Mass Effect 3 discussion

Origin is nothing like the D3 DRM. It's basically Steam, only EA and AFAIK without an offline mode. Connect, click play, there we go. I also feel that the multiplayer isva worthwhile addition to the game (and I was anti-MP before I actually played it), but that's just me. If you didn't like ME 1&2, the chances you like the third are low, so you'd best skip it I guess.
 
Don't like the three colour cupcake ending?

[spoiler:5668e1d8a7]You Can reject them but it gives you a new bad ending. Cuts to Liara's probe message. Class Act Bioware.[/spoiler:5668e1d8a7]
 
Ilosar said:
Origin is nothing like the D3 DRM. It's basically Steam, only EA and AFAIK without an offline mode. Connect, click play, there we go. I also feel that the multiplayer isva worthwhile addition to the game (and I was anti-MP before I actually played it), but that's just me. If you didn't like ME 1&2, the chances you like the third are low, so you'd best skip it I guess.
Click to expand...
And Steam is also a form of "DRM" just in a very nice package. Still, many games require from you today to be online or to create accounts even though you dont need it. Thats the point. DRM is DRM even if it comes with a few nice features.
 
So...

[spoiler:5a7505e79a]-You have more dialogue choices with the star kid that explain things a bit more

-You can reject the star kid BS or shoot him but leads to bad ending. The cycle continues, the good guys lose. Hilariously I've read that the scene at the end still mentions "the Sheperd that saved the universe". :clap:

-In the proper endings the Mass relays are only damaged and the Normandy isn't stranded anymore, making those two things that were obviously meant to be significant basically pointless (they didn't thought of the implications of the destruction of the MRs?)

-Shyntesys is still BS and probably even worse, with the reapers becoming buddy-buddy with everyone (?) and EDI ecstatic that people have a chance to become immortal...while still being able to have children... Again, Bioware doesn't seem to understand the implications of what they wrote

-Control puts Shepard into...er...control of the reapers and he uses them as a force of good to protect the galaxy

-Destroy is simple. Bad guys dead, good guys rebuild[/spoiler:5a7505e79a]
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
Again, Bioware doesn't seem to understand the implications of what they wrote
Click to expand...

What implications?

[spoiler:d5085decc4]Does it really say synthesis leads to immortality?[/spoiler:d5085decc4]
 
donperkan said:
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
Again, Bioware doesn't seem to understand the implications of what they wrote
Click to expand...

What implications?

[spoiler:d4c5f31417]Does it really say synthesis leads to immortality?[/spoiler:d4c5f31417]
Click to expand...

[spoiler:d4c5f31417]Immortal beings that create other immortal beings which will create other immortal beings. Population would skyrocket, what about the resources to feed them?

And yeah, it does say that synthesis leads to immortality, but now that I'm rewatching it it seems it means in a more...uh...metaphysical way?

"As the line between syntethic and organic disappears, we may trascend mortality itself...to reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine."[/spoiler:d4c5f31417]
 
I don't wanna spoiler my whole post. Read at your own risk if you care about the EC.

Ok, since you don't wanna, I did it for you - BN

[spoiler:2e45b2676b]Well, there still exists a hell of a lot of plot holes. They even added to them, such as how the hell do they repair the Normandy when stranded on a backwater planet, how exactly do they survive such a crash, and what's the meaning of that scene anyhow. I mean, they crash, rebuild, and away they go. So what was the point? obviously the crashes were not widespread, else the ending monologue would talk about it. Same with blowing up them Mass Relays. I mean, I guess it's symbolism for destroying any trace of the Cycle. But then we just rebuild them, and the ridiculously massive Citadel too to boot. So we rebuild those extremely advanced pieces of technology just like that, when previously we didn,t have a single clue as t how they worked?

And the new Catalyst scene is just adding BS on top of the existing BS. Synthesis means we reach an ''understanding'', how, by brainwashing us to love each other? A mind rape of galactic proportions, no fucking thanks. Control has become far more tolerable, albeit taking the star-brat's word for it that Shepard will direct them and still be as he was is a bit much to swallow. Eh, if it was possible, I would consider using Control, then making the Reapers help rebuild, and then have them all dive in a remote sun. No need to kill synthetics, and we're rid of the space squids of doom. Not to mention that the Catalyst defeats its own argument by admitting it using it's creators to create Harbinger against they own will. How is it peace when you kill one side to create more of another? Oh, but it's not really a war because they're just doing what they are told/created to do. So when a guided drone kills you, nay genocides your whole civilization, it's not war, its just doing what it was designed to do. And said drone was created by melting down untold number of people into paste in the most horrifying way possible, but don't worry, they are ''preserved'', even if they are now a gestalt intelligence prisonner of a massive ship obeying the whims of a logically faulty AI. Its whole argument and very existence is absolute BS.

And the fourth ending just seems to be Bioware being petty. ''oh, what's that, you don't like the Catalyst? Well deal with it or die!!''.

That being said, the epilogue slides were nice (I smiled at the Asari/Krogan celebrating their victories, and at Zaeed enjoying his beer on the beach, I admit) and the memorial to Shepard and Anderson were good too. So yeah, the EC helps with the ending in some places, but utterly fails to address the problems in others. I guess I can play the game again now, if only to complete my trilogy playthrough in a few months when I got the time. It's still a sour note, but it's less of a slap in the face than it was.[/spoiler:2e45b2676b]
 
I didn't realize the extended ending DLC was out already and had a quick look at them on Youtube.

A lot of the people there praise the DLC but personally I find it improves nothing at all and as someone before me here said, only opens more plot holes.

Everyone will have his or her own opinion but I honestly say now that the whole Mass Effect trilogy was a big waste of time.

Its now clear that from the get go the sole purpose of ME was to set up a sci-fi franchise that can be milked like the Halo games through games, books, comics, action figures and eventually a movie.

That I actually wasted money on this.
 
As far as i'm concerned your plot holes are trivial if you chose the synthesis ending.

By merging org. and syn. a new life form is created, that lifeform could possess the traits and knowledge of all advanced races reaped and present. By taking that in consideration rebuilding the mass relays and the citadel is not an issue. With synthesis possibilities are endless.

[spoiler:330d6f4dba]"As the line between syntethic and organic disappears, we may trascend mortality itself...to reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine."[/spoiler:330d6f4dba]

That's the way i undertstood it since i first saw the synthesis ending.
 
Its still a deus ex ending as the Reapers have never given any indication they would promote a merge of the organic and the synthetic.

Plus how is this an effective solution to the problem of sentient species creating even more greater intelligence.

It was addressed as artificial intelligence eventually becoming a threat to 'regular' life because of growing tensions between the two.
Organic life may now have 'crossed the bridge' so to speak, now being more able to relate to machine intelligence but it could be any form of intelligence that sooner or later decides that the rest is really just a big waste of resources and space it feels it can use more optimal itself.
 
I'm still wondering what kind of "new solution" is Destroy. Sure, all the synthetics are gone but they can be rebuilt. The star child itself was sure that new synthetics would eventually be made again, that's why he created the reapers and the cycles, so...what the hell?
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
I'm still wondering what kind of "new solution" is Destroy. Sure, all the synthetics are gone but they can be rebuilt. The star child itself was sure that new synthetics would eventually be made again, that's why he created the reapers and the cycles, so...what the hell?
Click to expand...

My advice to you is not to think about it hard because Bioware along the way shot itself in the foot several times when it came to logic.
 
I'm still wondering what kind of "new solution" is Destroy. Sure, all the synthetics are gone but they can be rebuilt. The star child itself was sure that new synthetics would eventually be made again, that's why he created the reapers and the cycles, so...what the hell?
Click to expand...

[spoiler:3e472b788e]Trying to make do without the cycle, since in the Catalyst's view it failed when The Shep reached it? Dunno. Hell, how is Control a solution? The star-brat's pet genocidal mecha-chtulus now serve and protect the galaxy, as well as serving community sentences wiping offensive graffitis off the Citadel. How does it stop organics and synthetics from having a go at each other in the future? Reaper!Shep will step in and kill them all? It's still very murky. Synthesis is the only one that seems to directly satisfy the Catalyst's problem, since now it appears everyone is brainwashed to love each other, and has a cool green glow to boot. Yuck.

The whole organics vs synthetics was retarded from the start anyhow if you ask me. Sure, the Reapers were synthetics and our enemies, but they were not our enemies because they were synthetic, you dig? They were our enemies because they tried to turn us into fine paste. They could have been the Geth, the Krogan, the Rachni, wouldn't have made much of a difference. And as I said, the Catalyst itself says that it needed to force its creators to comply its solution by turning them into Harbinger. They themselves did not see the Reapers as a solution. For what we know the whole thing is the bad interpretation of a faulty AI, that condemned the galaxy to endless genocides in the name of ''peace''. I mean, of course there's peace when everybody else is dead, but it's not much of a solution to anyone but the ones who do the genociding, eh?

Bioware can go on and on about how Synthesis creates a perfect intergalactic utopia of peace and love. I don't care. It feels impossibly forced. I'm actually torn between Destroy and Control as
my favourite (or least bad, whatever) ending. On the one hand, Control is what TIM wanted, and there's always a risk Reaper!Shepard loses control or determines the Cycles were a good idea after all. Plus, the Reapers only get community service as their punishment. On the other hand, Destroy sacrifices EDI (meh) and the Geth (... fuck). At least the Reapers are dead and gone now, and Shepard is alive if you get 5K+ EMS. I also find it funny that the Crucible/Catalyst can precisely control just the Reapers, that Synthesis allows it to perform a fundamental change on every single being in the galaxy in an instant (can you say, space magic?), but that in Destroy it cannot discriminate between the Reapers and other synthetics. Admitedly, EDI came from Reaper tech and the Geth had Reaper upgrades invariably if they survive that long, but still, it seems awfully convenient.[/spoiler:3e472b788e]

My advice to you is not to think about it hard because Bioware along the way shot itself in the foot several times when it came to logic.
Click to expand...

*Sigh* too true. I still love the game despite all the holes, it had some wonderful moments, but it could have been even better if they had a guy dedicated strictly to reviewing their script like I heard Obsidian has.
 
I still don't get this "synthetics kill organics" logic. There are so many metaphysical possibilities to it. Anyone watching and reading some of the "old" Sci-Fi stuff knows about it one way or another. Sentient machines killing their creators.

Though. If there is an synthetic organism so far advanced particularly in their intelligence who is saying that they decide to destroy all kind of organic life? Co-existence does not even cross their mind? And yet they develop this whole story about the quarrians and the geth which shows that Shepard managed to overcome many of the ods here. Hell no. It was even the reapers misleading the geth here.

Meh. This whole explanation for the reapers sounds to me like a big pile of turd. They really tried it to hard here to give it this "big deep meaningful reason".

You know, maybe they should have never even tried to really explain the reapers. Simply seeing them as one of the many huge mysteries of the the cosmos. Things sometimes really lose their appeal once you explain it.
 
I still liked the idea that the Reapers are some kind of celestial engineers, performing tasks that are beyond our understanding and requiring species and civilizations to 'fuel' themselves and increase their numbers.

That would go pretty well along with what you suggest Crni Vuk.

Characters in the games could point that out to Shep, "Does it matter if we can understand them or what their goals truly are? It could be trivial or so beyond our scope that we can hardly imagine what it is like. In the end it just comes down to this 'Its us or them'."
 
You know, maybe they should have never even tried to really explain the reapers. Simply seeing them as one of the many huge mysteries of the the cosmos. Things sometimes really lose their appeal once you explain it.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The Reapers are genocidal machines from dark space who want to kill us. What more do we need to know? Trying to explain it will invariably fail; either it will seem lame (such as just using us as food/fuel) or senseless and incomprehensible to our tiny mortal minds (the current ending). It's literally impossible to take that kind of impossibly powerful villain and give them a reason. They are just beyond us, they don't care about us. They are to us as we are to ants, if humans decided to exterminate all ants everywhere. Hell, they seem more like a force of nature than a villain in the classical sense. The fact that they pretty much do not communicate with Shepard at all unless greviously wounded like on Rannoch reinforces that idea. In ME2, harbinger couldn't ever shut up. In ME3? Not a word, and I prefered it like that.

I think I already stated it in this thread, but I would have liked the Reapers to have lost their purpose. They would have had one, before, but now it would be lost to them. The cycle continues because... it does. That's what the Reapers do. They do not need a reason or explanation. And certainly no star-brat with faulty logic pulling their strings.

I mean, think of Sauron in Lord of the Rings. He's the antagonist for certain, yet he never explains himself. He never even speaks to anybody. Only once in the books, IIRC, does he ever have a line. He's a force of nature (in LOTR's case, of pure evil I guess), he sends his forces to conquer Middle-Earth, and that's all you need to know about him. Imagine if it had been revealed he just tried to make the Free Peoples and the Orcs live together in peaceful harmony forever. How lame would that have been? Yes, it's simplistic, but it works. Mass Effect never was Fallout, it never needed the Big Bads to have a sympathetic agenda. Their agents, yes. You can feel sympathy for Saren, for the Heretic Geth, for the corrupted Rachni, hell even for TIM. Same as sympathy was felt for the Southrons and Saruman in LOTR, but not for big evil Sauron himself.
 
Personally I think that the best ending is [spoiler:f7578dea8a]Refuse/Reject/Bad Ending. It fits more thematically and the Reapers were defeated anyway, only in the next cycle and without showing any post-ending stupidity like the friendly neighborhood Reapers.[/spoiler:f7578dea8a]

Too bad that you can only refuse to choose and not argue with the star-child how utterly BS his logic is.
 
I am really disappointed with new endings. Sorry BioWare, it's the same old shit, just covered in sprinkles. Mac Walters tried way too hard to be "artsy" and "deep", just like hipster kid splashing paint randomly onto canvas. He wanted to include some kind of EPIC TWIST at the end of ME3, and failed miserably. Sorry, but the whole idea of Glitterchild is retarded. Why can't we have epic battle with Harbinger? Why can't it turn out that the Shepard himself is the Catalyst and in order to save the galaxy he needs to sacrifice himself (I really suspected that that would be the case while first playing ME3), making the Crucible disable Reaper shields, thus, depending on EMS, allowing the united forces to destroy majority of Reaper fleet gathered aroud Earth? Would it be predictable? Yes. Would it be cliche? Definitely. Would it be a satisfying ending? Hell yes. Face it, writing in BioWare games was never exceptionally amazing, and neither was it in case of previous ME games. ME3 as a whole was a huge disappointment, and forced inclusion of the Godchild did not help.


Anyway, hi guys, I haven't seen you in a while!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top