spoilers:mass effect 3 ending

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Yeah - when you put it like that. Why didn't the Reapers just kill all synthetics and hang around in the background until it looks like AI will rise again; at which point they step in and destroy synthetics - that's a more sensible cycle. They could even just leave a few big warning signs saying - Don't Build Synthetics, They Will Kill You All.

[Tankfriend]

They could even just leave a few big warning signs saying - Don't Build Synthetics, They Will Kill You All.

"Signed: Your friendly neighbourhood Synthetics. Btw, if you do build Synthetics, we'll kill you!"

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

"Signed: Your friendly neighbourhood Synthetics. Btw, if you do build Synthetics, we'll kill you!"

P.S. Inexplicably we will kill you, the organics, and not the synthetics that we want to avoid killing you. Because you know - logic.

[SorelusImperion]

P.S. Inexplicably we will kill you, the organics, and not the synthetics that we want to avoid killing you. Because you know - logic.

Given how little synthetics are around its safe to assume that they were all destroyed as well. And while the fundamental characteristics of the harvested organics were preserved in form of the reapers there has been little to nothing left from previous synthetics. Last but not least less developed organic species were all left alone.

I mean its certainly not the perfect story but better than the Imperial army getting its ass handed by stone age Ewoks.

[Tankfriend]

Yeah, please don't mention the Ewoks...
Still, the fact that you have to bring up something as retarded as that to beat this speaks for itself.

[Wulfburk]

And the ewoks werent that important to the plotline, while the ending of ME3 is supposed to be the great climax of the whole trilogy.

[Cold_Mac]

P.S. Inexplicably we will kill you, the organics, and not the synthetics that we want to avoid killing you. Because you know - logic.

"You are incapable to comprehend that."

Always loved that justification from the reapers

[Mangalore]

... And while the fundamental characteristics of the harvested organics were preserved in form of the reapers ....

It's pretty unclear to me what their definition of preservation is. It would have been kind of important to put a spin of the ME3 horror show so one can buy the Reaper arguments.

[Tankfriend]

"You are incapable to comprehend that."

Always loved that justification from the reapers

I can't help but hear the storywriters saying that in answer to the complaints of the community about it. As if they foresaw it happening.

[Gaidin]

This summarizes the ending greatly.

Has nobody figured it out yet? I can't believe nobody's figured out what Bioware did with their story. A famous sci-fi author did it before...he was just a famous sci-fi author so he got a pass...

[Mangalore]

Has nobody figured it out yet? I can't believe nobody's figured out what Bioware did with their story. A famous sci-fi author did it before...he was just a famous sci-fi author so he got a pass...

Not sure what you are getting at. Do you mean BW wanted to turn a spectacle space opera into hard science fiction and failed spectacularly or that they went totally meta and failed spectacularly?

[Gaidin]

Not sure what you are getting at. Do you mean BW wanted to turn a spectacle space opera into hard science fiction and failed spectacularly or that they went totally meta and failed spectacularly?

It's a parallel to the Zeroth Law. Just more Thall Shalt Not Build Synthetics instead of Thall Shalt Not Harm a Human Being. It's just easy to miss when there's no first, second, or third laws to point at the Zeroth law like neon lights. Though I guess we have at least the First in parallel, if we're going to break it by building the Reapers to protect life and then they do what they do.

[Mangalore]

It's a parallel to the Zeroth Law. Just more Thall Shalt Not Build Synthetics instead of Thall Shalt Not Harm a Human Being. It's just easy to miss when there's no first, second, or third laws to point at the Zeroth law like neon lights. Though I guess we have at least the First in parallel, if we're going to break it by building the Reapers to protect life and then they do what they do.

Kind of weak to adapt an idea and ignore that the SF author before them already pointed out its flaw hence making any intelligent species thinking this is a good idea look a lot less intelligent.

I'm not sure I agree that's what BW tried to do though it's hardly than adopting the technological singularity which spawned some hype about how mankind makes itself obsolete with that. Maybe they tried to merge both over the course of the trilogy though in ME2 they still had the dark energy plot set up which however is not really much better other than giving a reason why Reapers do their thing.

I still wonder why they didn't go for their own fancy hints of ME1 which was that we are "nations of nations" speech by Sovereign which indicated the Reapers see themselves as a master civilization improving themselves by inflating entire civilizations into a super AI. That would have solved Zeroth law and the singularity idea when the Reapers imply that this solution stores the essence of all civilizations through time. It would have created more of an ideology of a biomechanical machine race than a supposed solution to a supposed problem. The dilemma is we never hear any other Reaper talk about that again in more detail although it's the only string they maintain through all three games about what the Reapers intent to do (turn organics into Reapers themselves).

I don't claim that is a genius story but it at least would be self consistent and lower the bar by not needing an universal explanation, just one the Reapers can believe and follow as a sensible course of action.

[Gaidin]

Kind of weak to adapt an idea and ignore that the SF author before them already pointed out its flaw hence making any intelligent species thinking this is a good idea look a lot less intelligent.

I'm not sure I agree that's what BW tried to do though it's hardly than adopting the technological singularity which spawned some hype about how mankind makes itself obsolete with that. Maybe they tried to merge both over the course of the trilogy though in ME2 they still had the dark energy plot set up which however is not really much better other than giving a reason why Reapers do their thing.

I still wonder why they didn't go for their own fancy hints of ME1 which was that we are "nations of nations" speech by Sovereign which indicated the Reapers see themselves as a master civilization improving themselves by inflating entire civilizations into a super AI. That would have solved Zeroth law and the singularity idea when the Reapers imply that this solution stores the essence of all civilizations through time. It would have created more of an ideology of a biomechanical machine race than a supposed solution to a supposed problem. The dilemma is we never hear any other Reaper talk about that again in more detail although it's the only string they maintain through all three games about what the Reapers intent to do (turn organics into Reapers themselves).

I don't claim that is a genius story but it at least would be self consistent and lower the bar by not needing an universal explanation, just one the Reapers can believe and follow as a sensible course of action.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying they did it on purpose. I think it's a total accident and they blundered into it. If I thought they did it on purpose I'd be pulling out a literary element and saying it's a metaphor to the Zeroth law. No...it's an accidental parallel. They ran full on into a brick wall. Their lead writer is a little too blunt force trauma to do something this subtle. If he wanted to do this he'd be making Asimov references all over the damn place and we'd have caught it within five minutes of the first game starting.

[Mangalore]

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying they did it on purpose. I think it's a total accident and they blundered into it. If I thought they did it on purpose I'd be pulling out a literary element and saying it's a metaphor to the Zeroth law. No...it's an accidental parallel. They ran full on into a brick wall. Their lead writer is a little too blunt force trauma to do something this subtle. If he wanted to do this he'd be making Asimov references all over the damn place and we'd have caught it within five minutes of the first game starting.

I think one ship is called Asimov. somehow I never got deep into Asimov. Maybe should read more than the synopsis and go, agh that's where they get it from.

[Gaidin]

I think one ship is called Asimov. somehow I never got deep into Asimov. Maybe should read more than the synopsis and go, agh that's where they get it from.

Well all things being equal, I think they'd be a little more full throated about it than a ship name you see at a glance if they were ripping off Asimov on purpose.

[Mangalore]

Well all things being equal, I think they'd be a little more full throated about it than a ship name you see at a glance if they were ripping off Asimov on purpose.

Sure, was just joking.


As a last addendum to the thread title: I have a fond heart for the refuse ending. It has a fitting bittersweet ending and might fit even better than Destroy given that the Starchild essentially declares "I'm the Reapers and you are screwed. BWHAHAHAHAH!"

It would have been quite a gimmick if that would have been the best developed one with Shepard and his friends going down in a last blaze of glory. Dark, depressing but imo completely in character while teaching gamers that you cannot always win.

[Tankfriend]

Unfortunatly, Bioware didn't realize the potential of the whole thing. They just went the "give the community the middle finger" route. Oh well, old story by now.

[Gaidin]

Sure, was just joking.


As a last addendum to the thread title: I have a fond heart for the refuse ending. It has a fitting bittersweet ending and might fit even better than Destroy given that the Starchild essentially declares "I'm the Reapers and you are screwed. BWHAHAHAHAH!"

It would have been quite a gimmick if that would have been the best developed one with Shepard and his friends going down in a last blaze of glory. Dark, depressing but imo completely in character while teaching gamers that you cannot always win.

Call me crazy but I hate that ending. I like the endings where Shephard doesn't just frack the Galaxy for his own principles. I never picked Destroy, just seemed so senile after him playing politician to get everyone to the battlefield. He can play politician a little longer, just long enough to realize that it's not his principles that matter, it's everyone else's lives.

[Mangalore]

Call me crazy but I hate that ending. I like the endings where Shephard doesn't just frack the Galaxy for his own principles. I never picked Destroy, just seemed so senile after him playing politician to get everyone to the battlefield. He can play politician a little longer, just long enough to realize that it's not his principles that matter, it's everyone else's lives.

I don't see Refuse as Shepard somehow sticking to his principles but rather the logical choice when you find out your secret surprise plan was known, foretold and is controlled by the enemy all along and you just handed Space Hitler his Space Nuke with it. Do you now also pull the trigger for him or rather attempt to find a different path to victory?

Destroy doesn't do any more damage than Synthesis or Control, you just also get rid off the threat everyone (including all galactic civiliations) signed up willingly to lay down their lives for. You play with everyone's lives in Control and Synthesis more than with Destroy because you have no actual insight about the end result and in fact kind of betray everyone on vague promises and veiled threats.


I like Refuse because it is something special. Do you rather go down fighting or hand over everyone's destiny to their murderers on some vague promises. That is an interesting choice compared to red, blue or green. Also you could have done a more awesome epilogue with Liara detailing to the next cycle how everyone's sacrifice can save them.

I like tragic heroes because the necessity of sacrifice without happy end to solve a crisis feels more heroic to me. For the same reason I like heroes that have to pay a price for their superpowers. It creates a balance.


edit: Is it healthy that we two are always the two people ending up reminiscing about Mass Effect?

edit2: The end crux of Mass Effect remains doing the same crap as Matrix 2 with the Architect by essentially removing any agency from the hero.