Support NeoGAF

[WiiredShawn]

He brings up good points. People always seem to whine when things aren't wrapped up in a bow at the end.

Why? Why would you say this? Do you think that's what people, at least in this thread, have been talking about all this time? "WAAAH, WHERE'S MY NEAT BOW?!"

Yes, there are enough situations to merit this observation. People like closure, and having their expectations satisfied. For some people, a happy dance party ending would have been the only satisfying closure to the series. But most people engaging in this conversation did not expect rainbows, sunshine and perfect ribbons.

Let me quote this so it can't be misunderstood:

Most people wanted an ending that makes sense and utilizes the choices made across three games just like was continually advertised.

This isn't about neat bows. This is about Bioware trying to stuff shit into a box and then passing it off like the greatest gift ever - hell, the least they could have done is offered a neat bow to delay the realization of their shit.

The Internet would dub your ending the "Emo-Reaper" one. How would Shepard overcome the Reaper's fear that organics would ultimately try to destroy them? Would they sit down and have a long talk about their feelings. Would Shepard say "We're not your creators, our alliance proves that we can work together." and then the fighting would just stop. I wouldn't like that ending much.

Who knows? Shepard manages to convince Saren and the Illusive Man to shoot themselves, so clearly his/her persuasive skills are a force to be reckoned with. The point is, there are possible ways to twist your perception of the villain on its head in a way that suits the themes of the story and introduces a little moral ambiguity. It doesn't mean there couldn't have been a choice to make in the end - you would still have to kill Harbinger, for instance, but at least you would be facing an established antagonist and his reasoning might be more grounded in reality than some circular logic.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Well I guess the trolls are coming out to play. HOLD THE CIRCLE JERK!!!

 

[spekkeh]

'don't want you getting killed by synthetics so we synthetics will just kill you instead' is an idea so stupid that I don't think anyone expected it going in.

You are purposefully playing a language game by using two different meanings of 'you'. Why?

 

[HadesGigas]

He brings up good points. People always seem to whine when things aren't wrapped up in a bow at the end.

Things should be wrapped up by something, anything. Hell use old newspaper.

But this is like... instead of wrapping things up, the ending takes a hammer and smashes things into a bunch of new useless pieces. Pieces Casey Hudson has said they will not revisit and assemble ever.

 

[The Elite]

Why? Why would you say this? Do you think that's what people, at least in this thread, have been talking about all this time? "WAAAH, WHERE'S MY NEAT BOW?!"

Yes, there are enough situations to merit this observation. People like closure, and having their expectations satisfied. For some people, a happy dance party ending would have been the only satisfying closure to the series. But most people engaging in this conversation did not expect rainbows, sunshine and perfect ribbons.

Let me quote this so it can't be misunderstood:



This isn't about neat bows. This is about Bioware trying to stuff shit into a box and then passing it off like the greatest gift ever - hell, the least they could have done is offered a neat bow to delay the realization of their shit.

The ending made sense to me, save how some of the crew members ended up on the Normandy.

As for the advertising of the ending tying all your choices from the past three games together, I'd like to see that. I assume there was some discussion of that before the first game, but I never realistically expected it. I knew at some point they would have to filter things down into a few key choices.

 

[heliosRAzi]

How so? If an AI is programmed to do this every 50k years, it's not just going to stop just because people came together momentarily to face a greater threat.

Synthetics killing organics to keep organics from making synthetics that would kill organics. It's circular and it goes against the themes set forth in ME3 and the rest of the series.

No it's always, they are the vocal minority.

You have to have closure even in open ended stories. In Total Recall, the ending is left open but we get to see Arnold save the day (maybe). With Inception, it definitely has an open ending, but we get to see some closure.

In this, especially when we get to make some big decisions, we need to see the result of our actions. There is no closure.

 

[hateradio]

• Become part of the circle jerk and control it.
• Merge the circle jerk with everyone else -- huge circle jerks everywhere.
• Destroy the circle jerk, but also destroy GAF.

 

[DTKT]

The ending made sense to me, save how some of the crew members ended up on the Normandy.

As for the advertising of the ending tying all your choices from the past three games together, I'd like to see that. I assume there was some discussion of that before the first game, but I never realistically expected it. I knew at some point they would have to filter things down into a few key choices.

Which choices would that be?

 

[Walshicus]

• Become part of the circle jerk and control it.
• Merge the circle jerk with everyone else -- huge circle jerks everywhere.
• Destroy the circle jerk, but also destroy GAF.

Where's the "pretend nobody's jerking off" option??!

 

[hateradio]

Where's the "pretend nobody's jerking off" option??!

SHUT UP AND JUMP INTO THE LASERS!

 

[heliosRAzi]

• Become part of the circle jerk and control it.
• Merge the circle jerk with everyone else -- huge circle jerks everywhere.
• Destroy the circle jerk, but also destroy GAF.

And the world is flooded with cum in every ending.

 

[RedRedSuit]

I have no problem with the "expectation of a neat bow" characterization. It's a pejorative way to describe a perfectly reasonable desire and expectation. Thus once you strip away the pejorative turn of phrase, it's accurate.

Mass Effect, and all BioWare RPGs, are straightforward in how they expose plots. This isn't Metal Gear Solid. There's always a clear objective and usually some kind of mystery. Then more is learned about this mystery, and another objective is at hand. Game after game you work towards a certain goal, without any arty bullshit to obscure the action.

Then suddenly, near the point of catharsis, the ending turns into 100% arty bullshit. This is unpleasant.

So yeah, between "neat bow" and "arty bullshit," I was expecting the former from this particular developer and series.

 

[spekkeh]

I really, REALLY doubt anyone imagined the purpose of the Reapers was to stop a hypothetical technological singularity.

I already knew this too, which may be why, like DoctorWho, I thought the ending was fine. I'm pretty sure they actually already mention it in so many words.

 

[heliosRAzi]

I have no problem with the "expectation of a neat bow" characterization. It's a pejorative way to describe a perfectly reasonable desire and expectation. Thus once you strip away the pejorative turn of phrase, it's accurate.

Mass Effect, and all BioWare RPGs, are straightforward in how they expose plots. This isn't Metal Gear Solid. There's always a clear objective and usually some kind of mystery. Then more is learned about this mystery, and another objective is at hand. Game after game you work towards a certain goal, without any arty bullshit to obscure the action.

Then suddenly, near the point of catharsis, the ending turns into 100% arty bullshit. This is unpleasant.

So yeah, between "neat bow" and "arty bullshit," I was expecting the former from this particular developer and series.

True.

A game like killer7 can end extremely vague and trippy (and boy does it end extremely vague and trippy). But a conventional game like Mass Effect needs a conventional ending.

I already knew this too, which may be why, like DoctorWho, I thought the ending was fine. I'm pretty sure they actually already mention it in so many words.

Really? Where? Where at in the previous games did it allude to that?

 

[hateradio]

Then suddenly, near the point of catharsis, the ending turns into 100% arty bullshit. This is unpleasant.

So yeah, between "neat bow" and "arty bullshit," I was expecting the former from this particular developer and series.

I don't see anything artistic about the ending save the colors.

It wasn't high level, it wasn't interesting, and it wasn't deep. There were some philosophical questions that were raised, but ultimately they don't really fit the game, imo.

I'll just go back to thinking that Casey thought he was actually writing the end to Deus Ex.

I already knew this too, which may be why, like DoctorWho, I thought the ending was fine. I'm pretty sure they actually already mention it in so many words.

I think it's well established that the Reapers kill organics who have reached the Citadel, as they're expected to be highly advanced. However, I didn't expect their reasoning to be that they just wanted those organics from being destroyed by the synthetics they create. Not only that, but the Reapers themselves are Synthetics with previous organic compositions, so it doesn't really work. They are synthetics and they're killing organics. It's just such a brain fart.

 

[Karl2177]

And the world is flooded with cum in every ending.

IT IS NOT A THING YOU CAN COMPREHEND.

 

[spekkeh]

Synthetics killing organics to keep organics from making synthetics that would kill organics. It's circular and it goes against the themes set forth in ME3 and the rest of the series.

It's not circular, it's about creating a balance between the two. They don't stop organics from making synthetics, they stop organics from making synthetics that would kill all organics.

 

[WiiredShawn]

The ending made sense to me, save how some of the crew members ended up on the Normandy.

As for the advertising of the ending tying all your choices from the past three games together, I'd like to see that. I assume there was some discussion of that before the first game, but I never realistically expected it. I knew at some point they would have to filter things down into a few key choices.

Well, the endings never made sense to me, and then after far too much time contemplating all of them, they make even less sense because of how many logical and contextual problems they create. Perhaps you're just more accepting, and that's cool, but there's plenty of issues that have been stated multiple times by numerous people to justify the "this doesn't make sense" assertion. It's not a 2 deep 4 u situation, like some recent authors would like to believe.

And the problem with the advertising is that even a month before release, when the game was complete and ready for printing, the game's executive staff were still throwing around this idea that "all of your choices matter, there's so many possible endings, it's going to be so different based on how you play the game." If they said, "We're sorry, we bit off more than we could chew given EA's time and budget constraints, so we're having to filter down all of your choices into some key decisions," I would have at least appreciated their honesty. But they flat-out lied, not early on in development, but until the month before release. As Ivan says in Adam's Apples, "that's plain rude."

And I agree that there's nothing artistic about the ending. The game itself occasionally grapples with important moral and cultural tensions, and those are worthwhile. Art is about mediating the expected and the unexpected in a meaningful way, with an aim to ask questions about the forms and paths of life. Any questions posed by Mass Effect 3 are either tripe, or too weakly executed to be worth consideration.

 

[Turfster]

It's not circular, it's about creating a balance between the two. They don't stop organics from making synthetics, they stop organics from making synthetics that would kill all organics.

... by killing them.

 

[MYeager]

Synthetics killing organics to keep organics from making synthetics that would kill organics. It's circular and it goes against the themes set forth in ME3 and the rest of the series.

Synthetics programmed to cull organics from reaching a point where they can create synthetics that could potentially wipe out all organics. It goes with the themes of creation vs creator (Salarians/Krogan, Geth/Quarians, etc) that are established throughout the series, along with the themes of free will and destiny.

 

[AB12]

Every time I hear about the synthesis ending and how perfect it is, the disconnect between the ending and the character writers in the past games just stands out more and more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI#t=1m44s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUeRtHu0MdA#t=30s

Thank you for this.

 

[HadesGigas]

It's not circular, it's about creating a balance between the two. They don't stop organics from making synthetics, they stop organics from making synthetics that would kill all organics.

Why don't they stop organics from making synthetics? They have a magic tube that can destroy synthetics, spend a few hundred thousand years adapting that technology to not also kill themselves in the process of randomly shooting it.

 

[Vamphuntr]

It's not circular, it's about creating a balance between the two. They don't stop organics from making synthetics, they stop organics from making synthetics that would kill all organics.

Why couldn't simply use the reapers to kill or control synthetics in the first place? The reapers were able to control the geths...

Having them as guardians would have made much more sense.

I also don't understand how the reapers didn't rebel against their creators like the other synthetics either. The space kid still controls them.

But anyway I have no issues with people liking the ending as long as they don't call those that hate it "entitled whiners".

 

[hateradio]

... by killing them.

You can say that the Reapers are 100% organic. Get it, heh, heh? Get it? *nudge*

 

[heliosRAzi]

It's not circular, it's about creating a balance between the two. They don't stop organics from making synthetics, they stop organics from making synthetics that would kill all organics.

So instead of acting as a police force, they just say fuck it, let's kill organics.

Synthetics programmed to cull organics from reaching a point where they can create synthetics that could potentially wipe out all organics. It goes with the themes of creation vs creator (Salarians/Krogan, Geth/Quarians, etc) that are established throughout the series, along with the themes of free will and destiny.

And it contradicts those themes. We are shown that the races can overcome their differences and past mistakes. We are explicitly shown with EDI and the geth that organics and synthetics can coexist.

But then the ending comes and tells us that that was all bullshit.


And since someone has to say it:

The cycle begins anew!

 

[HadesGigas]

I also don't understand how the reapers didn't rebel against their creators like the other synthetics either. The space kid still controls them.

Most likely I'd guess the catalyst did rebel against it's creator, then had a few million years to ponder on what he did as new cellular life developed, and decided he shouldn't kill all life again.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Most likely I'd guess the catalyst did rebel against it's creator, then had a few million years to ponder on what he did as new cellular life developed, and decided he shouldn't kill all life again.

It sure would have been nice to use that investigate option.

 

[DTKT]

It's not circular, it's about creating a balance between the two. They don't stop organics from making synthetics, they stop organics from making synthetics that would kill all organics.

That's even worse. They are not killing organics. They are just killing some of them so those that come after can make the same mistakes as the ones before. Then, the Reapers come back and clean house again.

That's a terrible logic and one that will never work. The issue is that you can never contest that.

 

[HadesGigas]

It sure would have been nice to use that investigate option.

Who needs to investigate when we can speculate??

 

[Tex117]

The writer of that article looked at the ending in a vaccum without reference to the rest of the game.

By itself, the ending is fine...The whole "next step in evolution" and how you "chose" was fine.

The problem is once you drill down into it, you realize that (1) that type of ending does not fit with the series' themes but most importantly (2) the rules of the universe as set up by Bioware would not actually allow this ending (or if it did...everyone would be dead...etc...etc..).

But yeah...if you don't particularly care or think about it and ignore everything Bioware was saying during the game and through promises...the ending is ya know...fine.

On a side note, Bioware should be at least a little proud of themselves for making such a strong 95% of a game that would insight such outrage of a terrible last 5 %. (Even though they effed the ending up).

 

[hateradio]

Most likely I'd guess the catalyst did rebel against it's creator, then had a few million years to ponder on what he did as new cellular life developed, and decided he shouldn't kill all life again.

Yet we don't know any of this because we don't need to know the answers to the ME universe. Thanks for saving us from that Mac.

Synthetics programmed to cull organics from reaching a point where they can create synthetics that could potentially wipe out all organics. It goes with the themes of creation vs creator (Salarians/Krogan, Geth/Quarians, etc) that are established throughout the series, along with the themes of free will and destiny.

But there are also themes of unity through diversity. In the end only one option can be seen as that (control) and even then it's forced.

That's even worse. They are not killing organics. They are just killing some of them so those that come after can make the same mistakes as the ones before. Then, the Reapers come back and clean house again.

That's a terrible logic and one that will never work. The issue is that you can never contest that.

Well, the Reapers pretty much set up everyone to fail.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

This ending seems Obama approved.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

On a side note, Bioware should be at least a little proud of themselves for making such a strong 95% of a game that would insight such outrage of a terrible last 5 %. (Even though they effed the ending up).

This is true, I wish FFXIII's ending had caused this much outrage

 

[SEGAvangelist]

This is true, I wish FFXIII's ending had caused this much outrage

Everyone was too tired of tubing to care about the ending.

 

[hateradio]

This is true, I wish FFXIII's ending had caused this much outrage

FFXIII is factually 33-50% bad. I can't even remember the ending, so it was just forgettable.

 

[WiiredShawn]

I still believe that the Reapers actually disobeyed the Star Child (created rebelling against their creator) and he lost control over them. Maybe his original plan involved the whole "impose order on chaos" campaign, but the Reapers decided to self-determinate and kill as they pleased. The Catalyst gave him the power to regain control over them, and he allowed Shepard to do the dirty work of deciding how his creations would be "punished" (A. Obliterated, B. Controlled by the human they hate, or C. Removed as the result of synthesis).

Speculation!

FFXIII is factually 33-50% bad. I can't even remember the ending, so it was just forgettable.

Fuck that final boss. God, that thing was obnoxious beyond words - barely surpassing Star Child, which is an accomplishment. But no one cared about the ending, because it was basically the JRPG trope of "Friendship conquers all!! GROUP HUG POWER!!" There was a stupid deux ex machina, but it wasn't waiting at the end of an epic trilogy built around player agency. Plus, Vanille

Spoiler

finally died thank the lord

, which almost makes up for it.

 

[MYeager]

And it contradicts those themes. We are shown that the races can overcome their differences and past mistakes. We are explicitly shown with EDI and the geth that organics and synthetics can coexist.

But then the ending comes and tells us that that was all bullshit.

Yeah and there not being war in the middle east for a while doesn't mean that it will never happen again. It doesn't contradict anything, without the assistance of synthetics Shepard would not be alive or made it as far as he did in order to break the cycle.

 

[hateradio]

(A. Obliterated, B. Controlled by the human they hate, or C. Removed as the result of synthesis).

Speculation!

The way it's presented, Shepard and all other organics are ants to the Reapers. Reapers don't hold any feelings towards them, either negative or positive, except maybe contempt.

Yeah and there not being war in the middle east for a while doesn't mean that it will never happen again. It doesn't contradict anything, without the assistance of synthetics Shepard would not be alive or made it as far as he did in order to break the cycle.

But the cycle was only incidentally broken because Shepard made an appearance at the top of the elevator. The Catalyst then admitted defeat, and cast its plan as a failure. Unfortunately, it didn't admit that the cycle was broken all along.

Also, if there's an inevitable war, then what would synthesis actually accomplish? It's futile according to you.

Fuck that final boss. God, that thing was obnoxious beyond words - barely surpassing Star Child, which is an accomplishment. But no one cared about the ending, because it was basically the JRPG trope of "Friendship conquers all!! GROUP HUG POWER!!" There was a stupid deux ex machina, but it wasn't waiting at the end of an epic trilogy built around player agency. Plus, Vanille , which almost makes up for it.

The final boss was the easiest boss in the game. I was taking out massive damage and it only lasted like, what seemed to me, a minute or two.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Yeah and there not being war in the middle east for a while doesn't mean that it will never happen again. It doesn't contradict anything, without the assistance of synthetics Shepard would not be alive or made it as far as he did in order to break the cycle.

I knew this would come up. The future hypothetical war always rears its ugly head.

So, following your example, should we just nuke the Middle East since they'll eventually go to war? Especially if throughout our game we've been advocating peace? Going further, should we kill all humans because they will eventually go to war? Going even further, we should kill all humans because our sun is going to eventually blow up. Going even further, we should kill all humans because the universe will eventually die out. And that's just talking about stuff that will definitely happen.

And what about the flipside? Maybe this time the synthetics would stay peaceful. They are machines after all. Or maybe they will get into skirmishes but not feel the need to destroy all organic life which reflects how life is throughout history.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Everyone was too tired of tubing to care about the ending.

Yep

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Yeah and there not being war in the middle east for a while doesn't mean that it will never happen again. It doesn't contradict anything, without the assistance of synthetics Shepard would not be alive or made it as far as he did in order to break the cycle.

So what you're saying is that we should blow up all the advanced human beings in the middle east to prevent the people of the middle east (as a whole) from destroying their nations completely?

Or that one person should destroy the whole region instead?

 

[MYeager]

But there are also themes of unity through diversity. In the end only one option can be seen as that (control) and even then it's forced.

That's assuming that with the synthesis ending all the diverse traits that made the different cultures unique are now wiped out because everyone shares synthetic DNA.

 

[spekkeh]

... by killing them.

so?

Why don't they stop organics from making synthetics? They have a magic tube that can destroy synthetics, spend a few hundred thousand years adapting that technology to not also kill themselves in the process of randomly shooting it.

I think because they are themselves synthetics (was the crucible designed by the catalyst? I'm not sure anymore). It's actually not really clear what happens to the synthetics after a cycle, did they mention this?

Why couldn't simply use the reapers to kill or control synthetics in the first place? The reapers were able to control the geths...

Having them as guardians would have made much more sense.

It's an interesting rebuttal. I don't know, maybe it was too much of a hassle to constantly control the geths without the organics scheming to wage war on the ones who are controlling their robots. In the end the Catalyst kid didn't seem to think his reaping of organics was a bad move of course. At the least the harvested were preserved for ever and new organics could evolve.

I also don't understand how the reapers didn't rebel against their creators like the other synthetics either. The space kid still controls them.

The space kid seemed to me deistic when it comes to reapers, i.e. they were 'a part of him'.

 

[WiiredShawn]

The way it's presented, Shepard and all other organics are ants to the Reapers. They don't hold any feelings towards them, either negative or positive.

That's true, at least through the first game. But the second game, at least, introduces this very deliberate hatred for Shepard on Harbinger's part. He goes out of his way to antagonize you, and his encounters rub me as a personal vendetta. They probably don't care much about organic life in general, but there's clearly a wider interest in Shepard - so it's just ironic that they would be controlled by the character they themselves had yearned to overpower.

 

[spekkeh]

I knew this would come up. The future hypothetical war always rears its ugly head.

So, following your example, should we just nuke the Middle East since they'll eventually go to war? Especially if throughout our game we've been advocating peace?

No, because that would be inhumane. I can definitely see a cold AI thinking 'nuking the Middle East in 10-9-...'.

 

[MYeager]

So what you're saying is that we should blow up all the advanced human beings in the middle east to prevent the people of the middle east (as a whole) from destroying their nations completely?

Or that one person should destroy the whole region instead?

*eye roll* No, not that some people haven't made such suggestions.

But we do however limit the advancement of certain scientific routes with some middle eastern countries with the threat of blowing them back to the stone age.

 

[rozay]

No, because that would be inhumane. I can definitely see a cold AI thinking 'nuking the Middle East in 10-9-...'.

How is rewriting all organic life not "inhumane"?

 

[spekkeh]

This is true, I wish FFXIII's ending had caused this much outrage

Believe me, if I could've mustered up the energy to play more of that game past the 30 hour mark, I would've happily raged about the ending.

 

[hateradio]

That's true, at least through the first game. But the second game, at least, introduces this very deliberate hatred for Shepard on Harbinger's part. He goes out of his way to antagonize you, and his encounters rub me as a personal vendetta. They probably don't care much about organic life in general, but there's clearly a wider interest in Shepard - so it's just ironic that they would be controlled by the character they themselves had yearned to overpower.

It's clear that they didn't know what to do with the Reapers. Harbinger and the Reapers were pretty much sidelined in all of ME3. There was the impending doom, and the fight against one in Rannoch, but beyond that, they were part of the scenery.

That's assuming that with the synthesis ending all the diverse traits that made the different cultures unique are now wiped out because everyone shares synthetic DNA.

That's not the point. The point being that distinctly organic beings and distinctly synthetic beings could make things work through a unity that doesn't involve universal hybridization. However, we're never allowed to argue this, and it seems that some of you are willing to take the pill and accept the Catalyst's words as absolute truth because it's been around longer. However, it admits the cycle is broken and therefore flawed at the end . . . which to me invalidates its existence and its plan to reap. Basically, it's all just terrible, terrible logic.

 

[spekkeh]

How is rewriting all organic life not "inhumane"?

What makes you think I don't think it is?