[Scotty]

Only if you think that one must stick to what you percive as a main theme.

Well, when what you perceive to be the main theme is pretty ****ing clear, and then you have an ending that has none of the same themes as the rest of the game(s), you have bad writing.

[bigchunk1]

Do you really want people to waste their time to explain it to you *again*?   
A requirement? I guess not.
A good idea? Definitely.
Unless you think that it would be a good idea to end a 2 hour long romance chick flick with a 10 minute gorey action scene in which the whole cast is horribly screwed over.

Your idea intrigues me.

   I guess what makes a story a story is to provide a setting the author can use to communicate something meaningful. If you make an adlib filled in by randomly generated words and random acts you're going to have something surprising but probably not something meaningful. You could record the events of some individual's day, and you might have a story, but is there something that story will give to the audience? Why would you waste the audience's time with a big long story having them learn about a situation only to conclude the story which has nothing to do with anything you had them learn previously? they think to themselves, "This whole thing could have been 10 minutes long. I wasted my time.". Storytelling is something difficult to make rules for, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves, but there are reasons why people gravitate to certain norms.

   Here's my take on the ending. I was not a big fan of it but I am not as disturbed by it as many others I have heard. The first time I played the ending I was anticipating a typical climactic game ending: a boss fight with the reaper king, Sheppard making that last stand against the reapers and blowing them all away with some kind of super cannon, a united galactic force triumphant, something like that. I was actually pretty hooked even after the confrontation with the illusive man, but it changed when that platform lifted and Sheppard met with the catalyst. WHY THE HELL IS THE CATALYST THAT KID YOU SAW BURN ON EARTH?! Sorry, had to say that cause it still makes me mad. I did poorly with the campaign (low war assets) and only got one choice as a result, I had to go 'red' and kill the reapers with some undesirable events occurring along the way. To me, I thought this was the single choice in the game. So the dialogue went with kid catalyst explaining to me my single option and Sheppard JUST ROLLING OVER AND ACCEPTING IT! But hey, maybe Sheppard knows more than I do, so I kept watching. By the time I saw Joker reach out with faded life and the credits appeared I was confused. I figured, hey, I didn't like the ending, but maybe I just didn't understand it and people who are into mass effect lore more than me are satisfied. So at that point I just set the ending aside as 'confusing'. I was pretty interested in multiplayer at the time anyways, so no big loss for me.

   Looking back though, I do feel bad for people who replayed Mass Effect 1 and 2 in order to get every little aspect of the story the way they wanted, only for the outcome of those events to carry no meaning. The only thing that matters in the end is a single number (war assets) which gives you 3 choices, and these 3 choices don't really fit with the journey of mass effect 1 and 2. No triumph through brotherhood, no struggle to outplay the bad guy's hand, no stroke of genius in the eleventh hour, no you're sort of handed these 3 choices which Sheppard accepts will play out exactly how kid catalyst says they will. (Really now, who the heck would believe kid catalyst? For all I know he's got Sheppard locked in a dream and is cutting his corpse into mince meat while he's under.) After you make the choice, the cut scene leaves a lot unexplained, which I now understand is true for everyone and not just me.

   Now here's what I like about the ending. Yeah that's right, just cause I don't like the ending does not mean I have to hate every last bit of it now do I? I liked how the option that the whole series has been building you up to want to do, the option to destroy the reapers, was to me the least desirable option. It's kind of a twist how the synthesis or even the control option positions the reapers as an asset or even a friend? I found that ambiguity interesting. Also the synthesis concept is pretty interesting to me. Now I know there's no way that "fusing synthetic and organic DNA into something new to begin a new chapter" is in any way explained, but It's a pretty fascinating idea to run with the imagination. What does It mean to be alive? Are machines able to think? What aspects of the machine and what aspects of the organic would contribute to the new form of life? How would our senses change? Would we feel differently? Would the world appear faster/slower?

    I also like, yes like, the way that the synthesis cut scene plays out. Joker and EDI try throughout ME3 to better understand one another, but the fact that one is an organic and one is a machine keeps getting in the way. It seems improbable that any sort of relationship could develop. However,  under synthesis, they sort of meet in the middle, taking part of themselves and becoming the other half. It's sort of poetic in a really nerdy way. These sort of ideas established by the ending play into some of the themes of mass effect including: darwinian fitness, interpersonal relationships, and the definition of an AI as 'life'.

TL;DR:  bigchunk1 is contradicting himself haha 

[Mikes]

Unless you think that it would be a good idea to end a 2 hour long romance chick flick with a 10 minute gorey action scene in which the whole cast is horribly screwed over.

Uhhh, like in Titanic, Pearl Harbor, etc.? hehe

[Mort]

Its like Bioware's games always follow this: An average start, an excellent second act and a climax that ends with a sigh

[Unknown Target]

The idea of synthetics vs. organics was obviously very prevalent in the game, and I felt that the synthesis ending pulled that together.

WHY THE HELL IS THE CATALYST THAT KID YOU SAW BURN ON EARTH?! Sorry, had to say that cause it still makes me mad

That one was pretty simple for me to explain; it read into Shepard's mind and chose one of the most prominent images it could think of. Why the kid specifically I don't know, but they had been playing at something like that with the dream sequences the whole game.


I wasn't really disgusted at the ending, partly because I'd heard it'd be so awful so I just resolved to go into it with an open mind and hope I liked it; and I mean, I did. There are a lot of holes with it but they're not so bad as to destroy my feelings for the ME universe and story. I would have also been honestly surprised if they had you fight a big bad baddie with a lot of guns and big explosions at the end, because honestly - what choice would that make? It'd be basically ME2's ending a second time...and throughout the whole game, it never felt as if the climax would be a big explosion and that was it. So I wasn't surprised when I was presented with a choice; really, the game reminded me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution in it's ending (the three main choices), which I played a few months ago, so I guess that sort of made me ok with the idea of a simple ABC choice ending.

All that being said, the fact that they skipped completely over what happened to your squad after the final charge kind of irks me. I mean, Tali (whom I took with Garrus) was on the Normandy so I was like...uhh...it's not in their characters but maybe they retreated and were picked up by Joker, the whole invasion was called off, and everyone started to retreat...but yea none of that was well integrated or explained. :\

Really I think one of ME's major problems is that it set people's expectations so high and it had trouble living up to them.

[NGTM-1R]

Only if you think that one must stick to what you percive as a main theme.

Perception nothing, Bioware insisted that player agency was important and then built an ending where it wasn't.

[TrashMan]

Eh?
Because Shep didn't come up with his own solution?
I know some people see Shep having to accept one of 3 options as betrays of the "theme", but honestly, that's bollocks.

You basicly want the "theme" rammed up into the audences ass. Did you ever wonder if it makes sense for there to be another solution? Or time for Shepard to implement it?
There not being another way is actually something I find good. Because it's true to real life - there isn't always another way.
Some rage because Shepard doesn't argue enough with the Catalyst. The guy is pretty much half-dead and barely hanging on. That sort of thing tends to drain someone.
Not that I would mind an option for Shepto tell the Cataliyst to STFO and GTH - as long as itends in Critical Mission Faliure.

I've sen plenty of ideas for an alternate ending - and while they certanly offer less plotholes then BW's does, they also tend to suck even more, as tehy become Shepard power-fantasises and player wish-fulfillment.

[Scotty]

You basicly want the "theme" rammed up into the audences ass.

No, we basically want the "theme" to be what Bioware promised its fans the ****ing theme would be.

[TrashMan]

And what is this magical theme?

Love and peace unite the Galaxy?
Shepard can do anything?
Self-determiantion?

And I ask you again why do you feel it is necessary to follow a single theme so strictly? Why couldn't there be a tonal shift or a theme shift?
Real life has no themes. It is all over the place.

[Spoon]

 

[TrashMan]

 

[General Battuta]

Generally it is a good idea to not have a game about the inevitability of synthetic/organic conflict (due to synthetics supplanting organics) in which literally every instance of synthetic/organic conflict is due to synthetics acting in self-defense

[TrashMan]

Geth pretty much attacked on sight everyone for huderds of years...long after the Quarians were driven away.
Prothy talked about agressive AI's in previous cycle. I'm not so sure the situation is as black-and-white as you say. Especially sicne our knowledge comes from questionable sources.


And frankly, does it even matter who started it? And when it happened? For something to be inveitable, it doesn't have to be happning right now. So Quarians and Geth worked together against the reapers for a short while...what happens after that?


Yeah, the ending is rushed and tacked on, and full of plot holes. Execuation sux. But I don't mind the shift in itself.

[The E]

Remind me, were geth attacks really that common? Because I seem to recall that Geth presence outside of the Perseus Veil was a rather unusual sight at the time of ME1.

[TrashMan]

I don't know. Doesn't say. It does say that they attacked any ship that came too close to their territory (the Veil).

[MP-Ryan]

Remind me, were geth attacks really that common? Because I seem to recall that Geth presence outside of the Perseus Veil was a rather unusual sight at the time of ME1.

Having just finished a replay of ME1, I can confirm that there are multiple dialogue statements where characters (T'Soni among them while on Therum) refer to no one having seen the Geth outside the Veil in 300 years.  I believe it is also mentioned during the events on Eden Prime.  It's reinforced in a side mission on board a freighter that went beyond the Veil and came back full of Husks, and Tali makes it pretty clear that even the Quarians don't know what the Geth have been up to since they tossed them off their homeworld.

[Ashrak]

what everyone means is that the geth were acting in self defence and the Q were assholes

[TrashMan]

ANY ship crossing the veil. ANY. Quarian or not. For 300 years.

[Scotty]

ANY ship crossing the veil. ANY. Quarian or not. For 300 years.

Excuse me please while I call bull**** on this.

Any ship going beyond the veil for three hundred years did not return.  First, take a look at the posibilities that leaves us.

1) The Geth attack anyone and everyone.
2) The Geth attack ships that act in a hostile fashion once the Geth encounter them.
3) The Geth don't attack anything, and it's something else in the Veil that disables and/or destroys ships.

Now, let's consider some simple facts as they are presented in Mass Effect.

1) The Geth haven't been seen outside the Veil in 300 years.  This, coupled with the fact that no ship that goes beyond the veil ever returns, could be reasonably extrapolated that Geth haven't been seen in 300 years. (reference: Kaiden in the first mission, several other characters)
2) The only time we ever see Geth acting aggressively is when they are under the command of the Reapers, up to and including their instance of self-defense against the Quarians.
3) There is only a small portion of the Geth that is acting under the command of the Reapers.  It's not an unreasonable inference to say that Geth that do not follow the Reapers are still non-hostile to organic life. (reference: Legion and his loyalty quest)

So, with that collection of data in hand, we have a set of evidence that Geth do not act aggressively toward organic life under the vast majority of circumstances, up to and including vast enslavement to organic life, but will act in self-defense while attacked.  Further, the exposure of the difference in Geth consensus regarding whether to follow the Reapers or not shows that most Geth do not support the destruction of advanced organic life.

Therefore, it is a much more reasonable conclusion that the ships lost in the Perseus Veil are lost either to their own aggressive action toward the Geth, or by some other threat that may lurk there.

Furthermore, the only instances of synthetic life attacking organic life attacking organic life without provocation and not under the direct control of the Reapers were...

****.  I'm drawing a blank.  Oh, wait, that's because it doesn't happen.  Now, that's a problem, because the entire ending cutscene hinges on the fact that synthetic life tries to destroy organic life, and that the reapers try to stop that.  By trying to destroy organic life.  As synthetics.

That's the problem with the ending, Trash.  It's bad because it's inconsistent both with the universe, and the themes in the universe up until that exact moment.

[General Battuta]

Exactly what end point do people have in mind for this discussion? Trashman's all 'oh, yeah, you're right'?

There is one primary determinant of what TrashMan thinks about the ending, and we've already seen it in action:

1) people are excited for the game - TrashMan thinks the ending is terrible

2) people hate the ending - TrashMan thinks the ending is fine