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

[Trazoi]

Now this I definitely have an issue with. To me, it is blatantly clear from playing ME2 that the endgame was to be on Earth.

Well yeah, but they dropped all the plot from ME2 that justified the focus on humanity because it was tied into the Dark Energy idea. And they didn't retcon anything else to replace it.

Heck, all they needed was to include Harbinger as an actual character in ME3 who had a personal grudge against Shepard. But they didn't even go for that low hanging fruit.

[Aotrs Commander]

Wait, what? I know this if off-topic but I've finished Jade Empire several times and I never got any such dialogue during the credits.

That might explain why I'd completely forgotten it. (Then again, I did get the Special Edition, and it's been a long time since I played it (and I've only played it once, so it's possible I've just completely forgotten...)



I myself felt the Earth thing to be a bit forced, though not so much I found it too disruptive. After all, the Reapers were pretty fragged at Shepard foiling them, like three times. And contrary to ME 3's depiction of the Reapers (i.e. barely villains and nearly monsters), Harbinger and Soverign struck me as representative of exactly the sort of card-carrying villains who'd attack Earth out of sheer spite (and a bit of hubris) for revenge; seeing Shepard - rightly, as it turned out - as the lynch pin in the only threat to their plans.

(Heck, Harbinger only would have had to shout "Reapers, retreat!" and one point and he practically could have been Megatron...)

Ooh.

53: There is now a climactic boss fight between Shepard and harbinger dueling on top of the Citidel with omniblade weapons - Harbinger has a giant omni-ball-and-chain and Shepard has inexplicably chosen an omni-axe. This happens despite the relative sizes.



You think maybe you've been reading too much Transformers recently, boss?

[Derthric]

This. This right here.

Till today, I still never found an appropriate in-universe explaination for the reason the Reaper targeted the Earth of all places with their forces. They could have easily overwhelmed Palaven with the forces they had in Sol, and then some. Why the Citadel was moved there was also never explained adequately.

It's because Humans are Special we are their choice for the next Capital Ship type Reaper transformation. There is a throw away line about the Citadel being where they are ramping up the processing of the human race.

But yeah it was a weak place to set the finale given that we see the reapers capable of deploying, in force, around the galaxy. Had they made it that the reapers were raiding and using earth for a base then yeah, going there makes a heck of a lot more sense. But really the game's suspension of disbelief was hanging thin but they were always covering it up well with the emotional content of your squad and the satisfaction of the genophage cure and Rannoch. The ending lacks any sense of that.

@Trazoi

Oh thanks for that Jade Empire link, too funny. Might bang out a new run through on that.

[Morty]

I think a good part of why the endgame takes place on Earth is that "take Earth back" is a good marketing slogan.
Still, yeah, it's not adequately explained in-game. Sure, it's heavily foreshadowed in ME2, but then they swept all the plot hooks and unanswered questions from ME2 under the carpet when they ditched the Dark Energy version of the ending. Instead, Reapers target Earth just because. I suppose it could be because Shepard was a thorn in their collective backsides and they want to neutralize humanity early or give Shep some payback... except we're not told or shown anything of the sort.
On the other hand, it's not particularily disruptive. If the ending itself hadn't been so bad, I wouldn't have minded the focus on Earth, since the rest of the game is too fast-paced, emotional and exciting to worry about this sort of thing.

[Avilan the Grey]

I had a long debate with Shamus and a few others on his blog regarding this after he played ME2. He claimed that there was no justification either, and I disagreed strongly.

It all boiled down to two things:

1) Our different views of what we were actually playing. He (felt like he) was playing a Space Exploration RPG where humans were a sideshow. I felt like I was playing a mix of Star Trek and Flash Gordon the Movie ("Shep! Ah-ha! The Savior of the universe!") so OF COURSE Humans were special etc.

2) In what order we played the games. I started with ME2, he started with ME1. After playing ME2 FIRST, I saw the traces of the Humans Are Special plot already in ME1, which he refused to see and was surprised by in ME2.

[Trazoi]

The "humans are special" thing was there under the surface in ME1 and became part of the plot in ME2. It would have made sense for it to be part of ME3. But the issue was Bioware didn't justify it in the story. I don't remember any discussion about why the Reapers were hitting Earth the hardest. Or even if they were hitting Earth the hardest, because the game leaves Earth before much damage is done to focus on everyone else.

It made all the arguments with the other species really awkward. It's hard to convince the turians to abandon Palaven when you've had a closer look at how it's burning.

[polity4life]

Count me as confused as to why Earth gained such attention without having the Dark Energy plot. Honestly, I felt like the fleets should have gone to Palaven first; there were fewer Reapers there to attack with a greater gain of military resources by freeing up Krogan and Turian units mired in a siege. After that, go anywhere the Reapers are weakest. Sure, the bulk of humanity would likely die but the galaxy would have a better chance at survival and victory.

Something else confused me about the Reapers: why obliterate your enemies? Take the kid's shuttle for example. Due to that destroyer, no matter could be harvested to create a Reaper for whatever ends the Star kid has in mind. Why not replicate and mass produce the Collector swarms to engulf the entire planet? Sure, some folks die for various reasons but nearly all the bodies are available for processing.

[Psyren]

Why? Anderson leading the Earth resistance didn't do anything. Aside perhaps from raise the plot hole of how exactly any meaningful resistance survived on Earth for so long with so many Reapers there.

Zevox

Anderson was there to close the plot hole actually: "At least they're keeping to the heavily populated areas; it gives us room to maneuver."

Meaning that, without him, then we really WOULD be wondering how the resistance held out so long.

I don't remember any discussion about why the Reapers were hitting Earth the hardest. Or even if they were hitting Earth the hardest, because the game leaves Earth before much damage is done to focus on everyone else.

It made all the arguments with the other species really awkward. It's hard to convince the turians to abandon Palaven when you've had a closer look at how it's burning.

Yeah it's pretty thin as to why Earth became Ground Zero.

Udina does tell the other councillors that Earth is facing the brunt of the attack, but Valern disagrees with him. Standard council skepticism, or is Udina's account truly untrustworthy?

Later, Shepard says something to Victus about Earth having "double the devastation" as Palaven. But is that truly quantified, or is Shepard being emotional?

It's all so unclear and dissatisfying. About the best I was able to come up with is that humans are in charge because we found the Crucible plans in our system.

[Zevox]

Well yeah. "Transparently and lazily manipulative" describes the whole story of Mass Effect 3, really.

I disagree strenuously.

There's no in-universe reason for the climax of the Mass Effect story to focus on Earth,

Sure there is. ME2 established that the Reapers had taken a special interest in Humans, in particular in harvesting them to make a new Reaper out of them. The Collectors themselves were supposedly planning to hit Earth, or at least Shepard and her squad reason this from the amount of pods they found in that one chamber of the Collector vessel. That didn't change in between games - if anything, Shepard's continued success probably drew that much more of the Reapers' attention to her species.

Zevox

[thegurullamen]

Sure there is. ME2 established that the Reapers had taken a special interest in Humans, in particular in harvesting them to make a new Reaper out of them. The Collectors themselves were supposedly planning to hit Earth, or at least Shepard and her squad reason this from the amount of pods they found in that one chamber of the Collector vessel. That didn't change in between games - if anything, Shepard's continued success probably drew that much more of the Reapers' attention to her species.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to state this. Harbinger out and out states why Humans Are Special everytime he shows up in ME2. While fighting him, he points out the flaws of the other species and remarks on humanity's suitability as a future Reaper. They're on Earth because that's where the sweet Reaper red light district happens to be in this cycle.

On a tangential note, I had trouble wrapping my head around this argument the first few times I read it. The dark energy ending has thoroughly hijacked ME3's cannon in my head--regardless of what I played through, dark energy's the one that stuck. I can barely remember the Starchild's reasons for his actions sometimes. I expect when I replay the series some years down the road, the ending is going to catch me completely by surprise all over again.

[Trazoi]

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to state this. Harbinger out and out states why Humans Are Special everytime he shows up in ME2. While fighting him, he points out the flaws of the other species and remarks on humanity's suitability as a future Reaper. They're on Earth because that's where the sweet Reaper red light district happens to be in this cycle.

But as far as I can remember, this never gets brought up in ME3. They mention humanity being harvested, but I don't remember the whole "build a Reaper" thing coming up again or that this is human-only. Harbinger has no lines, and they're focusing on Earth just because.

For some reason the writers in ME3 seem to think the player would be focused on saving Earth, while the scope of the other two games was on saving the galaxy. If Shepard had to destroy the Charon Relay and wipe out the entire Sol system as the price to take out the entire Reaper fleet, some versions of Shepard might consider that worth the cost.

[Zevox]

For some reason the writers in ME3 seem to think the player would be focused on saving Earth, while the scope of the other two games was on saving the galaxy.

And you think it isn't in ME3? You spend 95% of the game in the rest of the galaxy, saving small portions of it and witnessing firsthand how great the threat is all over even with much smaller Reapers forces than are congregated at Earth. Palaven burns, Thessia falls, a single Reaper controls the Geth and conquers Rannoch, the Rachni fall under Reaper control, and in the midst of it all there's Cerberus.

Just because the climax occurs at Earth doesn't mean the rest of the galaxy has ceased to be relevant. Quite the contrary, the rest of the galaxy's troubles end up taking precedence.

Zevox

[LordShotGun]

And you think it isn't in ME3? You spend 95% of the game in the rest of the galaxy, saving small portions of it and witnessing firsthand how great the threat is all over even with much smaller Reapers forces than are congregated at Earth. Palaven burns, Thessia falls, a single Reaper controls the Geth and conquers Rannoch, the Rachni fall under Reaper control, and in the midst of it all there's Cerberus.

Just because the climax occurs at Earth doesn't mean the rest of the galaxy has ceased to be relevant. Quite the contrary, the rest of the galaxy's troubles end up taking precedence.

Zevox

This is true from a gameplay stand point but if the council had said "Sure! We are sending all fleets to earth RIGHT NOW!" Shepard would not have said "Nah, I need to do all of you favors first THEN you are invited to earth"

It is the difference between attitude and execution. ME1? Saving the whole council and the whole galaxy by exploring the whole galaxy. ME2? Saving all the human colonies all over the galaxy by finding crew and info across the galaxy. ME3? Saving earth by doing people favors across the galaxy.

Like you said, same gameplay but the attitude is different in that ME1 and ME2 you HAD to run all over the galaxy to get what you want and no one person or group had everything you needed. In ME3 you go to one place to ask for help and get strung along to get what you need from one or two groups (three if you count the krogan separate which I do not since the salarians are involved there) .

[Zevox]

This is true from a gameplay stand point but if the council had said "Sure! We are sending all fleets to earth RIGHT NOW!" Shepard would not have said "Nah, I need to do all of you favors first THEN you are invited to earth"

But they wouldn't do that, because they have their own problems, and from their perspective if letting Earth burn buys them the time to deal with that, so be it.

It is the difference between attitude and execution. ME1? Saving the whole council and the whole galaxy by exploring the whole galaxy. ME2? Saving all the human colonies all over the galaxy by finding crew and info across the galaxy. ME3? Saving earth by doing people favors across the galaxy.

Like you said, same gameplay but the attitude is different in that ME1 and ME2 you HAD to run all over the galaxy to get what you want and no one person or group had everything you needed. In ME3 you go to one place to ask for help and get strung along to get what you need from one or two groups (three if you count the krogan separate which I do not since the salarians are involved there) .

How is it different at all? You need the other races' help, so you travel the galaxy doing what needs to be done to secure that. Just as you needed the various squadmates' help in 2, or information on Saren and the Collectors in 1 and 2. I don't see how you think any one person or group has what you need in ME3 either - you have entire species you need to convince to come to your aid, including ones the Council couldn't have delivered even had they been entirely cooperative (the Krogan, the Quarians, the Geth).

Zevox

[Trazoi]

And you think it isn't in ME3? You spend 95% of the game in the rest of the galaxy, saving small portions of it and witnessing firsthand how great the threat is all over even with much smaller Reapers forces than are congregated at Earth. Palaven burns, Thessia falls, a single Reaper controls the Geth and conquers Rannoch, the Rachni fall under Reaper control, and in the midst of it all there's Cerberus.

And all of that is presented as Shepard jetting around the galaxy building up war assets so you can go liberate Earth. The state of planets like Paladen and Thessia are spun to represent what's happening back on Earth.

The climax happening on Earth matters, because the entire game is building up to it. There's a strong current behind all the actions in the game that saving Earth is the top priority. And having the story end at Earth shapes the whole story about being humanity first, rather than if they wrote it to end at the Citadel, symbol of galactic unity. In fact they had to introduce a gaping plot hole of moving the Citadel in order to make it all about humanity.

Basically, it bugged me how Shepard was so focused on Earth in some of the discussions. Especially with the turians at the beginning, where it comes across as "my homeworld is more important than yours".

[BRC]

And all of that is presented as Shepard jetting around the galaxy building up war assets so you can go liberate Earth. The state of planets like Paladen and Thessia are spun to represent what's happening back on Earth.

The climax happening on Earth matters, because the entire game is building up to it. There's a strong current behind all the actions in the game that saving Earth is the top priority. And having the story end at Earth shapes the whole story about being humanity first, rather than if they wrote it to end at the Citadel, symbol of galactic unity. In fact they had to introduce a gaping plot hole of moving the Citadel in order to make it all about humanity.

Basically, it bugged me how Shepard was so focused on Earth in some of the discussions. Especially with the turians at the beginning, where it comes across as "my homeworld is more important than yours".

It also makes perfect sense. Shepard is a human, of COURSE Earth is going to be his/her priority.
However, I liked that the game never said that the other races were wrong for prioritizing their own homeworlds over Earth. It was never a question of "Gah, why won't these idiots realize that MY planet is more important than theirs!", it was "Alright, what can we do to convince them to help us?".

Earth was the goal because Humans were the ones leading the coalition, and in the end the Reapers conveniently parked the Macguffin next to the place the coalition was intending to retake anyway.

[thegurullamen]

But as far as I can remember, this never gets brought up in ME3. They mention humanity being harvested, but I don't remember the whole "build a Reaper" thing coming up again or that this is human-only. Harbinger has no lines, and they're focusing on Earth just because.

I thought the Citadel had become a backup Reaper factory, or was that just speculation? I honestly can't remember, but I think it's in-game.

But yeah, Earth was the Palaven and Thessia for humans. There was no shortage of effort poured into Palaven and Thessia's loss was treated as completely devastating to the galaxy as a whole. ME3 was very much a galactic affair with Earth as the climactic focal point for reasons pointed out in ME2.

[Zevox]

And all of that is presented as Shepard jetting around the galaxy building up war assets so you can go liberate Earth. The state of planets like Paladen and Thessia are spun to represent what's happening back on Earth.

The climax happening on Earth matters, because the entire game is building up to it. There's a strong current behind all the actions in the game that saving Earth is the top priority. And having the story end at Earth shapes the whole story about being humanity first, rather than if they wrote it to end at the Citadel, symbol of galactic unity. In fact they had to introduce a gaping plot hole of moving the Citadel in order to make it all about humanity.

Basically, it bugged me how Shepard was so focused on Earth in some of the discussions. Especially with the turians at the beginning, where it comes across as "my homeworld is more important than yours".

I disagree. Having Earth be the climax in no way makes it about Humanity first - that just happens to be where the bulk of the Reaper forces are. Beat them there and the war is either won or decisively turned in your favor. It's good strategic sense.

And Palaven and Thessia remind Shepard of Earth because that's where she's from (potentially literally, if not then at least figuratively, given she's an Alliance soldier). Of course seeing other peoples' homeworlds fall will remind her of her own. Similarly other characters in the game note that they can sympathize with the way you feel about Earth because of what is happening to their homes. Heck, remember how your conversations with Primarch Victus on the Normandy conclude with Shepard telling him that her thoughts are with Palaven, and him responding that his are with Earth? That's a good example - the shared plight brings these people together, and it doesn't privilege one over the other.

Zevox

[BRC]

I disagree. Having Earth be the climax in no way makes it about Humanity first - that just happens to be where the bulk of the Reaper forces are. Beat them there and the war is either won or decisively turned in your favor. It's good strategic sense.

And Palaven and Thessia remind Shepard of Earth because that's where she's from (potentially literally, if not then at least figuratively, given she's an Alliance soldier). Of course seeing other peoples' homeworlds fall will remind her of her own. Similarly other characters in the game note that they can sympathize with the way you feel about Earth because of what is happening to their homes. Heck, remember how your conversations with Primarch Victus on the Normandy conclude with Shepard telling him that her thoughts are with Palaven, and him responding that his are with Earth? That's a good example - the shared plight brings these people together, and it doesn't privilege one over the other.

Zevox

Speaking of which, did Sur'Kesh ever actually get hit, or were the Salarians the only major galactic power to make it out of the Reaper war unscathed (With the exception of one Cerberus raid on an STG base)

[Trazoi]

It also makes perfect sense. Shepard is a human, of COURSE Earth is going to be his/her priority.

For some Shepards, yes. For others, no. But much like we have to play the Shepard who has nightmares over Duct-boy, we also have to play the Shepard who values Earth above all else.

However, I liked that the game never said that the other races were wrong for prioritizing their own homeworlds over Earth. It was never a question of "Gah, why won't these idiots realize that MY planet is more important than theirs!", it was "Alright, what can we do to convince them to help us?".

There were undercurrents of annoyance, especially with asari and salarians playing politics the whole time. And I don't remember anyone making similar demands on the humans. The turians were barely holding the line back on Palaven - they could have pointed out that since the alliance fleets weren't in Sol anymore they could come and lend a hand.

Earth was the goal because Humans were the ones leading the coalition, and in the end the Reapers conveniently parked the Macguffin next to the place the coalition was intending to retake anyway.

Which is entirely down to writing the plot that way. The Reapers could have swarmed the Citadel instead. Which frankly makes a lot more sense from either the ME1 perspective of it controlling all the relays and the ME3 reason of Starkid being there.

I thought the Citadel had become a backup Reaper factory, or was that just speculation? I honestly can't remember, but I think it's in-game.

I remember thinking it during the ending as it makes sense, but I don't remember it actually being the game. They say people are being taken into the Citadel for processing, but they don't state it's being used as a Reaper factory.

Plus the ending clarification has gone on to say that most of the people in the Citadel are okay after it explodes, which goes counter to that. It's all a big mess.

ME3 was very much a galactic affair with Earth as the climactic focal point for reasons pointed out in ME2.

I'm griping that those reasons for the climactic focal point should have been in ME3 too.

[BRC]

For some Shepards, yes. For others, no. But much like we have to play the Shepard who has nightmares over Duct-boy, we also have to play the Shepard who values Earth above all else.

I don't think that's unreasonable. Shepard is human after all, and a Soldier. Even if she wasn't born on Earth she would still consider it important, even if it's only because of how many people live there.

Shepard is more Bioware's character than the Players. They've done a good job of letting us mold our Shepards, but she/he is still their character. The only time you'll be able to build a character 100% from the ground up is in Tabletop.

There were undercurrents of annoyance, especially with asari and salarians playing politics the whole time. And I don't remember anyone making similar demands on the humans. The turians were barely holding the line back on Palaven - they could have pointed out that since the alliance fleets weren't in Sol anymore they could come and lend a hand.

The Humans were already putting everything they had towards the war effort. Sure they were not stepping in to defend Palavan and Thessia, but they had a very reduced Fleet and were busy doing what they could.

And yes there were some undercurrents of annoyance, of course there would be. You try knowing that people are dying by the tens of thousands every day and not being able to do anything about it. The characters got annoyed yes, but I never got the sense that the Narrative tried to paint the other races as being wrong for making the choices they did.

The only example I can think of is the Dalatrass specifically withholding her fleet from you unless you go along with her plan.

Which is entirely down to writing the plot that way. The Reapers could have swarmed the Citadel instead. Which frankly makes a lot more sense from either the ME1 perspective of it controlling all the relays and the ME3 reason of Starkid being there.

Okay, I admit that the whole "Moving the Citadel" thing was a little contrived. Once you accept that the Reapers DO move the citadel, Earth is as good a place as any to put it. since that's where the bulk of their forces are.

Plus the ending clarification has gone on to say that most of the people in the Citadel are okay after it explodes, which goes counter to that. It's all a big mess.

Some of the responses to the ending from Bioware do confuse me. Not their answers, which are reasonable, but that they seem surprised we didn't think of them. "Well the Citadel Arms are intact, so OBVIOUSLY people survived. Why would you think otherwise" "Sure the ME relays blew up, but they'll just make better FTL. I mean, Duh".

[Trazoi]

Shepard is more Bioware's character than the Players. They've done a good job of letting us mold our Shepards, but she/he is still their character. The only time you'll be able to build a character 100% from the ground up is in Tabletop.

Now we're on to the interesting topic of the levels of player vs. author ownership of the protagonist in video game stories, which could fill a whole thread by itself. This is why I'm so disappointed with Bioware in ME3 BTW, because it was something they did well for their type of stories.

The Bioware type of game story has to be on a mostly linear path, with maybe a big decision right at the end of each chapter/module. But when the Bioware story is told well, it leaves a level of ambiguity as to the motivations of the protagonist. At the start of Baldur's Gate 2 the player needs to go to Spellhold, but the reason is a mix of the villain has kidnapped the PC's childhood friend, revenge against the villain for torturing the PC, and the vague promise of unlocking more power in the PC. The PC still has to go to Spellhold to complete the game but the motivation in the player's mind can be whichever of those they like.

With ME3, I was going into the game thinking that Shepard had the fixel goal of "Stop the Reapers", but Bioware missed a trick by forcing their version of Shepard rather than playing with that idea. Is Shepard motivated more by a desire to protect Earth or protect the galaxy? Revenge or Shepard's set of ideals?

I thought that was where they were going with all the talk of the horrible calculus of war in the game. At the beginning I thought Bioware was going to throw some terrible decisions at Shepard, and TIM and Cerberus's role was to offer the completely amoral choices that you might have to take in order to win the war without losing Earth. And while they did with the genophage quest and the Quarian/Geth conflict resolution, that was it really, and doing the heartless renegade options for the genophage quest didn't make a massive difference anyway.

And then there's the ending, but we've talking about how that spits in the face of Bioware's prior writing standard enough already.

Okay, I admit that the whole "Moving the Citadel" thing was a little contrived. Once you accept that the Reapers DO move the citadel, Earth is as good a place as any to put it. since that's where the bulk of their forces are.

I'll grant that. But since the writers chose to move the Citadel in the first place highlights how they were writing an Earth-centric story, rather than staging the whole thing at a stationary Citadel. Although it raises questions about why the Reapers didn't go there to begin with.

Some of the responses to the ending from Bioware do confuse me. Not their answers, which are reasonable, but that they seem surprised we didn't think of them. "Well the Citadel Arms are intact, so OBVIOUSLY people survived. Why would you think otherwise" "Sure the ME relays blew up, but they'll just make better FTL. I mean, Duh".

Honestly I suspect Mac Walters was aiming to completely screw over the entire Mass Effect universe (because it makes the ending more "artistic" ) and Bioware's now backpeddling now they've realised how hard it hit the hardcore fans.

Edit: Plus their reactions sound like they were in crunch mode rushing the ending and didn't have the time or energy to think much about anything. Except that doesn't make much sense, because you'd think the ending would be written fairly early so they could build up to it, get dialog recorded and the cutscenes rendered. (Well, cutscene. )

[Landis963]

Some of the responses to the ending from Bioware do confuse me. Not their answers, which are reasonable, but that they seem surprised we didn't think of them. "Well the Citadel Arms are intact, so OBVIOUSLY people survived. Why would you think otherwise" "Sure the ME relays blew up, but they'll just make better FTL. I mean, Duh".

I don't think they quite knew how large of a ****storm they were brewing, and thought that people would rationalize these things away. Then out came the Catalyst, and one thing led to another, and now we're getting Ending DLC to patch up these questions.

[BRC]

Now we're on to the interesting topic of the levels of player vs. author ownership of the protagonist in video game stories, which could fill a whole thread by itself. This is why I'm so disappointed with Bioware in ME3 BTW, because it was something they did well for their type of stories.

The Bioware type of game story has to be on a mostly linear path, with maybe a big decision right at the end of each chapter/module. But when the Bioware story is told well, it leaves a level of ambiguity as to the motivations of the protagonist. At the start of Baldur's Gate 2 the player needs to go to Spellhold, but the reason is a mix of the villain has kidnapped the PC's childhood friend, revenge against the villain for torturing the PC, and the vague promise of unlocking more power in the PC. The PC still has to go to Spellhold to complete the game but the motivation in the player's mind can be whichever of those they like.
With ME3, I was going into the game thinking that Shepard had the fixel goal of "Stop the Reapers", but Bioware missed a trick by forcing their version of Shepard rather than playing with that idea. Is Shepard motivated more by a desire to protect Earth or protect the galaxy? Revenge or Shepard's set of ideals?

Once you bring in Voice Acting, the entire thing changes. Voice acting really brings a character to life, I was able to attach to Shepard much easier than I was able to attach to my voiceless Warden in DA:O, but it adds a development constraint that pure text lacks.

The simple fact is that Bioware can't just ask the player "Well, what motivates YOUR Shepard", and build the character around that. The closest they can get is to provide options. The more options they provide, the more chance they have of letting you build the Shepard you imagined, but the more limited they are in what they can do with them.
And really, whether Shepard is motivated by revenge, a desire to save earth, a desire to save everybody, or a desire to bang a member of every sentient species, her actions are going to be the same: Try to raise an army and defeat The Reapers.

I thought that was where they were going with all the talk of the horrible calculus of war in the game. At the beginning I thought Bioware was going to throw some terrible decisions at Shepard, and TIM and Cerberus's role was to offer the completely amoral choices that you might have to take in order to win the war without losing Earth. And while they did with the genophage quest and the Quarian/Geth conflict resolution, that was it really, and doing the heartless renegade options for the genophage quest didn't make a massive difference anyway.

I thought the Tuchanka and Rannoch sections were very good, but in different ways.

With Tuchanka, personally there was no question about it, I was going to help Wrex. So, for me the Tuchanka story was about how, even when the path is clear, there are going to be casualties and consequences. The Dalatrass had a point, not enough of one to convince me, but she DID have a point. So for me Tuchanka emphasized the split of Paragon and Renegade, the Paragon tries to inspire others by example, and in doing so risks everything. The Renegade assumes that people will be greedy and selfish, and responds in kind, missing opportunities in order to avoid disaster.

Also Renegade punches people in the face, but that's window dressing.

Rannoch was about the brutal calculus of war. It was about the path not being clear. I think that making the player choose to sacrifice one side before telling them that both can be saved (With a sufficient Paragon/Renegade score) is one of the smartest decisions they made. I agonized over that decision. I hated the Quarians for forcing me to make it, but I understood why they did! Do the Geth deserve to die for the crime of defending themselves? No they don't. Do the Quarians deserve to die for believing the lies their ancestors told themselves? No, no they don't. But here I was being asked to condemn one side to destruction. On one side I had Tali, my faithful companion, on the other I had Legion, the spokesman for a people sentenced to death for the crime of existing. I looked desperately for the option that let me save them both, but it was not there.

And then I made my choice, and I had another chance. I selected the Paragon option and I danced in my dorm room as I savored the glory of having everything.

And then I realized I had gotten everything in more than one sense. I had experienced the agony of being forced to choose between two horrific options and the jubilation of triumph. It acknowledged both the brutal calculus of war and the hope of peace.

Really, what Bioware mastered with Mass Effect was the ability to use interaction to get the audience invested. Just as Shepard was in part My Shepard, Garrus was in part My Garrus, Tali was My Tali, that was My Joker piloting My Ship, that was My Grunt leading Arlak Squad, that was My Jack yelling at Ramirez, that was My Zaeed being the only one to make it out of a job alive (because he killed the others). That was My Thane going out with dignity, My Mordin sacrificing himself to wipe away his people's greatest crime, dying with a song on his lips and a smile on his face. That was My Wrex gazing into the future, ready to save his species even if it meant headbutting the genophage into submission.



I think this is why the whole Little Kid thing failed to work. The Kid was supposed to represent Shepard's Failure, but Shepard never failed to protect the kid. Shepard saw the kid twice and then saw the kid die. We're supposed to feel like we failed, but there was never a chance to succeed.

Here's what they should have done. Don't have the Kid crawl away into the ducts, scrap the whole thing about the kid being a potential hallucination.

Imagine this for a sequence, right at the beginning of the game.

Shepard: What's your name.
Kid: T-Thomas.
Shepard: Hello Thomas, I'm going to get you out of here.

Shepard then lifts Thomas up, holding the crying, scared child in one arm and a pistol in her other hand. You move across the battlefield, shooting down Husks and Cannibals. Eventually, you reach a shuttle.

If you took too much damage during the fight, then Thomas is wounded. He dies in Shepard's arms as you reach the shuttle. If not, then he thanks Shepard and boards the shuttle. The shuttle takes off and flies away, only to get cut down by a Reaper's beam (Just like it did in the game now).

I think adding that sequence would have made the Little Kid sequences so much more powerful. Right now the Kid is just some Kid Shepard saw. There was nothing we could do to save them. He's not our failure, just a casualty.

However, by making us work to save the kid, the game makes us invested in him. Even if we try as hard as we can, even if we do everything right, we can't save everybody.

Honestly I suspect Mac Walters was aiming to completely screw over the entire Mass Effect universe (because it makes the ending more "artistic" ) and Bioware's now backpeddling now they've realised how hard it hit the hardcore fans.

Yeah, that's my theory. It makes no sense to destroy the Relays if you're just going to have everything be hunky-dory afterwards.
That or the Cinematics team saw "shot of energy beam exploding through the relays" and though it meant "Shot of energy beam exploding the relays", and by the time people realized it was easier to add a line to the Starchild's dialogue than to redo the cutscene.

[Trazoi]

The simple fact is that Bioware can't just ask the player "Well, what motivates YOUR Shepard", and build the character around that. The closest they can get is to provide options. The more options they provide, the more chance they have of letting you build the Shepard you imagined, but the more limited they are in what they can do with them.
And really, whether Shepard is motivated by revenge, a desire to save earth, a desire to save everybody, or a desire to bang a member of every sentient species, her actions are going to be the same: Try to raise an army and defeat The Reapers.

That's what Bioware should have done. What they used to do is give the PC a fixed goal (in this case, "Stop the Reapers"), and then let the player put their different spin on why and how they do it. It's how they balanced the strengths of linear storytelling with player choice. But in ME3 they put too many words in Shepard's mouth without player input and told us what Shepard had to think, reducing the player agency of Shepard needlessly.

It's also a failing of the plot that it didn't give Shepard a single-minded question and task around stopping the Reapers to go for. They sort of suggested one with the "what is the Catalyst" thing at the beginning, but then Shepard had to go off and play galactic peace-broker and then fought Cerberus for half the game until the asari councilor popped up with "Oh BTW here's where the Catalyst is, k thx bye". I think that was Mac Walters again since Cerberus was his baby, but it's also due to whoever decided to make all of ME3 to be about "Taking Back Earth". It was hard to write around that without loading up the deus ex machinas.

Yeah, that's my theory. It makes no sense to destroy the Relays if you're just going to have everything be hunky-dory afterwards.
That or the Cinematics team saw "shot of energy beam exploding through the relays" and though it meant "Shot of energy beam exploding the relays", and by the time people realized it was easier to add a line to the Starchild's dialogue than to redo the cutscene.

The whole of the ending has a faux-artistic feel about everything, where they overloaded the cliched symbolism to make it feel deep. I'm suspecting the decision to blow up all the Relays was due to the symbolism of it being the End of an Age, and no-one thought about what happens afterwards.

I'm not entirely sure why no-one realised the fans would care about what happens afterwards though.

[Landis963]

I'm not entirely sure why no-one realised the fans would care about what happens afterwards though.

Again, they were probably banking on us fanwanking something, and hoping to cash in on the most appealing theory.

[Trazoi]

Again, they were probably banking on us fanwanking something, and hoping to cash in on the most appealing theory.

That's delightfully cynical.

Personally my fan approach to the ending is to only consider ME1 and ME2 canon, so they blew it there.

Actually, if Bioware decided to release a ME4 that completely ignored ME3, redoing the ending of the trilogy as an alternative timeline from ME2 (ignoring Arrival too), I'd probably buy it.

[Avilan the Grey]

I still don't get the surprise and disappointment about Earth being in the focus for ME3.

1. ME1 is clearly about Humans Are Special. It is just hidden in the undercurrent unless you play a real bastard. Shepard is a member of the Human military taking orders from humans.

2. ME2 is about Shepard saving human colonies at any cost, while the Humans are Special is hinted on repeatedly.

3. ME3 is about Shepard, as a reinstated officer of the human military taking orders from said military while trying to fight back an invasion of earth. An invasion that was clearly outlined in ME2, and hinted in ME1.

[Trazoi]

I still don't get the surprise and disappointment about Earth being in the focus for ME3.

Since a lot of that is coming from me posting too much, I'll clarify : I don't mind the idea of ME3 focusing on Earth, I don't like how the game half-asses it. The whole point of the original dark energy plot was that there was an reason for the Reaper focus on Earth, and understanding that reason going to be key to the plot of ME3. Dropping all that leads to a big plot hole where ME2 doesn't sense in terms of the trilogy. If ME3 was going to focus on Earth then it should have replaced dark energy with something else to fill that gap instead of filling the entire plot up with irrelevant fluff about Cerberus.

[Derthric]

I still don't get the surprise and disappointment about Earth being in the focus for ME3.

1. ME1 is clearly about Humans Are Special. It is just hidden in the undercurrent unless you play a real bastard. Shepard is a member of the Human military taking orders from humans.

2. ME2 is about Shepard saving human colonies at any cost, while the Humans are Special is hinted on repeatedly.

3. ME3 is about Shepard, as a reinstated officer of the human military taking orders from said military while trying to fight back an invasion of earth. An invasion that was clearly outlined in ME2, and hinted in ME1.

I think most of these complaints result from the breakdown of the narrative at the end. We see the threads of the plot and question why they are
there. Its why people question that, why the Alliance wasn't maxing out the research at the Archives(seriously probably could have gotten the council to fund it if it was a money thing), why didn't the reapers take the citadel before, etc. Its mostly blowback from the dropped ball that is the ending.

There were problems with the other games that people pointed out, like why Sole Survivor Shep just rolls with Cerberus. Or how the Council went from "We're untied against the reapers Rawr" to "dismissed that claim". But it gets tied up and the experience as a whole is more than satisfactory. This one is not and as such doesn't get to use the "rule of cool" or the "power of plot" to covers its mistakes, because its not cool and its plot stinks like the lavatory after Grunt has been to Taco Bell.

I think this is why the whole Little Kid thing failed to work. The Kid was supposed to represent Shepard's Failure, but Shepard never failed to protect the kid. Shepard saw the kid twice and then saw the kid die. We're supposed to feel like we failed, but there was never a chance to succeed.

Here's what they should have done. Don't have the Kid crawl away into the ducts, scrap the whole thing about the kid being a potential hallucination.

Imagine this for a sequence, right at the beginning of the game.

Shepard: What's your name.
Kid: T-Thomas.
Shepard: Hello Thomas, I'm going to get you out of here.

Shepard then lifts Thomas up, holding the crying, scared child in one arm and a pistol in her other hand. You move across the battlefield, shooting down Husks and Cannibals. Eventually, you reach a shuttle.

If you took too much damage during the fight, then Thomas is wounded. He dies in Shepard's arms as you reach the shuttle. If not, then he thanks Shepard and boards the shuttle. The shuttle takes off and flies away, only to get cut down by a Reaper's beam (Just like it did in the game now).

I think adding that sequence would have made the Little Kid sequences so much more powerful. Right now the Kid is just some Kid Shepard saw. There was nothing we could do to save them. He's not our failure, just a casualty.

However, by making us work to save the kid, the game makes us invested in him. Even if we try as hard as we can, even if we do everything right, we can't save everybody.

That is a great idea actually. Any level of interaction would have helped but that seems like an interesting idea. Might be hard to pull off mechanics wise (I am picturing a vanguard Shepard charging with the kid in his arms ) but at least its something.

Yeah, that's my theory. It makes no sense to destroy the Relays if you're just going to have everything be hunky-dory afterwards.
That or the Cinematics team saw "shot of energy beam exploding through the relays" and though it meant "Shot of energy beam exploding the relays", and by the time people realized it was easier to add a line to the Starchild's dialogue than to redo the cutscene.

I can see a certain logic to blowing the relays, its part of the Reaper cycle, to break it you must break the things binding you to it. However in no way is this represented in the game. Its just Boom gone. Had it been part of one of the options to end the game it could have worked. Break the cycle but face a totally unknown future and possibly condemn the Galaxy to a dark age, but the reapers are done and gone sort of thing. However as it is done now it feels arbitrary and with no way to address the potential outcomes it feels as though they were careless.

Also someone asked about Sur'kesh. Just before the assault on Earth the only cluster not showing a reaper in it is the Horsehead Nebula so they got there just as the party was about to end.