in the galaxy, no matter if its by the reapers or all MERs going supernova. Ergo no matter what you choose, it does not change the end-result and actually -accomplishes- the goal of the reapers (erradicating all life in the galaxy).
The only consolation-prize (in 100% completion mode) is the Normandy that got forced out of a jump and crashes on a planet, making the crew of the normandy the -only- surivors of the galaxy (which will not continue to survive due to civilization-bottle-necking, inbreeding and a too small population-size).
This is not a bitter-sweet ending, this is the "bad" ending in 3 variations.
Everyone is dead, or soon will be, so what did your choices and your struggles matter? Nothing.
With 10 minutes of cutscenes you invalidated 100+ hours of playtime across three games.
This isn't even LOST, at least there The Island didn't go supernova and explode the Earth and kill everyone.
I have nothing about tragic endings for a protagonist and his companions, but killing off -EVERYONE-? Complete and utter ARMAGEDDON? Ending -ALL LIFE-?
Thats not dark and edgy, its sadistic.
how is it sadistic?
sadistic means taking pleasure in cruelty.
Exactly
the story was about doomsday in space. they never hid that. it is understandable if everyone dies during doomsday, since that is part of what the term means, and people played the entire series under the threat of extintion.
No the story was about the -impending- doomsday, and there was always hope.
the 'kid' was a sentient creator being. the reapers are his cleaning utensils (angels). because of the choices Shepard made, sapien life was re-introduced into the next repeating cycle of the universe. (as seen by the man telling the legend to his child)
Don't get me started on how this is a very fitting analogy and how that exactly proves that its sadistic, because im going to piss a lot of religious people off...
there is the scientific theory of the universe going through a 'big crunch' where after it is finished expanding, it will implode back to nothing, and then, repeat the 'big bang'. the word Ouroborus (can) represents this, as a snake eating its own tail. it represents a repeating cycle, just like the reapers doing their work.
Except the universe is not sentient. Also the big-crunch theory does not fit the current state of cosmology where the universe is expanding and accelerating.
again, through the entire series, no matter what you did, it was all about proving to 'god' that humanity was worthy of existing in the next cycle. that is not sadistic. nor is it 'dark and edgy'. it is profound.
Yeah right, and Transformers was as profound.
Remember kids, Optimus Prime died for your sins.
i see a lot of people say things like- 'oh, we understand the ending, we just think *****"- but the thing is, i really don't think some people understand it at all. sure, they see what happened, but they lack the knowledge (occult/religious most of it) to have any clue what it represents. and i'm not trying to be rude or belittle anyone. i'm just shocked that such concepts are beyond people who play fantasy/sci-fi rpgs, which have always had strong allusions to religion/mythology.
Yes, everyone has their pet theory and yours is as valid as the next one.
Its easy do declare "high art" and "you don't get it" with bullshit endings.
Firstly, it didn't gel right, it was like they had one writer through all 3 games then at the end they hired a completely different writer who only knew the basics of the ME universe. The ending was like watching Starship Troopers and then getting a 2001: A Space Odyssey ending to it. It just didn't fit.
Secondly, the complete lack of anything else you've done through the games playing any part in the ending. After uniting warring factions, bringing the galaxy together, fighting through a suicide mission and defeating multiple Reapers to get to this point, it all comes down to, "Select A, B or C.". Everything you've done previous doesn't matter. The biggest problem with that is it makes the other two games pointless as, once you've completed ME3, you realise that your choices ultimately don't matter, that you're always going to end up standing in a weird place in the Citadel and choosing A, B or C.
Thirdly, plot holes so big planets get sucked into them.
maybe i just see all the parables in the overall plot so thats why i liked what i saw. again, i never played any ME games, but i plan to get into them eventually. still. i have heard a lot of talk about 'plot gaps'. i am curious to what they are. genuinely. fill me in please.
kid- projection of god
reapers- angels. read a bit of revelations and this makes sense.
shepard - messiah. they even call him.... shepard... it seems pretty laid out to me. it was never his name. it was what he was later known as, because he gathered the entire galaxy, and led them into battle against god's archangels, a battle that he can not win, but he must do to prove to god that they are worthy to live, and not wiped out by the repeating cycle of the universe.
note - i am not religious, however i am fascinated by all myths. i'm not really picky when it comes to mythology.
are you still pissed because you don't know where the reapers came from? they are angels. seriously, this theme has actually been way overdone in japanese cartoons. huge, powerful, sentient space machines are angels in many stories. and angels come from heaven. are the people mad that they did not get to see heaven? well... many stories don't ever actually give you heaven, they just hint that it is there
.
As Roger Ebert says, "When you have to say 'this is what it symbolizes, it doesn't.'"
I'm fine with a "mystical" understanding, but on this one, it fails massively. The Catalyst created a mythic race of angels (the Reapers themselves explicitly deny this, and being machines, they see no need to lie about what their purpose is) whose purpose is to destroy advanced organic races so those organic races won't create synthetics..... who in turn will destroy organics. In other words "yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna get killed by synthetics..... so i created a race of synthetics to kill organics so they won't get killed by sythnetics."
And you had just proven the catalyst wrong if you were able to end the geth/quarian war, and organics and synthetics formally united to end the Reapers. Yet Shepard doesn't even question any of this. He seems to just accept all three options, even though two of them would be the antithesis of his very reason of existence. And even in the destroy ending, why do the geth have to die?
Furthermore, if the Reapers were the solution fo the catalyst to the synthetic/organic problem, we would have to presume that indeed, organic life had been exterminated before. Yet how can that be, if organic life still survives? Did only certain species die? Did the Catalyst create new organic life ex nihilo?
In previous games, we are told that the destruction of the Mass Relays lead to a supernova, wiping out the star system where the relay is placed. So in all of the endings, far from saving the galaxy, Shepard kills trillions of beings, and plunges every society into a new dark ages. Wipe out the galaxy to save it?
As far as Shepard being a "messiah" proving to the deity that organic life is worthy of existence..... there's no evidence of this anywhere between the dialogue between "god" and the "messiah." The Catalyst wasn't saying organic life was unworthy of life. (Though Harbinger and Sovreign both did.) He creates the Reapers so that the cycle of life continues apparently.
All too often people put out a piece of crap and say it is "mythical" or "mystical." Yet it shows absolutely no appreciation for mysticism or classical mythology. So I go back to Roger Ebert's wisdom. If you have to spend all this time talking about the symbolic nature of something, it really doesn't actually symbolize anything, other than serve as a metaphor to the lengths others will go to rationalize garbage.
please explain to me in detail the problems with the ending, without words like 'sucked', and the like.
This is personally for me the straw that borke the camels back
Also SPOILERS:
In "The Arrival" DLC for ME2 we saw a Mass Effect Relay (MER) get destroyed and go Supernova (taking out the whole solar system including the sun). Additionally we had that fact sprinkled thorugh all of the DLC and other games. This is a continuity fact.
In all the endings of ME3 the Mass Effect Relay-network gets destroyed (afaik you see them blow up in all endings) taking out every star-system that a Mass Effect Relay was in.
But we also know that MER are almost exclusively in systems where life is because a. it makes the job of the reapers easier and b. you cant reach star-systems via ME-universe FTL in reasonable times, so colonies do not get established outside the MER-network.
Given these facts, all endings erradicate all sapient life in the galaxy, no matter if its by the reapers or all MERs going supernova. Ergo no matter what you choose, it does not change the end-result and actually -accomplishes- the goal of the reapers (erradicating all life in the galaxy).
The only consolation-prize (in 100% completion mode) is the Normandy that got forced out of a jump and crashes on a planet, making the crew of the normandy the -only- surivors of the galaxy (which will not continue to survive due to civilization-bottle-necking, inbreeding and a too small population-size).
This is not a bitter-sweet ending, this is the "bad" ending in 3 variations.
Everyone is dead, or soon will be, so what did your choices and your struggles matter? Nothing.
With 10 minutes of cutscenes you invalidated 100+ hours of playtime across three games.
This isn't even LOST, at least there The Island didn't go supernova and explode the Earth and kill everyone.
I have nothing about tragic endings for a protagonist and his companions, but killing off -EVERYONE-? Complete and utter ARMAGEDDON? Ending -ALL LIFE-?
Thats not dark and edgy, its sadistic.
how is it sadistic?
sadistic means taking pleasure in cruelty.
Exactly
the story was about doomsday in space. they never hid that. it is understandable if everyone dies during doomsday, since that is part of what the term means, and people played the entire series under the threat of extintion.
No the story was about the -impending- doomsday, and there was always hope.
the 'kid' was a sentient creator being. the reapers are his cleaning utensils (angels). because of the choices Shepard made, sapien life was re-introduced into the next repeating cycle of the universe. (as seen by the man telling the legend to his child)
Don't get me started on how this is a very fitting analogy and how that exactly proves that its sadistic, because im going to piss a lot of religious people off...
there is the scientific theory of the universe going through a 'big crunch' where after it is finished expanding, it will implode back to nothing, and then, repeat the 'big bang'. the word Ouroborus (can) represents this, as a snake eating its own tail. it represents a repeating cycle, just like the reapers doing their work.
Except the universe is not sentient. Also the big-crunch theory does not fit the current state of cosmology where the universe is expanding and accelerating.
again, through the entire series, no matter what you did, it was all about proving to 'god' that humanity was worthy of existing in the next cycle. that is not sadistic. nor is it 'dark and edgy'. it is profound.
Yeah right, and Transformers was as profound.
Remember kids, Optimus Prime died for your sins.
i see a lot of people say things like- 'oh, we understand the ending, we just think *****"- but the thing is, i really don't think some people understand it at all. sure, they see what happened, but they lack the knowledge (occult/religious most of it) to have any clue what it represents. and i'm not trying to be rude or belittle anyone. i'm just shocked that such concepts are beyond people who play fantasy/sci-fi rpgs, which have always had strong allusions to religion/mythology.
Yes, everyone has their pet theory and yours is as valid as the next one.
Its easy do declare "high art" and "you don't get it" with bullshit endings.
*cough cough* LOST
it's great how many things you read into the post that is not even there. i was never defending as some great work of art, i just pointed out how i understood what it portrayed. and saying that a parable in the story is profound does not mean i am amazed by the story itself, just the concept that it tried to portray, which is a concept i have played with (in my mind) for most of my life (uiversal doomsday/sacrifice/redemption). again. they named him 'Shepard'.
i never played a ME game, but knew enough about the over-all plot before watchig my roomate beat the last game. it made sense to me. it did not seem dark nor sadistic to me. all things come to an end. and then it repeats, even in the 'multiverse'.
also, the expanding universe theory is just as much a theory as the big crunch. the latest studies in theoretical physics are amazing, but bringing that up has nothing to do with what is done in 'fiction'. (i love modern theoretical physics btw. great stuff). as of now, the multiverse/expanding universe/big crunch has yet to be proven. the laser thay are creating to determine if we live in an 'universe' or a 'multiverse' is slated to be ready in the 2020's (i can't remember the exact year). but as cool as all that is, it is all a tangent from the discussion.
also, you claimed the 'universe' is not sentient. how bold of you to think you can determine the range of sentience. not to mention, it is 'fiction', and anything can be possible in 'fiction'.
i did not watch Transformers, and again, it is 'fiction', and i did not write it. to deny that a character named 'Shepard' who talked to god, who let him make a choice.... i mean really... i'm not going to repeat the obvious. again, i did not write it. it is a concept done many times in religion and fiction. i enjoyed that a game series i never played had a concept of that nature, and am surprised that there is so much outroar because your character saved humanity from extinction.
there is a huge diffence in a 'pet theory' and seeing what is there. there is no theory because there are no loose strings to attach to the concept i'm talking about. it is all there. this concept is even in JAPANESE KIDS CARTOONS! but ok. see it how you like.
"living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see"
maybe i just see all the parables in the overall plot so thats why i liked what i saw. again, i never played any ME games, but i plan to get into them eventually. still. i have heard a lot of talk about 'plot gaps'. i am curious to what they are. genuinely. fill me in please.
kid- projection of god
reapers- angels. read a bit of revelations and this makes sense.
shepard - messiah. they even call him.... shepard... it seems pretty laid out to me. it was never his name. it was what he was later known as, because he gathered the entire galaxy, and led them into battle against god's archangels, a battle that he can not win, but he must do to prove to god that they are worthy to live, and not wiped out by the repeating cycle of the universe.
note - i am not religious, however i am fascinated by all myths. i'm not really picky when it comes to mythology.
are you still pissed because you don't know where the reapers came from? they are angels. seriously, this theme has actually been way overdone in japanese cartoons. huge, powerful, sentient space machines are angels in many stories. and angels come from heaven. are the people mad that they did not get to see heaven? well... many stories don't ever actually give you heaven, they just hint that it is there
.
As Roger Ebert says, "When you have to say 'this is what it symbolizes, it doesn't.'"
I'm fine with a "mystical" understanding, but on this one, it fails massively. The Catalyst created a mythic race of angels (the Reapers themselves explicitly deny this, and being machines, they see no need to lie about what their purpose is) whose purpose is to destroy advanced organic races so those organic races won't create synthetics..... who in turn will destroy organics. In other words "yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna get killed by synthetics..... so i created a race of synthetics to kill organics so they won't get killed by sythnetics."
And you had just proven the catalyst wrong if you were able to end the geth/quarian war, and organics and synthetics formally united to end the Reapers. Yet Shepard doesn't even question any of this. He seems to just accept all three options, even though two of them would be the antithesis of his very reason of existence. And even in the destroy ending, why do the geth have to die?
Furthermore, if the Reapers were the solution fo the catalyst to the synthetic/organic problem, we would have to presume that indeed, organic life had been exterminated before. Yet how can that be, if organic life still survives? Did only certain species die? Did the Catalyst create new organic life ex nihilo?
In previous games, we are told that the destruction of the Mass Relays lead to a supernova, wiping out the star system where the relay is placed. So in all of the endings, far from saving the galaxy, Shepard kills trillions of beings, and plunges every society into a new dark ages. Wipe out the galaxy to save it?
As far as Shepard being a "messiah" proving to the deity that organic life is worthy of existence..... there's no evidence of this anywhere between the dialogue between "god" and the "messiah." The Catalyst wasn't saying organic life was unworthy of life. (Though Harbinger and Sovreign both did.) He creates the Reapers so that the cycle of life continues apparently.
All too often people put out a piece of crap and say it is "mythical" or "mystical." Yet it shows absolutely no appreciation for mysticism or classical mythology. So I go back to Roger Ebert's wisdom. If you have to spend all this time talking about the symbolic nature of something, it really doesn't actually symbolize anything, other than serve as a metaphor to the lengths others will go to rationalize garbage.
i was under the impression that only advanced life is targeted by the repears, and primitive life is spared because it will not be a danger until the next wipe. the proethean (spelling?) talks about all of that. he ridicules the other companions. he tells one (the gith i think) that they used to eat flies.
on the next cycle, humankind is back, shown by the father telling his child the legend of 'Shepard'. how can you say this is me reading into something that is not there? why do YOU think your character was named 'Shepard'? in a RPG where you had a fixed last name. you were playing a legend the whole time. you were the shepard of the galaxy. you defied your own extinction, and insured that mankind would return. why else would it have ended that way? maybe you don't like my choice of words like 'proved to god'. maybe 'defied' is a better fit. though, he allows Shepard to make the choice. he could have stopped him, and did not.
i'm not defending the story. i'm not defending Bioware (have barey played their games to be honest). i'm just into the same concepts that the story portrayed. this is not saying that i see 'hidden meanings' because they are beyond obvious to me. and it does not take "all this time" because i already explained it in a previous post with very few words. it is just because i like this subject, and you guys replied that it turned into 'all of this'.
i admit, the fact that you quoted a 'critic' (scum of the earth) to validate your point, kind of discredited your logic for me. but, otherwise you gave the best response so far, so thanks.
please note. i am into the concepts portrayed, not 'ME3' itself. i am letdown by the reaction to the ending, because i liked it, and saw it for what the writers projected. again. SHEPARD. words actually mean something in stories. if i had to go out on a branch to describe it, it wouldn't bother. but i don't have to. because Bioware named your ME1-2-3 character 'SHEPARD!'
GO GO GO crap reviews ...I can see the bargan bin moving closer at light speed here, 3 months tops
i plan on getting all the games in a Steam bundle pack maybe this next christams, that is, if the price is right. playing the game already knowing my purpose might make it feel even more like the 'Legend' that the game is.
on the next cycle, humankind is back, shown by the father telling his child the legend of 'Shepard'. how can you say this is me reading into something that is not there? why do YOU think your character was named 'Shepard'? in a RPG where you had a fixed last name. you were playing a legend the whole time. you were the shepard of the galaxy. you defied your own extinction, and insured that mankind would return. why else would it have ended that way? maybe you don't like my choice of words like 'proved to god'. maybe 'defied' is a better fit. though, he allows Shepard to make the choice. he could have stopped him, and did not.
Actually humankind never left, as Shepard saved them. What happened was the Mass Relays all exploded so the different races were stranded wherever they were left. The legend was the fact that he saved the universe from mass genocide, he alone turned things around and made it to the Citadel, where he put an end to the Reapers. The name lives on through stories so people don't forget it - there was a point in the game where Liara creates some 'time capsules' holding information of how they got to where they were, so that's another way the legend was kept alive.
The fixed name is just easier for the developers to create cutscenes where people can call you by name. If anything Shepard was used because the character brings together the different races of the universe, 'herding' them to one primary goal. As for the ending with the ghost-child, it said to Shepard that, "The fact you (Shepard) are even here proves that my plan will no longer work.". Or something along those lines. It then went on to say that it had three alternatives to the Reapers; Destruction, Control or Synthesis.
Destruction would work for a time but eventually synthetics would be recreated and the chaos would return, where synthetics apparently end up killing organics. I don't remember what was said for Control, but Synthesis was the fusing together of synthetics and organics so both sides become the same and the cycle of chaos ends.
I see no defying or proving to any God-like being here, it's a simple case of Shepard having reached the point where he could end the Reapers, the creator of the Reapers saying, "Oh well, you got us..", then telling him his options for using the Crucible. I can see how you could put a religious twist on the whole thing and your explanation of things makes a certain sense, but overall I think it was just poor writing in a very poor ending. When you compare that ending to the rest of the Mass Effect series, it just doesn't fit. Like I said before, it's a 2001 ending to a Starship Troopers movie.
The funny thing is they basically almost copied the ending of Deus Ex 1. Not that I think they did that intentionally but its still kind of amusing. Of course Deus Ex ending made more sense and had less plotholes .
The sad part of course is Deus Ex was mostly linear and only had so many decision points to its tripartite ending makes sense in context. ME not so much.
bottom line is, it was planned. they needed one ending otherwise they would have to create 3 different ending DLCs.
"So yeah, I believe that all endings were kept pretty close to each other so that ending DLC was possible. If you had three complete and unique endings for the different choices, you’d need three separate pieces of DLC if you wanted to continue the story. But make the endings all relatively the same? You have license to continue on no matter which choice was picked."
I am actually a little surprised at the backlash to some extent.
I kind of guessed the theme of the reapers in ME2. I don't think the plotholes and dumb "star child" revelation are from rushed writing or eveil EA stuff. I think it had a dumb premise from the beginning. I was hoping they would be smart enough to make it a flawed premise of a character that could be proven wrong. But instead it was just a dumb premise of the writers that didn't jive with what actually happened in the game.
What really kind of surpised me was the red/green/blue thing and that there are only 3 with very little variation. That makes me very suspicious and the fact that there was no real retrospective makes me think it was very rushed.
Its like they just got really lazy and brain dead all of a sudden. I am not at all surprised by the overall themes and I even epxected the Deus Ex like options. But I was assuming they would take the various branches into account have less just plain dumb plotholes. Its sad. I am glad I didn't buy this game.
I am actually a little surprised at the backlash to some extent.
I kind of guessed the theme of the reapers in ME2. I don't think the plotholes and dumb "star child" revelation are from rushed writing or eveil EA stuff. I think it had a dumb premise from the beginning. I was hoping they would be smart enough to make it a flawed premise of a character that could be proven wrong. But instead it was just a dumb premise of the writers that didn't jive with what actually happened in the game.
What really kind of surpised me was the red/green/blue thing and that there are only 3 with very little variation. That makes me very suspicious and the fact that there was no real retrospective makes me think it was very rushed.
Its like they just got really lazy and brain dead all of a sudden. I am not at all surprised by the overall themes and I even epxected the Deus Ex like options. But I was assuming they would take the various branches into account have less just plain dumb plotholes. Its sad. I am glad I didn't buy this game.
Yep, that's basically the heart of the outrange and dissappointment. I think most players are open-minded enough and can accept open and interpretive endings or bittersweet endings. Some sites are stating the playerbase can't cope with depressing endings, which is flat out false. I also don't think anyone is really surprised Shepard would die at the end, its the ultimate hero's sacrifice after all. But its that utter, dismal lack of choice, lack of continuity, endless plot holes and no satisfying closure to our squadmates that lets an otherwise spectacular trilogy down.Mass effect, at its heart, is about choice; the consequences of all the actions we've made over three games and the friends and allies we met and grew with. It doesn't make Bioware look good when they explicity stated so many outright lies about distinct endings and choice either...Bioware really dug themselves a big hole here. I'm glad they have acknowledged the fans' reactions and I hope they really give the choice and answers they want.
The fixed name is just easier for the developers to create cutscenes where people can call you by name. If anything Shepard was used because the character brings together the different races of the universe, 'herding' them to one primary goal. As for the ending with the ghost-child, it said to Shepard that, "The fact you (Shepard) are even here proves that my plan will no longer work.". Or something along those lines. It then went on to say that it had three alternatives to the Reapers; Destruction, Control or Synthesis.
great reply.
the whole reason i focused on the name being Shepard is because of how he led the galaxy (he hearded them) and the word 'shepherd' has strong religious connotations. i brought this up several times while discussing it in previous posts. so i guess you are just agreeing with me then?
i have never played an RPG where i had a fixed last name (or at least that i remember). it is easy in cutscenes to use pronouns to reference your character. or a title. a lot of fantasy games use monikers from a prophecy to refer to your character. games do it all the time so that you can make your own birth name. they specifically went against that with this RPG for the sake of calling you Shepard, because they wanted it to mean something to you by the time you get to the end. if the name was Braxton, or Williams, i would have never entered this thread.
i never saw a 'ghost-child ' in the game. that child was a psycological manifestation projected on Shepard. in the intro when the kid talks to Shepard and escapes through the air duct (i think that is what it was), he says something that hints to Shepard that his work was all in vain. then as the game continues, Shepards subconscious is invaded by the Catalyst through his dreams.
fuuny though. you pointed out a line.
"The fact that you are here proves that my plan will no longer work."
then, you said there was not 'proving or defying' to a god-like being. but obviously the Catalyst has some control over the universe. the concept of a 'god-like being' is commonly attributed with universe-controlling tendencies in most religion and even much popular 'fiction'. and Shepard 'proved' to him that his 'plan' (a word commonly used to describe a divine being's actions) would no longer work. then Shepard is given a choice, which is clear evidence that the sentient being 'allowed' his 'plan' to be overturned by a 'man' who 'proved' himself by 'shepherding' the galaxy. so really, the defying/proving was all in the same.
funny again, you say Shepard got to a point where he 'beat' the reapers.... leading up to the confrontation with the Catalyst, you see that even the army he 'shepherded' was not enough to stop the reapers. he was laying on the ground, his buddy already dead, and him looking like he was follwing. then you are lifted on the platform into a great white light to the above level of the Crucible. i pause a moment on the writers decision to use the word 'crucible'.
Crucibe- A place or set of circumstances where people or things are subjected to forces that test them. also, another definition of crucible. a severe trial. i mean really... trial? test? do i really have to explain more on that part? to say there was no 'proving' goes against the writers choice of the word 'crucible'.
again, i am not telling anyone to like it. i never played the games, and only watched them played by a good friend, who also fills me in of details i might be curious about. i found it odd that three 'non-religious' people all watched it, saw it for what it was, yet so many claimed follwers of the series don't see it.
liking or disliking is opinion, and i never entered the discussion to defend writing style, worth, future dlc, or even the company or game behind it all. i stick to my points, and that is simply that is is a parable of many occult/religious ideas about the cycle of the universe, and the forces that (might) control it. to say that there is no spiritual parable goes against very obvious words selected by the writers. you can say it is not fitting for the series, and goes against the other games. i have no opinion on that. it has nothing to do with my posts in any way.
Comments
Somewhat Satisfying ending costs you $20... then $20 for more moderately satisfying ending.
I needed 90% more of the time not spent ducking behind a wall and shooting while covered far more than a good ending.
Mostly money.
I think the most disappointing part of the ending (assuming there is no Indoc theory or other rewrite) is that those 10 minutes practically errases, what I thought, a brilliant series of games.
Hey, look. Two has beens have teamed up for DLC. http://www.gamespot.com/news/mass-effect-3-n7-armor-available-as-final-fantasy-xiii-2-dlc-6367514
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Actually XBox is making a change to the amount of DLC a title can have. IIRC it is going to be 4 updates. Now I am unsure if this is updates that add acheivements, or stuff like weapon packs also.
Also I am not sure if it said per yr.....or per title.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
how is it sadistic?
sadistic means taking pleasure in cruelty.
the story was about doomsday in space. they never hid that. it is understandable if everyone dies during doomsday, since that is part of what the term means, and people played the entire series under the threat of extintion.
the 'kid' was a sentient creator being. the reapers are his cleaning utensils (angels). because of the choices Shepard made, sapien life was re-introduced into the next repeating cycle of the universe. (as seen by the man telling the legend to his child)
there is the scientific theory of the universe going through a 'big crunch' where after it is finished expanding, it will implode back to nothing, and then, repeat the 'big bang'. the word Ouroborus (can) represents this, as a snake eating its own tail. it represents a repeating cycle, just like the reapers doing their work.
again, through the entire series, no matter what you did, it was all about proving to 'god' that humanity was worthy of existing in the next cycle. that is not sadistic. nor is it 'dark and edgy'. it is profound.
i see a lot of people say things like- 'oh, we understand the ending, we just think *****"- but the thing is, i really don't think some people understand it at all. sure, they see what happened, but they lack the knowledge (occult/religious most of it) to have any clue what it represents. and i'm not trying to be rude or belittle anyone. i'm just shocked that such concepts are beyond people who play fantasy/sci-fi rpgs, which have always had strong allusions to religion/mythology.
GO GO GO crap reviews ...I can see the bargan bin moving closer at light speed here, 3 months tops
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition
8 gig Ram
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
As Roger Ebert says, "When you have to say 'this is what it symbolizes, it doesn't.'"
I'm fine with a "mystical" understanding, but on this one, it fails massively. The Catalyst created a mythic race of angels (the Reapers themselves explicitly deny this, and being machines, they see no need to lie about what their purpose is) whose purpose is to destroy advanced organic races so those organic races won't create synthetics..... who in turn will destroy organics. In other words "yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna get killed by synthetics..... so i created a race of synthetics to kill organics so they won't get killed by sythnetics."
And you had just proven the catalyst wrong if you were able to end the geth/quarian war, and organics and synthetics formally united to end the Reapers. Yet Shepard doesn't even question any of this. He seems to just accept all three options, even though two of them would be the antithesis of his very reason of existence. And even in the destroy ending, why do the geth have to die?
Furthermore, if the Reapers were the solution fo the catalyst to the synthetic/organic problem, we would have to presume that indeed, organic life had been exterminated before. Yet how can that be, if organic life still survives? Did only certain species die? Did the Catalyst create new organic life ex nihilo?
In previous games, we are told that the destruction of the Mass Relays lead to a supernova, wiping out the star system where the relay is placed. So in all of the endings, far from saving the galaxy, Shepard kills trillions of beings, and plunges every society into a new dark ages. Wipe out the galaxy to save it?
As far as Shepard being a "messiah" proving to the deity that organic life is worthy of existence..... there's no evidence of this anywhere between the dialogue between "god" and the "messiah." The Catalyst wasn't saying organic life was unworthy of life. (Though Harbinger and Sovreign both did.) He creates the Reapers so that the cycle of life continues apparently.
All too often people put out a piece of crap and say it is "mythical" or "mystical." Yet it shows absolutely no appreciation for mysticism or classical mythology. So I go back to Roger Ebert's wisdom. If you have to spend all this time talking about the symbolic nature of something, it really doesn't actually symbolize anything, other than serve as a metaphor to the lengths others will go to rationalize garbage.
it's great how many things you read into the post that is not even there. i was never defending as some great work of art, i just pointed out how i understood what it portrayed. and saying that a parable in the story is profound does not mean i am amazed by the story itself, just the concept that it tried to portray, which is a concept i have played with (in my mind) for most of my life (uiversal doomsday/sacrifice/redemption). again. they named him 'Shepard'.
i never played a ME game, but knew enough about the over-all plot before watchig my roomate beat the last game. it made sense to me. it did not seem dark nor sadistic to me. all things come to an end. and then it repeats, even in the 'multiverse'.
also, the expanding universe theory is just as much a theory as the big crunch. the latest studies in theoretical physics are amazing, but bringing that up has nothing to do with what is done in 'fiction'. (i love modern theoretical physics btw. great stuff). as of now, the multiverse/expanding universe/big crunch has yet to be proven. the laser thay are creating to determine if we live in an 'universe' or a 'multiverse' is slated to be ready in the 2020's (i can't remember the exact year). but as cool as all that is, it is all a tangent from the discussion.
also, you claimed the 'universe' is not sentient. how bold of you to think you can determine the range of sentience. not to mention, it is 'fiction', and anything can be possible in 'fiction'.
i did not watch Transformers, and again, it is 'fiction', and i did not write it. to deny that a character named 'Shepard' who talked to god, who let him make a choice.... i mean really... i'm not going to repeat the obvious. again, i did not write it. it is a concept done many times in religion and fiction. i enjoyed that a game series i never played had a concept of that nature, and am surprised that there is so much outroar because your character saved humanity from extinction.
there is a huge diffence in a 'pet theory' and seeing what is there. there is no theory because there are no loose strings to attach to the concept i'm talking about. it is all there. this concept is even in JAPANESE KIDS CARTOONS! but ok. see it how you like.
"living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see"
ty for the talk. fun stuff.
i was under the impression that only advanced life is targeted by the repears, and primitive life is spared because it will not be a danger until the next wipe. the proethean (spelling?) talks about all of that. he ridicules the other companions. he tells one (the gith i think) that they used to eat flies.
on the next cycle, humankind is back, shown by the father telling his child the legend of 'Shepard'. how can you say this is me reading into something that is not there? why do YOU think your character was named 'Shepard'? in a RPG where you had a fixed last name. you were playing a legend the whole time. you were the shepard of the galaxy. you defied your own extinction, and insured that mankind would return. why else would it have ended that way? maybe you don't like my choice of words like 'proved to god'. maybe 'defied' is a better fit. though, he allows Shepard to make the choice. he could have stopped him, and did not.
i'm not defending the story. i'm not defending Bioware (have barey played their games to be honest). i'm just into the same concepts that the story portrayed. this is not saying that i see 'hidden meanings' because they are beyond obvious to me. and it does not take "all this time" because i already explained it in a previous post with very few words. it is just because i like this subject, and you guys replied that it turned into 'all of this'.
i admit, the fact that you quoted a 'critic' (scum of the earth) to validate your point, kind of discredited your logic for me. but, otherwise you gave the best response so far, so thanks.
please note. i am into the concepts portrayed, not 'ME3' itself. i am letdown by the reaction to the ending, because i liked it, and saw it for what the writers projected. again. SHEPARD. words actually mean something in stories. if i had to go out on a branch to describe it, it wouldn't bother. but i don't have to. because Bioware named your ME1-2-3 character 'SHEPARD!'
i plan on getting all the games in a Steam bundle pack maybe this next christams, that is, if the price is right. playing the game already knowing my purpose might make it feel even more like the 'Legend' that the game is.
Actually humankind never left, as Shepard saved them. What happened was the Mass Relays all exploded so the different races were stranded wherever they were left. The legend was the fact that he saved the universe from mass genocide, he alone turned things around and made it to the Citadel, where he put an end to the Reapers. The name lives on through stories so people don't forget it - there was a point in the game where Liara creates some 'time capsules' holding information of how they got to where they were, so that's another way the legend was kept alive.
The fixed name is just easier for the developers to create cutscenes where people can call you by name. If anything Shepard was used because the character brings together the different races of the universe, 'herding' them to one primary goal. As for the ending with the ghost-child, it said to Shepard that, "The fact you (Shepard) are even here proves that my plan will no longer work.". Or something along those lines. It then went on to say that it had three alternatives to the Reapers; Destruction, Control or Synthesis.
Destruction would work for a time but eventually synthetics would be recreated and the chaos would return, where synthetics apparently end up killing organics. I don't remember what was said for Control, but Synthesis was the fusing together of synthetics and organics so both sides become the same and the cycle of chaos ends.
I see no defying or proving to any God-like being here, it's a simple case of Shepard having reached the point where he could end the Reapers, the creator of the Reapers saying, "Oh well, you got us..", then telling him his options for using the Crucible. I can see how you could put a religious twist on the whole thing and your explanation of things makes a certain sense, but overall I think it was just poor writing in a very poor ending. When you compare that ending to the rest of the Mass Effect series, it just doesn't fit. Like I said before, it's a 2001 ending to a Starship Troopers movie.
Hype train -> Reality
ps. the best thing about ME3 is how many memes it spawned:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/mass-effect-3-endings-reception
Still one of my favourites: Ace Ventura Completes Mass Effect 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HBM11sWmVY
Hype train -> Reality
The funny thing is they basically almost copied the ending of Deus Ex 1. Not that I think they did that intentionally but its still kind of amusing. Of course Deus Ex ending made more sense and had less plotholes .
The sad part of course is Deus Ex was mostly linear and only had so many decision points to its tripartite ending makes sense in context. ME not so much.
forbes' newest article
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/23/further-thoughts-on-mass-effect-3s-ending-and-future-dlc/
bottom line is, it was planned. they needed one ending otherwise they would have to create 3 different ending DLCs.
"So yeah, I believe that all endings were kept pretty close to each other so that ending DLC was possible. If you had three complete and unique endings for the different choices, you’d need three separate pieces of DLC if you wanted to continue the story. But make the endings all relatively the same? You have license to continue on no matter which choice was picked."
Don't let them fool you.
I am actually a little surprised at the backlash to some extent.
I kind of guessed the theme of the reapers in ME2. I don't think the plotholes and dumb "star child" revelation are from rushed writing or eveil EA stuff. I think it had a dumb premise from the beginning. I was hoping they would be smart enough to make it a flawed premise of a character that could be proven wrong. But instead it was just a dumb premise of the writers that didn't jive with what actually happened in the game.
What really kind of surpised me was the red/green/blue thing and that there are only 3 with very little variation. That makes me very suspicious and the fact that there was no real retrospective makes me think it was very rushed.
Its like they just got really lazy and brain dead all of a sudden. I am not at all surprised by the overall themes and I even epxected the Deus Ex like options. But I was assuming they would take the various branches into account have less just plain dumb plotholes. Its sad. I am glad I didn't buy this game.
Yep, that's basically the heart of the outrange and dissappointment. I think most players are open-minded enough and can accept open and interpretive endings or bittersweet endings. Some sites are stating the playerbase can't cope with depressing endings, which is flat out false. I also don't think anyone is really surprised Shepard would die at the end, its the ultimate hero's sacrifice after all. But its that utter, dismal lack of choice, lack of continuity, endless plot holes and no satisfying closure to our squadmates that lets an otherwise spectacular trilogy down. Mass effect, at its heart, is about choice; the consequences of all the actions we've made over three games and the friends and allies we met and grew with. It doesn't make Bioware look good when they explicity stated so many outright lies about distinct endings and choice either...Bioware really dug themselves a big hole here. I'm glad they have acknowledged the fans' reactions and I hope they really give the choice and answers they want.
I forgot, this will be the new ending: (WARNING: you might get a seizure)
http://augenkrebs.de.vu/
Wow I think I almost started to have a seizure. Strangely appropriate.
I find it relaxing
Well the great thing about that ending is, it never ends. Of course then people will claim they copied the Neverending Story.
Which now that I think about is kind of true... Oh my God the Reapers are the Nothing!
great reply.
the whole reason i focused on the name being Shepard is because of how he led the galaxy (he hearded them) and the word 'shepherd' has strong religious connotations. i brought this up several times while discussing it in previous posts. so i guess you are just agreeing with me then?
i have never played an RPG where i had a fixed last name (or at least that i remember). it is easy in cutscenes to use pronouns to reference your character. or a title. a lot of fantasy games use monikers from a prophecy to refer to your character. games do it all the time so that you can make your own birth name. they specifically went against that with this RPG for the sake of calling you Shepard, because they wanted it to mean something to you by the time you get to the end. if the name was Braxton, or Williams, i would have never entered this thread.
i never saw a 'ghost-child ' in the game. that child was a psycological manifestation projected on Shepard. in the intro when the kid talks to Shepard and escapes through the air duct (i think that is what it was), he says something that hints to Shepard that his work was all in vain. then as the game continues, Shepards subconscious is invaded by the Catalyst through his dreams.
fuuny though. you pointed out a line.
"The fact that you are here proves that my plan will no longer work."
then, you said there was not 'proving or defying' to a god-like being. but obviously the Catalyst has some control over the universe. the concept of a 'god-like being' is commonly attributed with universe-controlling tendencies in most religion and even much popular 'fiction'. and Shepard 'proved' to him that his 'plan' (a word commonly used to describe a divine being's actions) would no longer work. then Shepard is given a choice, which is clear evidence that the sentient being 'allowed' his 'plan' to be overturned by a 'man' who 'proved' himself by 'shepherding' the galaxy. so really, the defying/proving was all in the same.
funny again, you say Shepard got to a point where he 'beat' the reapers.... leading up to the confrontation with the Catalyst, you see that even the army he 'shepherded' was not enough to stop the reapers. he was laying on the ground, his buddy already dead, and him looking like he was follwing. then you are lifted on the platform into a great white light to the above level of the Crucible. i pause a moment on the writers decision to use the word 'crucible'.
Crucibe- A place or set of circumstances where people or things are subjected to forces that test them. also, another definition of crucible. a severe trial. i mean really... trial? test? do i really have to explain more on that part? to say there was no 'proving' goes against the writers choice of the word 'crucible'.
again, i am not telling anyone to like it. i never played the games, and only watched them played by a good friend, who also fills me in of details i might be curious about. i found it odd that three 'non-religious' people all watched it, saw it for what it was, yet so many claimed follwers of the series don't see it.
liking or disliking is opinion, and i never entered the discussion to defend writing style, worth, future dlc, or even the company or game behind it all. i stick to my points, and that is simply that is is a parable of many occult/religious ideas about the cycle of the universe, and the forces that (might) control it. to say that there is no spiritual parable goes against very obvious words selected by the writers. you can say it is not fitting for the series, and goes against the other games. i have no opinion on that. it has nothing to do with my posts in any way.