Mass Effect 3.5B: Taste the Rainbow (Story and Ending Discussion; Spoilers!)

[Psyren]

Old thread is here.

The purpose of this thread is to provide a place to discuss the endings, along with any sensitive plot moments/twists that would otherwise require tags in the main/gameplay thread.

Please be advised that spoilers are unmarked in this thread.

[Psyren]

As for what we know so far:

The Expanded/revised endings DLC, Extended Cut, has been confirmed
FAQ on Extended Cut
Relevant tweets from Bioware spokesperson

[Croakamancer]

Are there going to be more/different endings or ending DLCs in the future?

No. BioWare strongly believes in the team’s artistic vision for the end of this arc of the Mass Effect franchise. The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned.

This is what gets me. I mean, I understand, I guess, but still....

The thing I keep on thinking of is comic books. If something in a long running comics series doesn't make sense, fans call the writers on it, and it gets retconed. Often deservingly. What is so wrong with wanting a retcon to a videogame franchise?

Artistic vision doesn't mean 'it is untouchable' especially if it's part of a franchise, with a continuity. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect the legacy of a shared setting that we all enjoy.

Plus, I'm pretty sure I get the reason for this ending (as opposed to indoctrination)... but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I won't, at least for now. :)

[wayfare]

This is what gets me. I mean, I understand, I guess, but still....

The thing I keep on thinking of is comic books. If something in a long running comics series doesn't make sense, fans call the writers on it, and it gets retconed. Often deservingly. What is so wrong with wanting a retcon to a videogame franchise?

Artistic vision doesn't mean 'it is untouchable' especially if it's part of a franchise, with a continuity. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect the legacy of a shared setting that we all enjoy.

Plus, I'm pretty sure I get the reason for this ending (as opposed to indoctrination)... but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I won't, at least for now. :)

Retconning is rarely done out of respect for the fans -- usually it is poor writing, lack of research, rampant artistic vision, or a combination of all 3.

Now, I'll agree that the ending needed re-working, but I thought the ambiguity wasn't a bad thing. The big flaw, IMHO, is that the endings had minimal differences. I wouldn't have minded a few scenes that dealt with the consequences of winning the war. Hell, with all the options floating around in teh game, you could have had a ton of different endings that meshed with your actions -- that was the payoff I was expecting.

[TheLaughingMan]

Plus, I'm pretty sure I get the reason for this ending (as opposed to indoctrination)... but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I won't, at least for now. :)

Personally, it smells like MMO bait or somesuch. You know, a "thousands of years later, go out and rebuild an up-and-coming society with over 100 quests and achievemants!" sort of thing. Yes, I know The Old Republic would make this redundant. And yet, over-saturation hasn't stopped executives before. I'm sure you're all familiar with Guitar Hero....

Oh geeze, I did sound like a conspiracy theorist!

[Zorg]

Some other relevant Twitter stuff:

@JessicaMerizan so Shepard can see Liara again?!

@Petipas1414 depending on your choices :)

@JessicaMerizan @MrBlazenGlazen The clarification DLC will give us that option? O.o Your not kiding are you Merizan?

@DiogoPereira16 @mrblazenglazen that's what clarification and closure is for :)

-

@JessicaMerizan so. Were you being serious and honest with me earlier? About Shepard reuniting with Normandy and crew? People not all dead?

@MrBlazenGlazen I think the DLC is promising and I think you should try to be patient and see :)

-

@JessicaMerizan will the extended cut give us more than 3 choices at the end? Or is that 100% staying the same just with extra stuff.

@FemmeShep there will not be additional endings, just more content that provides clarity/closure on the existing endings


-

Keep in mind Jessica Merizan says nobody starves, everyone survives and the galaxy rebuilds is already implied in the current endings - she doesn't quite get that as the sole BioWare employee/spokesperson talking on the matter people are taking what she says as fact and mixes in her personal opinion and headcanon a bit with her replies.

[Croakamancer]

Retconning is rarely done out of respect for the fans -- usually it is poor writing, lack of research, rampant artistic vision, or a combination of all 3.

Aand...? (Sorry, too easy)

Now, I'll agree that the ending needed re-working, but I thought the ambiguity wasn't a bad thing. The big flaw, IMHO, is that the endings had minimal differences. I wouldn't have minded a few scenes that dealt with the consequences of winning the war. Hell, with all the options floating around in teh game, you could have had a ton of different endings that meshed with your actions -- that was the payoff I was expecting.

Eh, I too don't mind the ambiguity, but there's a difference between that and 'we're making this up as we go' ;) What we got was simply too abstract, filled with plotholes, and then there's the Godchild...

Personally, it smells like MMO bait or somesuch. You know, a "thousands of years later, go out and rebuild an up-and-coming society with over 100 quests and achievemants!" sort of thing. Yes, I know The Old Republic would make this redundant. And yet, over-saturation hasn't stopped executives before. I'm sure you're all familiar with Guitar Hero....

Oh geeze, I did sound like a conspiracy theorist!

But a nice one.

Yeah, that's my guess... sort of. Not an MMO, but the same deal; a catastrophic event that'll allow them to reset things for a rebooted franchise. A Spellplague for ME... a Techplague, if you will. ;)

If it wasn't for Synthesis.. But then, Synthesis can't easily stay in continuity with any of the other endings, no matter what happens.

[Morty]

"Artistic vision", my arse. I'm glad that the "extended cut" will be released, but trying to convince everyone that they totally meant it - even though it's clear that the spacekid ending was cobbled together in a rush - leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And I can't say I remember EDI walking out of Normandy in the Destroy ending. If it's possible that she does... well it would make no sense.

[Opperhapsen]

The most insulting part of this entire thing is that they're lying through their teeth.
What they're trumpeting is not "Artistic integrity", what the press is calling for isn't "Artistic standards", and anyone who knows even a smidgeon of art theory and history can call them out on their crap.
Hell the notion that it sets a "Bad precedence" is also complete bollocks, as it's been done before in pretty much every storytelling art form relevant to this discussion. (Games, movies, literature.)

Now, I'll agree that the ending needed re-working, but I thought the ambiguity wasn't a bad thing. The big flaw, IMHO, is that the endings had minimal differences. I wouldn't have minded a few scenes that dealt with the consequences of winning the war. Hell, with all the options floating around in teh game, you could have had a ton of different endings that meshed with your actions -- that was the payoff I was expecting.

They could've ended it with one ending for literally everyone and it would've been fine.
The problem is they served us 10 minutes of complete nonsense on a platter, spoonfeeding semi philosophical rambling for no apparent reason.

Imagine it:
Anderson has said his last words, and Shepard slowly crawls over to the console, inch by inch he crawls as we cut to the resistance fighting the reapers.
Shepard presses the button, drawing his last breath as s/he does so, and the Crucible fires.

From there on they could give us a fallout style epilogue, or just show the reapers losing.
This would have required less work.

[Acanous]

I can see why they're sticking to their guns. Admitting you screwed up is like baring your throat on the corporate end. When there's no one person to blame, and this thing has gone through multiple levels of QC, you can't assign the blame to a designated scapegoat and run with it.
Bioware is leveraging their reputation as a studio against EA's funding in a constant struggle to retain artistic independance. They had this problem before with LucasArts, and it burned them.
There's a very real chance that accepting blame and trying to fix it outright would result in EA implimenting more intrusive measures into the creative process. You can ALL see where that would end up.

Now, there are a number of things they could do to fix this that wouldn't require admitting they screwed the pooch. Bioware really does like the idea of a "Galaxy is rubble, people have to rebuild" ending, and don't want that part to change. Fine. I can get with that.

The "Mass Relays take out a solar system when destroyed" thing, that was DLC. To address WHY the mass relays blowing up didn't destroy the systems they were in, that can be more DLC. If you played 1,2,3 without any DLC, you'd accept the space magic and move on.

Most of the rest of what we want closure on can be accomplished with Dragon-age style stills with captions.

The largest issue, really, is no matter what ending you pick, it's the same darn ending. They can fix this somewhat with those dragon-age style captions, edited by what choices you made in game.

Really, I don't see it as that difficult of a fix. The question, really, is "Will it appease the fans while placating the suits?"

[LordShotGun]

This is what gets me. I mean, I understand, I guess, but still....

The thing I keep on thinking of is comic books. If something in a long running comics series doesn't make sense, fans call the writers on it, and it gets retconed. Often deservingly. What is so wrong with wanting a retcon to a videogame franchise?

Artistic vision doesn't mean 'it is untouchable' especially if it's part of a franchise, with a continuity. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect the legacy of a shared setting that we all enjoy.

Plus, I'm pretty sure I get the reason for this ending (as opposed to indoctrination)... but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I won't, at least for now. :)

Didn't the Mass Effect series already have a bunch of retcons? Granted nothing "quite" so large but they have happened before.

[Mr.Moron]

"Artistic vision", my arse. I'm glad that the "extended cut" will be released, but trying to convince everyone that they totally meant it - even though it's clear that the spacekid ending was cobbled together in a rush - leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

They're keeping spacekid and everything else that sucked about the original endings, just adding in a reunion and hugs at the end. Better than nothing for the people who wanted that I guess =/.

Really even if they killed space kid and his magic they couldn't really "Fix" anything, at least not for me. I already lost that moment where I was anticipating beating the game.


I really wanted some admission that a mistake had actually been made and they were actually going to take steps to make sure the process was more carefully screened. Bonus points if they actually held someone responsible for this debacle.

[Aeryr]

They aren't going the MMO way. Come on.

All the military of the sentient races on a system without resources nor mass relays to leave nor a leader that gets them together they are going to fight each other, sooner or later. Take into account that the MP is shoehorned into the game (to the point it is mandatory to get the best ending), the microtransactions to get items (and the infiltrator set up), the xbox subscribers (ME was originally a xbox game, but xbox users have to pay monthly to play online). Sum everything up and what do you get?

Call of honor on space. Competitive online multiplayer with microtransactions and downloadable content for more races/weapons that not only appeals to the shooter fans but also to the mass effect fanboys that would buy anything with ME on it.

On the extended cut thingie unless it outright states that the starchild is a sweet sweet bleeding out dream (or indoctinatrion dream or something) it is not addressing my problems with the ending. I do want more closure for sure, but that is not the biggest nor the only problem. There is still a lot of time till summer probably the fires of rage will fan out till then and those that are still not happy with it will be called conceited brats, but lets wait and see what happens.

[Psyren]

The thing I keep on thinking of is comic books. If something in a long running comics series doesn't make sense, fans call the writers on it, and it gets retconed. Often deservingly. What is so wrong with wanting a retcon to a videogame franchise?

Not all the fans hate the premise of the ending. All of us want more clarity around what the endings mean, but not everyone believes the whole sequence should be scrapped/thrown out.

Personally, it smells like MMO bait or somesuch. You know, a "thousands of years later, go out and rebuild an up-and-coming society with over 100 quests and achievemants!" sort of thing. Yes, I know The Old Republic would make this redundant. And yet, over-saturation hasn't stopped executives before. I'm sure you're all familiar with Guitar Hero....

Oh geeze, I did sound like a conspiracy theorist!

It wouldn't HAVE to compete with SWToR, if they differentiated it enough. I think a heavily action-based multiplayer game like Diablo could work, with a storyline you could co-op your way through, and maybe SWToR's group conversation system.

The combat areas could be heavily instanced (think Vindictus) with some social/RP/shopping areas for a massive feel.

Didn't the Mass Effect series already have a bunch of retcons? Granted nothing "quite" so large but they have happened before.

A few yeah. Off the top of my head - the Ardat-Yakshi, the Quarian's suits, and the Protheans' appearance.

[Anarion]

Just fyi, if an individual makes a public statement about making a mistake without sanction from the EA higher ups and it negatively impacts the value of EA's stock, that individual person could be liable for the damage caused.

In other words, don't expect an apology unless they run it through the corporate higher-ups and make it a carefully crafted official statement.

[Zevox]

Most of the rest of what we want closure on can be accomplished with Dragon-age style stills with captions.

The largest issue, really, is no matter what ending you pick, it's the same darn ending. They can fix this somewhat with those dragon-age style captions, edited by what choices you made in game.

I don't think those are the largest issues at all - for me they're not even really issues. I can understand not giving much closure due to wanting the ending to be as much a new beginning for the galaxy as an end to the Shepard/Reaper story, given how it currently goes. And I've never understood the "it's the same ending" complaint, especially coming as it does from the same people who don't complain about the lack of personality in Bioware's main characters. You're given three decidedly different choices at the end there, and while the cinematic that plays may vary little, it takes little imagination to see how they'll each affect the galaxy in very different ways. The cinematic varies little because it's highly minimalist, not because your choice has no effect on anything.

My problem with the ending, and really I think the most basic one, is simply that it doesn't make sense. The Catalyst comes completely out of nowhere without explanation for his existence, makes an argument that is supposed to explain the Reapers that is contrary to literally all of the evidence relevant to it that you've seen throughout all three games, and then the endings all for no apparent reason involve the destruction of the mass relays. These things just don't add up. Throw in the confusion many experienced as to why the Normandy was fleeing through a mass relay, or the whole extrapolation about possible galactic genocide without the mass relays around to facilitate trade and whatnot, and you've just got a complete mess of things that don't make sense, either alone or together.

Really, they could give you just one ending that you cannot affect in anyway whatsoever, and I'd be totally fine with that as long as it made sense.

Zevox

[Opperhapsen]

I don't think those are the largest issues at all - for me they're not even really issues. I can understand not giving much closure due to wanting the ending to be as much a new beginning for the galaxy as an end to the Shepard/Reaper story, given how it currently goes. And I've never understood the "it's the same ending" complaint, especially coming as it does from the same people who don't complain about the lack of personality in Bioware's main characters. You're given three decidedly different choices at the end there, and while the cinematic that plays may vary little, it takes little imagination to see how they'll each affect the galaxy in very different ways. The cinematic varies little because it's highly minimalist, not because your choice has no effect on anything.

Stop.
Right
there.

Spoiler

Show

Criminal scum.

When you say "Use your imagination for what happens next!" you're not defending the ending, you know that right?
You're pointing out exactly what's wrong with it.
If the only differences between the endings are a palette swap and what I imagine will happen next, there is no difference.

[Anarion]

Stop.
Right
there.

Spoiler

Show

Criminal scum.

When you say "Use your imagination for what happens next!" you're not defending the ending, you know that right?
You're pointing out exactly what's wrong with it.
If the only differences between the endings are a palette swap and what I imagine will happen next, there is no difference.

That's not what he said. What he said is that the difference between them is a palette swap and a series of text including the words "destroy" "synthesis" and "control" among others. And while I admit that this game is beautifully animated, the story is still 90% or more text and talking. So, saying that those particular words have no significance might be true for you, but for me, and I suspect for many others, the fact that those colors are associated with wildly different concepts makes the endings different, even if there isn't a bunch of video footage showing the exact contours of what happened.

[Opperhapsen]

That's exactly what he said, and exactly what you're saying.
It's nice that you use your imagination and all, but it does not make the endings different.

[Anarion]

That's exactly what he said, and exactly what you're saying.
It's nice that you use your imagination and all, but it does not make the endings different.

Sure it does. One involves the word "control," one involves the word "synthesis," and one involves the word "destroy." I'm not being sarcastic here. Just stating those three words, to me, makes them different, even if you cut it off there.

[LordShotGun]

Sure it does. One involves the word "control," one involves the word "synthesis," and one involves the word "destroy." I'm not being sarcastic here. Just stating those three words, to me, makes them different, even if you cut it off there.

Maybe to you, but not to the very large number of vocal people who say otherwise.

Also, I got a car that you can buy that is actually 3 cars in one.

Ready?

SEATS DOWN
SEATS UP
ONE SEAT UP, ONE SEAT DOWN

BOOM BABY!!!

[Anarion]

Maybe to you, but not to the very large number of vocal people who say otherwise.

Also, I got a car that you can buy that can transform into 3 different vehicles.

Ready?

SEATS DOWN
SEATS UP
ONE SEAT UP, ONE SEAT DOWN

BOOM BABY!!!

Cool. Not interested in buying a car right now though

Just to be clear, I've done a lot of arguing in favor of the ending, but I personally don't like it. I think it's too short, unsatisfactory, comes off as cheap, and parts of it make no sense. It's just that, for me, none of these things ruined the game to the point that Bioware needed to make DLC in order to satisfy me. I'm glad they're making it though because I've come to the conclusion that they really did cut corners and wanted to do more and now have a chance to do so.

[Toastkart]

They're keeping spacekid and everything else that sucked about the original endings, just adding in a reunion and hugs at the end. Better than nothing for the people who wanted that I guess =/.

Yeah, I'll reserve full judgement until I actually get to see the extended endings, but what we've been told so far doesn't inspire me to think that they'll address the issues with the ending, and really the last third of the game.

Really even if they killed space kid and his magic they couldn't really "Fix" anything, at least not for me. I already lost that moment where I was anticipating beating the game.

I agree. They'd have to do a lot more. Like come up with a reason for the reapers that was actually foreshadowed in some way and makes a modicum of sense, or leave it mysterious and unknown. Well, it's kind of too late for the latter.

I really wanted some admission that a mistake had actually been made and they were actually going to take steps to make sure the process was more carefully screened. Bonus points if they actually held someone responsible for this debacle.

That would have been nice, but seeing as how much stalling and PR speak was going on during the first few weeks after release, I wasn't and still am not expecting one. Nor am I expecting anyone to be held responsible for it.

My problem with the ending, and really I think the most basic one, is simply that it doesn't make sense. The Catalyst comes completely out of nowhere without explanation for his existence, makes an argument that is supposed to explain the Reapers that is contrary to literally all of the evidence relevant to it that you've seen throughout all three games, and then the endings all for no apparent reason involve the destruction of the mass relays. These things just don't add up. Throw in the confusion many experienced as to why the Normandy was fleeing through a mass relay, or the whole extrapolation about possible galactic genocide without the mass relays around to facilitate trade and whatnot, and you've just got a complete mess of things that don't make sense, either alone or together.

Agreed.

Not all the fans hate the premise of the ending. All of us want more clarity around what the endings mean, but not everyone believes the whole sequence should be scrapped/thrown out.

While true, I don't think adding more clarity to the current endings would salvage how bad and out of place the catalyst and reaper motivations are compared to the rest of the story.

[Avilan the Grey]

I don't think those are the largest issues at all - for me they're not even really issues. I can understand not giving much closure due to wanting the ending to be as much a new beginning for the galaxy as an end to the Shepard/Reaper story

The problem is that they promised us closure. In statement after statement, they said it would give closure to everyone. They also promised it would not be a "option 1, option 2, option 3" ending...

[Callos_DeTerran]

My problem with the ending, and really I think the most basic one, is simply that it doesn't make sense. The Catalyst comes completely out of nowhere without explanation for his existence, makes an argument that is supposed to explain the Reapers that is contrary to literally all of the evidence relevant to it that you've seen throughout all three games, and then the endings all for no apparent reason involve the destruction of the mass relays. These things just don't add up. Throw in the confusion many experienced as to why the Normandy was fleeing through a mass relay, or the whole extrapolation about possible galactic genocide without the mass relays around to facilitate trade and whatnot, and you've just got a complete mess of things that don't make sense, either alone or together.

Agreed about no explanation for the Catalyst (which isn't that troubling honestly, but I'd like some clarification myself) and about why the Normandy was fleeing, even if the simplest explanation is 'Joker doesn't want to know what the wave of energy from the Crucible will do to him or EDI and tries to outrun it'...but how is the reason for the Reapers contrary to literally all the evidence presented in all three games?

Up until the end of 3, it is true, and it's only changed if you manage to broker peace (temporary or not) between the geth and the quarians, which not everyone may have been able to do. All the AI you see up until three has either A) gone homicidal or B) been EDI...who if you'll remember, was actually almost destroyed by organics...which still fits what the Catalyst said. It's by the barest stroke of luck (aka 'plot') that EDI is saved and put on the Normandy where she's kept 'shackled', which would calm a lot of people's fears about having an AI on board until they get to know 'her', until the end of 2....where she so obviously saves everyone's bacon that it can overcome most peoples worries about the fact that EDI isn't a real person (she's an entity, but not a human).

Every other AI? Gone murderous. Usually out of 'fear' for their 'lives' at what organics would do to them, once they find out about how AIs are to be destroyed. It's a very logical 'fear' but it proves what the Catalyst said has happened in previous cycles. And it was true in at least one previous cycle, according to Javik.

I mean, I can acknowledge a fair number of complaints about the ending, even if I don't agree with them. And I'm as happy as a pig in mud at an 'extended cut' free DLC, even if I was perfectly happy with the ending as is. But saying all evidence in all three games points to the Catalyst being wrong? That's just erroneous.

Mass Effect 1: We only know the geth as homicidal flash-light heads trying to return the organic-harvesting Reapers to the galaxy. Every other AI tries to kill you and/or everyone around it.

Mass Effect 2: Every AI you meet in side quests (there's at least 1) went homicidal. EDI is 'shackled' to prevent that and it wouldn't have been completely out of left-field for her to harbor resentment over that and, again, gone homicidal when unshackled. She didn't, but it wouldn't have been out of character to do so. Legion reveals the geth from the previous game are heretics and the true geth are maintaining the quarian worlds, awesome! Except the quarians are planning to attack them and the geth will defend themselves. Catalyst's claim is still correct, cause EDI's only been unshackled for the last...10% of the game, maybe, and you don't get to really see how the crew responds to that information. It's a little shaky, but still correct.

Mass Effect 3: The quarians have attacked the geth, triggering war. And, unless Shepard brokers (temporary?) peace, one side or the other gets destroyed. The geth no longer believe peaceful co-habitation is possible with the quarians unless Shepard steps in, as opposed to the Morning War where they let the quarians go. Just to point out a little detail, getting the quarians and geth to work together is practically mandatory for getting the synthesis ending if you don't play multi-player. Joker has to lie to people about EDI, both to protect her and to protect them. Cause you can't honestly tell me that EVERYONE IN THE GALAXY would have reacted positively to the idea of an unshackled AI walking around their home after the Morning War, the geth attack on the Citadel, and now the Reapers attacking. All it would take is EDI being attacked and her accidentally killing her assailant and people would be baying for her core processor. Javik reveals that the Protheans were in the middle of a war against AIs when the Reapers attacked, the Metatron War (I think that was the name).

Is the Catalyst's view rather cynical and defeatist? Sure. Is it wrong? Honestly? No. Not completely. You can make it wrong, but that's up to you and Shepard, and once you do that the Catalyst admits it was wrong. Cause I have no problem believing that in every other cycle that AIs either rose against their creators or their creators turned on their creations (and either destroyed or were destroyed by them) enough times for the Catalyst to come to the conclusion that it did. Sure, you can prove it wrong, but that's just it...you have to prove it wrong. If Shepard wasn't around...the Catalyst would still be right, at least for one more cycle.

[Croakamancer]

Callos, I take your point on that, thematically, but I'd like to turn it around a little.

To my mind, the problem with the organics vs synthetics theme here isn't that it's new to the franchise; at the end of one, we would have sworn it was the main theme of the game. The problem to my mind is that it was a theme through both of the previous games, but was completely dropped from ME3 until the end. I mean, I get budget limitations, but surely they could've done something... one side mission, say, bringing up problems with VIs or some such. As is, the artistic integrity idea rings hollow because it both seems to come out of nowhere, and what the game did establish about Organics vs Synthetics, this runs counter to.

As is, leaving From Ashes to one side, it's completely ignored up till the end, except ofr one mission... which flat out contradicts it. I'm not talking about Geth-Quarrien peace, but the Geth Network mission. The devs didn't have to establish that some Quarrians helped the Geth, but they did anyway, and it went every bit as far towards undermining the theme as the possible peace between the two might, IMO.

The closes we have to it as establishment is the Geth stuff, yeah... but that doesn't work, as it was organics who initiated the war. The only reason they were at risk wasn't because the Synthetics existed, but because they were acting like fools.

[Toastkart]

Up until the end of 3, it is true, and it's only changed if you manage to broker peace (temporary or not) between the geth and the quarians, which not everyone may have been able to do. All the AI you see up until three has either A) gone homicidal or B) been EDI...

I don't really agree. For one thing, synthetics turning on their creators can mean a lot of different things. The catalyst doesn't specify, but the impression I got from him was that synthetics turn on their creators because they're synthetics, not for justifiable reasons such as self-defense or self-preservation, which is what we see from the geth, and even that one ai on the citadel in me1. The same kind of reasons organic species have various conflicts.

Every other AI? Gone murderous. Usually out of 'fear' for their 'lives' at what organics would do to them, once they find out about how AIs are to be destroyed. It's a very logical 'fear' but it proves what the Catalyst said has happened in previous cycles. And it was true in at least one previous cycle, according to Javik.

For one thing, rogue VIs are very different from AIs. Also, see above. For two, we have no evidence that this has happened in previous cycles except the Catalyst's word. Heck the only evidence we have of previous cycles is that the reapers wiped out all galactic civilization. Javik, being dlc and not part of the core game, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

But saying all evidence in all three games points to the Catalyst being wrong? That's just erroneous.

While I can't speak for everyone, I would rather say that the catalyst has no backing based on the evidence of all three games. That's probably a very subtle distinction, but highlights that there was little or no evidence that this was the reapers motivation anywhere in all three games.

Mass Effect 1: We only know the geth as homicidal flash-light heads trying to return the organic-harvesting Reapers to the galaxy. Every other AI tries to kill you and/or everyone around it.

Correction. We know the geth have been hiding out in the Perseus veil for 300 years doing who knows what until a reaper used them to attack organics in a bid to open the citadel relay.

Mass Effect 2: Legion reveals the geth from the previous game are heretics and the true geth are maintaining the quarian worlds, awesome! Except the quarians are planning to attack them and the geth will defend themselves. Catalyst's claim is still correct,

Again, for a given definition of 'turn on their creator'.

Mass Effect 3: The quarians have attacked the geth, triggering war. And, unless Shepard brokers (temporary?) peace, one side or the other gets destroyed. The geth no longer believe peaceful co-habitation is possible with the quarians unless Shepard steps in, as opposed to the Morning War where they let the quarians go. Just to point out a little detail, getting the quarians and geth to work together is practically mandatory for getting the synthesis ending if you don't play multi-player.

That both have the potential to be completely wiped out has less to do with one being synthetic and one being organic and more to do with how idiotic it was to put your entire race in a single location and boiling a war into a single battle.

Is the Catalyst's view rather cynical and defeatist? Sure. Is it wrong? Honestly? No. Not completely. You can make it wrong, but that's up to you and Shepard, and once you do that the Catalyst admits it was wrong. Cause I have no problem believing that in every other cycle that AIs either rose against their creators or their creators turned on their creations (and either destroyed or were destroyed by them) enough times for the Catalyst to come to the conclusion that it did.

I don't have a problem with this part so much as I have a problem with the other half of the Catalyst's view. Namely, that in order to prevent all life from being wiped out by synthetics (because there's so much evidence that synthetics will wipe out all life everywhere vs. acting like any other sentient being) the Catalyst must wipe out all advanced life and preserve it in reaper form (whatever the hell that actually means). And on top of that, that the reapers (and thus the catalyst) guide advanced races down a path that leads them to creating ai in the first place. It's all nonsensical.

Although on that note I do want to bring up something I thought of the other day, but haven't seen brought up anywhere. The crucible was built and added to each cycle by the advanced civilizations that were wiped out. The protheans, based on what the VI on thessia says, were near to completing/using the crucible but were prevented when indoctrinated agents infiltrated the project and stopped them. The catalyst says the crucible allows him new options to deal with the cycle.

So, my question is. If the reapers/ catalyst knew about the crucible and what it did (through indoctrinated agents), why didn't they use it themselves to create the synthesis outcome? If that's what the catalyst really wanted, why continue a cycle that hinges on the destruction of billions of lives when a solution that avoids it was available to them?

Or even going beyond that. If they already took a role in the development of the galaxy at large by leaving their technology behind every cycle, why not take a more active role to ensure that advanced civilizations don't create ai in the first place?

Considered in this light, the whole synthetics vs. organics motivation for the reapers makes little sense regardless of what little evidence we have.

[Croakamancer]

To anyone else who is depressed by ME3 after this, try Space Quest; Incinerations. :) It's got some surprisingly good battle stuff for its finale, that made me smile, and feel a bit better.

[Psyren]

For one thing, rogue VIs are very different from AIs.

No, they are one and the same. A VI can't "go rogue" - it does what you tell it to do and can't form conclusions of its own. That's like Avina or Glyph "going rogue."

If it went rogue at all, it had free will to begin with and so was an AI. The Luna VI was actually an AI, they were just keeping it on the down-low to avoid Council sanctions.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Callos, I take your point on that, thematically, but I'd like to turn it around a little.

To my mind, the problem with the organics vs synthetics theme here isn't that it's new to the franchise; at the end of one, we would have sworn it was the main theme of the game. The problem to my mind is that it was a theme through both of the previous games, but was completely dropped from ME3 until the end. I mean, I get budget limitations, but surely they could've done something... one side mission, say, bringing up problems with VIs or some such. As is, the artistic integrity idea rings hollow because it both seems to come out of nowhere, and what the game did establish about Organics vs Synthetics, this runs counter to.

As is, leaving From Ashes to one side, it's completely ignored up till the end, except ofr one mission... which flat out contradicts it. I'm not talking about Geth-Quarrien peace, but the Geth Network mission. The devs didn't have to establish that some Quarrians helped the Geth, but they did anyway, and it went every bit as far towards undermining the theme as the possible peace between the two might, IMO.

The closes we have to it as establishment is the Geth stuff, yeah... but that doesn't work, as it was organics who initiated the war. The only reason they were at risk wasn't because the Synthetics existed, but because they were acting like fools.

I don't see it that way. You could say that all of ME 3 is a continuation of the synthetic vs. organic life, but it's not brought to the forefront and waved in your face. Until the Reaper's motivation is revealed, they're simply synthetic life wiping out organic life. The quarians and geth are on the verge of annihilating one another. It's not at the fore-front, but it's still there.

As for the mission when your in the geth server, I agree, they didn't have to show those at all but I disagree as to the purpose of them. Those scenes still show the majority of the quarians on-board with wiping out the geth however, to me, those scenes give you the player and Shepard evidence that peace is possible where, up to that point, it seems like the geth and quarians are dead-set on exterminating one or the other despite your efforts. It's an in-universe hope spot that also gives the player a reason to stick to their decision when it comes time to make a choice. Think about it, during Legion's upload you get...what...three chances to change your mind about letting Legion upload the code?

I think those scenes were put in so that you the player and Shepard are given a reason to stand-by the geth and quarians both because you're shown they did co-habitat on a small scale before.


Responses in bold:

Spoiler

Show

I don't really agree. For one thing, synthetics turning on their creators can mean a lot of different things. The catalyst doesn't specify, but the impression I got from him was that synthetics turn on their creators because they're synthetics, not for justifiable reasons such as self-defense or self-preservation, which is what we see from the geth, and even that one ai on the citadel in me1. The same kind of reasons organic species have various conflicts.

I didn't get that impression from him and you're right, he doesn't specify. But the created turning on their creators in self-defense/self-preservation makes a lot more sense then 'we're synthetic lol' reasoning. Even if Tali was right in ME 1 about synthetic life not needing organic life for anything, there's no logic behind wiping out organic life because of that.

For one thing, rogue VIs are very different from AIs. Also, see above. For two, we have no evidence that this has happened in previous cycles except the Catalyst's word. Heck the only evidence we have of previous cycles is that the reapers wiped out all galactic civilization. Javik, being dlc and not part of the core game, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Don't you still get Javik on the ship if you don't have the DLC? I thought From Ashes basically let you get him as a party member, not just taking up space on the ship. And him being DLC is what's irrelevant...he's part of the game and a walking piece of lore. You can't just ignore him because he's DLC. That'd be like saying Arrival/LotSB are irrelevant because their DLC, when the truth is they've had sweeping effects on the setting.

Correction. We know the geth have been hiding out in the Perseus veil for 300 years doing who knows what until a reaper used them to attack organics in a bid to open the citadel relay.

...And then they attacked the Citadel in an effort to let in the Reapers. Sure, we aren't told what they were doing behind the Veil, we're left to draw our own assumptions based on what they're doing at the time of ME 1...which is trying to wipe out organic life.

Again, for a given definition of 'turn on their creator'.

For a given definition of 'the created will always destroy the creator' which is what the Catalyst says.

That both have the potential to be completely wiped out has less to do with one being synthetic and one being organic and more to do with how idiotic it was to put your entire race in a single location and boiling a war into a single battle.

It has everything to do with it considering there's good reasons for lots of the geth being in a single location (building their Dyson sphere) and the quarians would need their entire fleet to win in the first place. Would the quarians have done the same if another race had basically stolen their homeworld? Maybe. However, in a battle like that, there's a good chance Rannoch as a whole will survive the encounter cause both races want the planet capable of sustaining life. The geth could have, very easily, annihilated almost every possibility of Rannoch sustaining life during their war with the quarians since, again, synthetic life doesn't have the same requirements as organic so they can use different tactics. As long as the planet and it's minerals are intact, basically anything goes since everything else is secondary. That's the primary fear of the Catalyst. That, in fighting, synthetic life will render organic life incapable of recovering by winning (and destroy other organics to prevent the same from happening again) or losing (by destroying the capability of life occurring in the first place in their own defense with more and more extreme measures). The Catalyst doesn't even so much care about current organic life at all, it cares about if organic life can occur period.

I don't have a problem with this part so much as I have a problem with the other half of the Catalyst's view. Namely, that in order to prevent all life from being wiped out by synthetics (because there's so much evidence that synthetics will wipe out all life everywhere vs. acting like any other sentient being) the Catalyst must wipe out all advanced life and preserve it in reaper form (whatever the hell that actually means). And on top of that, that the reapers (and thus the catalyst) guide advanced races down a path that leads them to creating ai in the first place. It's all nonsensical.

Actually, it's worth pointing out that Mass Effect technology (from what I've read and retained of the Codex) has no influence whatsoever on creating AIs. Everything the Catalyst and Reapers have laid down leads to all kinds of technology...but AIs it does not.

Although on that note I do want to bring up something I thought of the other day, but haven't seen brought up anywhere. The crucible was built and added to each cycle by the advanced civilizations that were wiped out. The protheans, based on what the VI on thessia says, were near to completing/using the crucible but were prevented when indoctrinated agents infiltrated the project and stopped them. The catalyst says the crucible allows him new options to deal with the cycle.

So, my question is. If the reapers/ catalyst knew about the crucible and what it did (through indoctrinated agents), why didn't they use it themselves to create the synthesis outcome? If that's what the catalyst really wanted, why continue a cycle that hinges on the destruction of billions of lives when a solution that avoids it was available to them?

The thing is, they didn't know what the Crucible did. The Protheans had as much idea about it as the current cycle, and no one knows what it does even after it's completed. Presumably the only ones who knew were the cycle that originally developed the plans...but they likely got harvested before they had a chance to build any piece of the Crucible. In other words, the Protheans as a whole only knew it was a last-ditch effort against the Reapers. As such, that's all the Reapers would really know, which made it a suitable target to sabotage. If any Protheans knew otherwise, they were likely at the tippy-top of the development and probably not the indoctrinated individuals in question.

Or even going beyond that. If they already took a role in the development of the galaxy at large by leaving their technology behind every cycle, why not take a more active role to ensure that advanced civilizations don't create ai in the first place?

How well do you think that'd actually work? Using just humans as an example, do you think our species wouldn't try to invent AIs if we

A) thought it was possible.
B) Had flying Cthulhu-esque examples of AI at hand.
c) Got to the point where technology made it possible?

I for one think humans would ignore Space-Cthulhu's warning to try it out for themselves, out of curiousity if anything. Then when, not it, the Reapers cracked down...well...we'd fight back and either lose (and continue the development in secret, because of our whole obsession of 'freedom' and rebelling against what's considered tyrannical), or beat the Reapers...and probably make our own AI anyway just to make life easier. The Reapers being more involved in the galaxy would actually make the chances of AI more possible in my mind.