Lit Apropos of Nothing - ACKBAR IN CAPITALS - The Lit Forum Social Thread, v2.0.15

I have seen that argument, that Shepard would cease being Shepard after a time and eventually begin to consider a new purge, but I've never really bought it myself, though of course there's no way to disprove it either.. After all, the personality that was set in place wasn't just based on Shepard; for all intents and purposes, it is Shepard, or at least an exact copy of it. That's what I was getting at with a full Paragon Shepard knowing his/her own limits, knowing that their own legendary stubbornness wouldn't crack. Because in the end, Shepard does have a god complex, as does every person who plays the game: Shepard, and by extension the person controlling Shepard, wants to control everything. They want the entire galaxy shaped to their own desires and choices, based on the belief that their choices are the right choices (or the opposite of right, for those playing renegade or whatever the opposite of what they normally play), and they want to see those choices reflected. The control ending just embodies that. It is possible that Shepard without the human element would just be another artificial intelligence, but I don't think the rest of the game supports that machines are incapable of experiencing human emotion (EDI's whole character arc being the prime example)

As for the endings being arbitrary, I can agree with that. I think one of the things that made the reaction to the original endings scorching rage rather than simple disappointment was that they just felt like ideas, rather than proper conclusions. When you look at the world Mass Effect builds, its pretty standard stuff; though there are some very interesting ideas in there, it's mostly science fiction 101. What makes ME so memorable, however, is the characters. It is very possible to write a compelling sci-fi story based on an idea alone, but for ME, absolutely no one would have cared about the universe if they didn't get to experience it along with characters like Garrus, Tali, and other favorites. That's my theory on why the original endings (and even the EC, to an extent) felt so anti-climactic: they use the ending as a springboard for three quick ideas, but don't show you how those ideas effect the characters you've grown to like. The first time you play the original endings, you're likely to be scratching your head. Head scratching is not what you're going for in crafting the ending of an epic trilogy. I think this hurts Synthesis more than the others. I hate this ending partly because it feels like the designers are trying to tell me that it's the "right" ending, that it's a total utopia and you should totally pick it, but refuses to explain anything, to it feels like a completely unfulfilling happy ending that you didn't earn at all.

While we're talking about Mass Effect, anyone have any particular desires for for the next Mass Effect series? Me, personally, I'd love to see the next Mass Effect game star a criminal, rather than a decorated war veteran. Part of this, I'll freely admit, is to vicariously play a Firefly game. But I think there's a ton of narrative potential there. Someone who's more of a criminal by circumstance than choice, I would imagine. Whether the character is a Han Solo/Malcolm Reynolds rogue with a heart of gold type or a genuine Space Heisenberg would be up to the player. It would also be a good opportunity to tell more of the personal stories Bioware tend to be good at without having to even try and top the Reapers as a galaxy shattering threat, though if its' going to be a trilogy they could easily amp up the "epic factor" by making it into a story about how even "insignificant" people on the fringes of the galaxy can shape the course of sentient life. As a personal fanwank idea, I love the idea of the antagonist of the game (or one of them) being someone who is almost like Paragon Shepard. A good person, someone who is completely dedicated to their duty; it just so happens that their duty involves stamping you out. We don't see enough of that kind of moral ambiguity in games.

 

Ya, the original endings left me thinking "What? WHAT? I played through three games over five years for this? Frakkin' RGB?" What did they do, write out the entire ending over lunch?

And oh man, a game about the fringe element set in the Mass Effect universe? Sign me up! And the post-Reaper war galaxy would be the perfect place for an aspiring entrepreneur.

 

I would have been happy if they just gave 1 well written and thought out ending rather than the mess of RGB then relegate the galaxy spanning decisions on slides like on the extended cut. My beef with the ending comes from its beginning on Priority:Earth, it was so anticlimatic and obviously rushed that ending suffered a bit more.

 

How did someone put it about the ME3 endings and the very final part of the game? Oh yes, 1% screws over 99%!

Accurate too, as after engaging in a massive firefight involving all of the Reapers' demonic creations and Harbinger (what a waste) you get all this guff that breaks down under the merest analytical thinking. And the endings reflect this misplaced desire to enact a "cost" to the player - what there hasn't been enough death? Planets across the galaxy are shattered, trillions dead - isn't that high enough?

The counterpoint that those are somehow background and don't affect the player only works if the story is executed really, really badly and up to that last 1% - it isn't! You feel what's going on all right - look at Palaven. Turians can be an arrogant bunch of bastards but do they deserve their world being slagged because some machines looked at the clock and saw the time was: "KILL EVERYTHING"? Then there's the Asari homeworld, we don't even get to see what happened to the Salarians. If you can tell me you played ME3 without giving a toss about what was going on.... well, you're one cold git.

The other thing that irks, even though I only saw the EC ending for Destroy, is the final sequence does away with one of the best features of the ME games - that conversations matter. Depending on what you do in them conversations can alter the flow of the entire game why wasn't this so for ME3? If you reconciled the Geth to their creators without either side killing the other, why can't you use that to rip a massive hole in the Catalyst's claims? Why can't you talk it into destroying the reapers and perhaps itself?

EDIT: Will finally be playing the Citadel DLC this weekend

 

Pretty sure you will love it as it is a really great send off for the Mass Effect Saga, just make sure to play it right before the attack on the Cerberus HQ so you can get all the characters in it. And like instantdeath I also like that none of the Mass Effect 3 endings are "good" they all have a certain degree of "well that kind of sucks" to it, which is just more realistic given the problem the game offers can't just simply be solved. Though imho Destroy really is the ending that makes the most sense and since Shep actually survives that one also most likely to be the real one. Though if she went for Control she would make one hell of a villain for the next chapter of the story.

 

Bah, you're all a bunch of Hitlers

I believe they've been very adamant about there not being a "real" ending, though how they'd incorporate that choice into future games is beyond me. Still, putting aside my enjoyment of the Control ending, I would argue it's the "more likely" one, both because I can't imagine they won't want to use the geth in future games*, and with the way they push it, I imagine they'd want to be able to say in later games that Shepard died at the Battle for Earth, since it's not like they'll be used as a character later.

*Speaking of the geth, I forgot to mention that as a reason for not seeing Destroy as a fitting paragon ending: a paragon Shepard spends an entire third of the game, and a part of the second, working to convince the quarians and the geth to just get along. When you finally succeed at that, undoing your own work by murdering half of the equation is really not an effective way to encourage longstanding relations

 

Are you trying to prove to me that you are a fool ID? Because only fools throw that name around with abandon!

I'm not convinced any of the 3 choices as Bioware set them up actually represent an actual full Paragon option - and there should be one - which is why, as the game has decided to practically renege on the tacit agreement so too can the player and reject its plot artifice! Thus, as far as I'm concerned the Geth live - screw Bioware.

Screw realism too!

 

Heh, fair enough. Even given the possible death of the Geth and EDI, I'll take destroy. And not *just* because Shep lives and has the possibility of reuniting with his crew and love interest, and I'm a hopeless romantic and damn if I don't try to make that happen. I don't trust anyone to have the godlike power of Control, even the most paragon of Shepards. Also, I don't entirely trust that weird starchild thing, and it does its damnedest to dissuade you from killing the Reapers. I also like to think that Destroy is trusting the galaxy to make its own choices, rather than imposing God-Emperor Shepard or the weird synthesis ending on them.

As for refusal, it's monstrously quixotic. You're condemning this entire cycle to die over a moral point. It's not just accepting that the Geth and EDI might be destroyed, it's letting everyone you've united, everyone you've ever cared about, and everyone who has survived thus far to die horrible, excruciating deaths because the galaxy couldn't get it exactly right.

 

Ah that one is just way to creepy, just like the merge one. Also what gave you the idea that Shep really went Paragon? As pointed out the Renegade is not even evil, just very determined.

 

Ya, put me in the category of "in my headcanon, the Geth live." It's part of my whole belief that you can't trust the StarBrat. It promotes two options in which the Reapers get to survive, and poopoos the only option where they die. He just says that stuff about the Geth dying to dissuade you from picking Red. And yes, I realize this puts me in a small conspiracy-believing minority. Hey, I had to do something to wrap my head around the ending at the time

And the first time I played, I honestly didn't think Shepard would survive the Destroy ending. Kinda got the feeling you just want to lay down and die, possibly evidenced by the fact that you literally walk right into the explosion of that big ol' tank you were trying to blow up. And unless you get really high EMS (which was no walk in the park early on) to get the little "breathing" cutscene, Shepard actually does die in all three endings.

Also yes, it felt like the endings were just plopped on top of the game at the last minute, with no regard to the choices you made over three games. If you play your cards right, you can have the entire galaxy fighting together, including the reborn Rachni and your very own A.I. army! How can we spend three games playing reconciler and matchmaker to the galaxy, only to have the fate of every living thing come down to some arbitrary decisions at the last minute. Massive letdown after one hell of a buildup.

 

Plus even if the Destroy ending messes up artificial lifeforms, what would prevent the people of the ME galaxy from just building new ones or switching the old ones back on?

 

Well, Destroy may very well have killed the geth- it seems to target Reaper-based tech more than anything else, and the Geth now have some Reaper software. It's why EDI also bites it in that ending, and Shep can survive- she's partially Reaper-based, he's not.

Still, don't trust the Gerber baby in the slightest.

 

The arbitrary endings were annoying, but what bothered me more was the fact that after chasing me around for 2 games, Harbinger didn't get his own boss fight. He was supposed to be better than Sovereign, and his constant taunting made him feel like a more personal enemy.

 

True- all he did was show up briefly to toast your armor and take a potshot at your teammates in 3. He didn't even taunt you with that old "assuming direct control" line.

 

I feel like I am going to get spoiled when it comes to Mass Effect if I read any of this stuff, even though I literally know nothing about Mass Effect.

 

In which case it'll mean next to nothing! Context is everything.

 

Well, I can tell that this is obviously a discussion about the various morality options and everyone's reactions to the various endings to Mass Effect 3, so basically next to nothing indeed, at least to the uninformed such as myself.

 

So the problem is quite simply that she may have minions while you don't? Well, in that case get some - surely you have people to do that, right?

 

I don't even know who "a_g" is and I already like her more than you.

 

*Looks for someone wearing a toga, prepares knife*

*Sees no togas*

Well, I've got a few days, I suppose.