Mass Effect 3

[darthviper107]

I could easily see them making games that take place afterwards--It's pretty clear they have the synthesis ending as the "official" ending so they would just go with that.

I think though what might happen is some kind of multiplayer focused game, maybe an MMO.

 

[plasmid303]

Then why bother giving us the choice of 3 endings to begin with? They wrote themselves into a corner.'Official' or not, they won't risk alienating fans more than they already have. This is what I was saying in my previous post.

 

[darthviper107]

Games have done it before though, without really making people mad. I don't think it would make much of a fuss for them to do it.

Also remember this is still making more money than the past ME games

 

[eczamurai]

The extended endings won't resolve your issues with the endings feeling as if they were the resolution to a different story. The Catalyst kid is still there, and his reasoning is still the same, though he does provide more clarity as to what each choice entails.

What the EC does provide is an epilogue that was missing from the original endings. The existence of the extended endings does highlight how badly Bioware cut corners with the original release. The new scenes provided do give a sense of closure and of things to come.

I recommend at least checking the out on YouTube (but make sure you watch it/them from the point of which Shepard makes the final run towards the beam on Earth).

If this is the case I'm not going to watch it. The whole god-child should have been scrapped all together, it was NOT a good story telling point in any possible conceivable way. Bioware not realising this has tought me at least not to buy their products anymore. I'll go play Mario RPG's now for good stories. At least they don't ruin the ending.

I consider Bioware not changing the ending in a dramatical way a slap in the face. Why change it anyway then? I don't mind that I die in the end, heck, I expected it. But WHY oh WHY have the reapers be in control of some stupid god-child with no explanation and no introduction. Just cause they maybe edited what Liara and the rest are gonna do in the world I no longer have any interest in is not going to change anything.

Not buying Bioware products anymore.

EDIT: REALLY? Is synthetisis the official-ish ending? The one where you merge? That that would be the next evolutionaire step? Why the hell didn't the reapers just toss a human in to begin with anyway. Bad ****ing ending is bad.

"our method doesn't work anymore because you made it this far" REALLY? How the hell does Shepard reaching a kid to talk to not make the Reaper's methods work? Just kill the guy. Come back in 50K years, NP. Not to mention my Shepard would have shot him on sight.

Damn getting angry again. That's how much this game mind****s me. -_-

 

[eczamurai]

 

[plasmid303]

Games have done it before though, without really making people mad. I don't think it would make much of a fuss for them to do it.

Also remember this is still making more money than the past ME games

I can't think of any games whose multiple endings were as disparate and world-splintering as ME3's and the developer picking one to continue with. Maybe you can provide an example where this has happened.

Regardless, if you don't think ME fans won't raise a stink about Bioware picking one ending, then I'm not sure you quite grasp the fanaticism of a large and loud contingent of fans. Hell, ive made peace with the endings, but I'd be ticked off if they chose Synthesis as the real ending, because it's not my ending. It's as simple as that.

ME3 is making more money than the past games because of it's multiplayer and the fact that it is the most shooter-like of the series. This is inconsequential as a metric for judging if the next game will be a post-ME3 sequel or a story set within the timeline of the trilogy.

 

[eczamurai]

I can't think of any games whose multiple endings were as disparate and world-splintering as ME3's and the developer picking one to continue with. Maybe you can provide an example where this has happened.

Regardless, if you don't think ME fans won't raise a stink about Bioware picking one ending, then I'm not sure you quite grasp the fanaticism of a large and loud contingent of fans. Hell, ive made peace with the endings, but I'd be ticked off if they chose Synthesis as the real ending, because it's not my ending. It's as simple as that.

ME3 is making more money than the past games because of it's multiplayer and the fact that it is the most shooter-like of the series. This is inconsequential as a metric for judging if the next game will be a post-ME3 sequel or a story set within the timeline of the trilogy.

Ánd it's being released on 2 consoles from day 1.

 

[plasmid303]

If this is the case I'm not going to watch it. The whole god-child should have been scrapped all together, it was NOT a good story telling point in any possible conceivable way. Bioware not realising this has tought me at least not to buy their products anymore. I'll go play Mario RPG's now for good stories. At least they don't ruin the ending.

I consider Bioware not changing the ending in a dramatical way a slap in the face. Why change it anyway then? I don't mind that I die in the end, heck, I expected it. But WHY oh WHY have the reapers be in control of some stupid god-child with no explanation and no introduction. Just cause they maybe edited what Liara and the rest are gonna do in the world I no longer have any interest in is not going to change anything.

Not buying Bioware products anymore.

EDIT: REALLY? Is synthetisis the official-ish ending? The one where you merge? That that would be the next evolutionaire step? Why the hell didn't the reapers just toss a human in to begin with anyway. Bad ****ing ending is bad.

"our method doesn't work anymore because you made it this far" REALLY? How the hell does Shepard reaching a kid to talk to not make the Reaper's methods work? Just kill the guy. Come back in 50K years, NP. Not to mention my Shepard would have shot him on sight.

Damn getting angry again. That's how much this game mind****s me. -_-

Reading your posts is like reminiscing on old injuries.

I've since made my peace with the endings, I'm more apathetic than frustrated now. The extended cut did help though because at least it gives your squad members a bit of closure. Worth a watch from an emotional standpoint, if you've grown personally attached to the characters. Fills in a couple plot holes as well.

Also, the extended cut allows you to shoot the catalyst kid if you want, and he'll react to it.

 

[eczamurai]

Reading your posts is like reminiscing on old injuries.

I've since made my peace with the endings, I'm more apathetic than frustrated now. The extended cut did help though because at least it gives your squad members a bit of closure. Worth a watch from an emotional standpoint, if you've grown personally attached to the characters. Fills in a couple plot holes as well.

Also, the extended cut allows you to shoot the catalyst kid if you want, and he'll react to it.

Meh. If he doesn't die it's BS. And it doesn't change the fact that they should have had this ending to begin with, albeit still crappy. Haven't watched it yet though. Still not going to either. **** Bioware. And their moms, if they're hot and *****y that is.

But yeah, not coming back to it, if they really haven't changed the basis of the ending, it's not worth it. In my fantasy all my squad members died. Just to save them from a horrific plot twist.

Basically, I decided the reapers won. There was never a child, you were blasted by the reapers, that's your death. End of. They could not be stopped, because you are using their tech.

Bioware, you suck!

 

[darthviper107]

I can't think of any games whose multiple endings were as disparate and world-splintering as ME3's and the developer picking one to continue with. Maybe you can provide an example where this has happened.

Regardless, if you don't think ME fans won't raise a stink about Bioware picking one ending, then I'm not sure you quite grasp the fanaticism of a large and loud contingent of fans. Hell, ive made peace with the endings, but I'd be ticked off if they chose Synthesis as the real ending, because it's not my ending. It's as simple as that.

ME3 is making more money than the past games because of it's multiplayer and the fact that it is the most shooter-like of the series. This is inconsequential as a metric for judging if the next game will be a post-ME3 sequel or a story set within the timeline of the trilogy.

Star Wars The Force Unleashed--there were a dark side and light side ending, they ended up going with the light-side ending for the sequel. Or like half of the Bioware games that have sequels.

 

[eczamurai]

Star Wars The Force Unleashed--there were a dark side and light side ending, they ended up going with the light-side ending for the sequel. Or like half of the Bioware games that have sequels.

Yes, but that game wasn't really choise oriented besides the good ol' "to kill or not to kill that is the question."

 

[plasmid303]

Star Wars The Force Unleashed--there were a dark side and light side ending, they ended up going with the light-side ending for the sequel. Or like half of the Bioware games that have sequels.

I haven't played the Force Unleashed II, but I'm familiar enough through some reviews. Isn't the protagonist of the sequel a clone?

Sorry, but morality choices aren't on the scale of ME3's endings. I mean, taking Synthesis as an example, choosing one ending is the difference between everybody in the galaxy being a cyborg (or whatever) and not a cyborg if you chose another. That's the scale, it washes over everything.

I'm not familiar with Bioware games prior to Neverwinter Nights, but I don't think they've dabbled in ignoring one ending for a sequel. KotoR 2 had a different protagonist and story altogether. Same with Dragon Age 2.

 

[darthviper107]

KOTOR 2 might have a different protagonist but it makes the assumption that you chose the light-side ending in the first game when they reference anything about it.

 

[DarkShadow]

The Catalyst isn't programmed to care for Human, Asari or Turian life, or the lifes of his maker. He is made to care for the survival of life, and it thought the best way of preventing all life being whiped out, is whiping out only the advanced life every 50.000 years and give room for new species to develop. Which is not such a very strange thought, just look at reality, because humans are in control of everything, the other species on this planet have it alot more difficult, they are being hunted, their living space is being taken over by humans, polution, they never get a fair chance with us around.

I don't get why people think the Catalyst is the worst thing ever, it's just an AI that takes the shape of the boy Shepard has seen before, he is NOT the boy. Mass Effect was full of AI's, so it's not that strange that one is controlling the reapers.

The problem I myself had with the original endings is that apart from a few colors, all the endings are the same, it didn't show the results of your actions and it was pretty depressing. In my opinion the extended cut fixed alot of that, the endings are still the same, but you get to see what each ending does, and some things have been made less despressing (instead of your crew being stuck on a random planet, they manage to get off it in the extended cut for example). Although I am still not a big fan of control or synthesis, they are choices, you choose the ending that fits you, for me it's destroy, my Shepard get's to life, the Reapers are gone, Shep's crew isn't stranded so they will meet again, the mass relays and citadel can be fixed, the only downside is no EDI/Geth, but that was a price my Shepard was willing to pay.

 

[eczamurai]

The Catalyst isn't programmed to care for Human, Asari or Turian life, or the lifes of his maker. He is made to care for the survival of life, and it thought the best way of preventing all life being whiped out, is whiping out only the advanced life every 50.000 years and give room for new species to develop. Which is not such a very strange thought, just look at reality, because humans are in control of everything, the other species on this planet have it alot more difficult, they are being hunted, their living space is being taken over by humans, polution, they never get a fair chance with us around.

I don't get why people think the Catalyst is the worst thing ever, it's just an AI that takes the shape of the boy Shepard has seen before, he is NOT the boy. Mass Effect was full of AI's, so it's not that strange that one is controlling the reapers.

The problem I myself had with the original endings is that apart from a few colors, all the endings are the same, it didn't show the results of your actions and it was pretty depressing. In my opinion the extended cut fixed alot of that, the endings are still the same, but you get to see what each ending does, and some things have been made less despressing (instead of your crew being stuck on a random planet, they manage to get off it in the extended cut for example). Although I am still not a big fan of control or synthesis, they are choices, you choose the ending that fits you, for me it's destroy, my Shepard get's to life, the Reapers are gone, Shep's crew isn't stranded so they will meet again, the mass relays and citadel can be fixed, the only downside is no EDI/Geth, but that was a price my Shepard was willing to pay.

It's circular logic. And it goes against the nature of nature (the strong survive). Also, it's not to prevent life from killing life. It's about life creating synthetics that would end life. Which is basically what they do. Say as you want, but they DON'T let any species flourish, because what use is it to evolve if you get stopped at 50K years later? No use. You could find the true meaning of life and these bastards would come around and kill you anyway, because they have the dumbest programming EVER. Ánd to top it off my Shepard actually made a truce with the Geth thus proving there can be peace.

Sorry, but I don't see how your argument makes any sense as to why the Reapers exist. It also doesn't make sense that an AI is controlling other AI. Let it sink in.. an AI... controlling..... other AI. It's why all the Geth are named Geth. Whereas the Reapers have actual names. (Harbinger for example) Sure there should be a hierarchy, but I don't think he controls the reapers, at least it doesn't make sense to me if he did. Did I mention it was ****ing lame that he appears as a child? It's just wáy too corny to be taken seriously. Me and my girlfriend were both lifting our eyebrows and looking at eachother and going. "Is this **** for real? Did we just get trolled THIS hard?"

I mean.. I read online on the forums that the ending was absolute horror, so I expected the worse that could happen, the absolute worse. Like.. I thought that maybe the Reapers would be Nuked in the end. Yeah. Nuked. The answer to everything!

I'd be só happy if they changed the ending into a global Reaper nuking.

Anyways, wouldn't it be so much better if it was all about survival of the fittest, and the Reapers were simply reproducing for the sake of it? I don't think ANYONE would have complained about it. We would all be the victim of a big space orgy we could not stop.

 

[DarkShadow]

The Geth peace thing is irrelevant, at the time you face the Catalyst the peace is what, a few days, maybe a month old? You really think an AI thousands of years, maybe even millions of years old will be impressed by that? What is to say the Geth and the Quarians don't go at each other again when the reaper threat is all over?

And the Catalyst does control the Reapers he says so himself, he also says when Shepard ask him if he's just an AI that in as much as Shepard is just an animal. Probably meaning that he's way more advanced than any AI known in the Mass Effect universe, and that it's a bit belittling to say he is just an AI. I can also see why he took the form of the little boy, you have to remember, he is trying to persuade you to choose either control or synthesis, as destroy kills off his solution, so he has to come over as a peacefull being. In the extended cut, you can also shoot the Catalyst, and he shouts ''So be it!'' in a reaper voice, so yeh, if he had that voice all along we all would've chosen destroy. Give the extended cut a try, it really is not as bad, and it clarifies some things.

 

[eczamurai]

The Geth peace thing is irrelevant, at the time you face the Catalyst the peace is what, a few days, maybe a month old? You really think an AI thousands of years, maybe even millions of years old will be impressed by that? What is to say the Geth and the Quarians don't go at each other again when the reaper threat is all over?

And the Catalyst does control the Reapers he says so himself, he also says when Shepard ask him if he's just an AI that in as much as Shepard is just an animal. Probably meaning that he's way more advanced than any AI known in the Mass Effect universe, and that it's a bit belittling to say he is just an AI. I can also see why he took the form of the little boy, you have to remember, he is trying to persuade you to choose either control or synthesis, as destroy kills off his solution, so he has to come over as a peacefull being. In the extended cut, you can also shoot the Catalyst, and he shouts ''So be it!'' in a reaper voice, so yeh, if he had that voice all along we all would've chosen destroy. Give the extended cut a try, it really is not as bad, and it clarifies some things.

It's still far too vague. Also, if he were to call Shepard "just an animal" he would be right. Why would he let Shepard have a choice anyway? What the hell is it all about? Is it real at all or is it a mind job ( I suppose it couldn't be real, with the Illusive man there and all ). Which makes it even more attrocious. I don't think a reaper voice is a bad call to use, why deceive when you don't need to? I think it's bloody obvious hes a reaper, he even says it. Do you really think Harbinger would be any less intimidating if he sounded like a kid? Heck, it would make me hate him even more!

So glad I went with the destroy option. At least I know the kid is ****ing dead.

The god-child is still the dumbest thing ever. And him controlling the reapers is rediculous, since they're AI's, which have own wills. Unless they are like the Geth, but they aren't, hence the names. Bioware thought they were being original. (which I seriously doubt, I think they were just trying to be artsy, which is stupid. No need to be artistic for the SAKE of it.)


AND WHY THE HELL IS TALI IN JOKER'S SHIP HOLDING HIS ****ING HAND! THE SLUT. Seriously, I can't even imagine how they were going to clear that up. Bad writing is bad.

PS. The peace thing is not irrelevant since it proved TWO things.

1. The quarians started war on the Geth, not the other way around. The Geth proved nót to be after the destruction of their creators, they purposefully let them live, even after they started a war against them. Geth do nót seek extinction of other races, they respect life. Not to mention they JOIN you in battle, the final battle.
2. Peace is still peace. Especially since it was deemed impossible, it's all the more impressive.

 

[DarkShadow]

The Catalyst said it himself, once the Crucible docked he did not have control over it, he can't make the choice, that's why Shepard has to do so.

The Catalyst may be a very advanced AI, but the Reapers are not fully AI, they are a mix of synthetic and organic. We know that the Reapers (probably the Catalyst too) had to power of indoctrination , who is to say the organic part of the Reapers isn't indoctrinated by the Catalyst? In the extended cut the Catalyst tells us that he turned his creators into the first Reapers, he surely must have indoctrinated organics to achieve that goal, like we see the Reapers through out the ME series do.

 

[SAB]

The catalyst is bad because its a deus ex machina and breaks storytelling 101.

You do not under any circumstances introduce a new element never before discussed to explain everything at the last second....not unless you want everyone to point out your storytelling is horrible.

In this case it is actually the literal definition of deus ex machina which makes me wonder if Bioware are winking at you while they do it.

EDIT:
From wikipedia in their entry for Deus ex machina

In Mass Effect 3, the story is resolved using Deus ex machina, via "The Catalyst." The Catalyst is able to conveniently solve the series' primary problem (organic life vs. synthetic life) through one of three different solutions. The way this works is never explained in detail, except that the Crucible has changed the Catalyst, and there are now "new possibilities." The Catalyst represents Deus ex machina both literally and figuratively.

lulz

 

[plasmid303]

The biggest problem about ME3's ending is that they tried to pull the curtain back on the Reapers' motivations. There was really no need to do that. The strength of the core narrative and themes of ME3 was enough to invest players through to the end. The Reapers could have just been intergalactic bogeymen and it would've been just fine.

If one wants to argue that point, then I would bring up an irrefutable one about how poorly Bioware handled the Reapers' backstory. If they wanted to tell us all about the Reapers, the one way that you SHOULDN'T go about it is to introduce a new character in the final 10 minutes to deliver the giant info-dump. They had a whole game to drop hints about what the Reapers are, but instead they split the focus and made Cerberus the major antagonist for much of the game.

It's poor writing, even if we were to disregard the actual contents of the writing.