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

[Derthric]

Oh it's not perfect, and my Shepard wouldn't be totally comfortable with the decision, but for him it beats genociding the Geth or exerting very, very vague control over the Reapers for an unspecified duration in keeping with TIM's questionable beliefs. And it also beats standing there doing nothing while millions die in the sky around me by the minute.

If I had the luxury to explore other options/poll the galaxy then Synthesis would be low on my priority list. But I don't, therefore it's not.

I guess that's all part of the problem. Each one carries its own massive ethical problems. Yet "synthesis" is explicitly given the connotation that it is the "best' ending, where to me its just as monstrous as Destroy. Plus given the arbitrary nature of the end, I feel that the "all synthetics but somehow not EDI" nature of the Destroy is just there to make it seem bad.

I think Synthesis could have worked by making the Catalyst/AI thing into a hybrid life that will safeguard the galaxy with the power of the reapers but the understanding of what it means to be an organic. That would work and would feel like my Shepard was making a worthy sacrifice. Plus it avoids all the implied fascism of homogenization.

And I took the stargazer "someday" line to be along the same lines as any kid now asking to be a jedi. Given that the stargazer himself replies with a non-definitive answer about what is out there, I took it to mean that they did not know. Also assumed it was the Normandy descendants as well.

Edit:

So apparently an early concept was to have TIM be a final boss fight similar to Saren. His Reaper implants would have turned him into a monster for an epic throwdown. (See picture in spoiler from "Art of Mass Effect.")

Spoiler

Show

How cool would that have been?

I was half expecting that to happen given the similarities. Run towards a conduit, talk the big bad into shooting himself because he was misguided in trying to save the galaxy, it would have fit. But without squadmates it would have been a pain in the butt.

[Croakamancer]

@TIM Boss Fight; Eh, kinda takes something away from him, IMO. For a final boss, why couldn't we have a Reaper attach itself to the Citadel? It wouldn't be able to do much with its main laser, but Shep would have to survive against an active Reaper in direct combat, a first, IIRC. (And attaching itself to the Citadel makes the eye vulnerability a non-issue)

[Tome]

@TIM Boss Fight; Eh, kinda takes something away from him, IMO. For a final boss, why couldn't we have a Reaper attach itself to the Citadel? It wouldn't be able to do much with its main laser, but Shep would have to survive against an active Reaper in direct combat, a first, IIRC. (And attaching itself to the Citadel makes the eye vulnerability a non-issue)

That would have worked pretty well.

I was also expecting to fight my way through more reaper forces on the citadel. Instead, we just got one corridor with bodies in it, a decent enough stand-off with the Illusive Man and then that abomination shows up and spews it's bile all over everything.

[Morty]

So apparently an early concept was to have TIM be a final boss fight similar to Saren. His Reaper implants would have turned him into a monster for an epic throwdown. (See picture in spoiler from "Art of Mass Effect.")

Spoiler

Show

How cool would that have been?

Not very cool and I'm glad they scrapped it. TIM worked best as a manipulator pulling a rather ungodly number of strings at once without the puppets at the ends of those strings knowing it but rarely ever getting his hands dirty. Turning him into some sort of Reaper-tech monster and having him fight you would have been too much of a contrast.

[Psyren]

I guess that's all part of the problem. Each one carries its own massive ethical problems. Yet "synthesis" is explicitly given the connotation that it is the "best' ending, where to me its just as monstrous as Destroy.

The one with the highest required EMS is Destroy, Shep Lives; if anything, that's the one being portrayed as "best."

I was half expecting that to happen given the similarities. Run towards a conduit, talk the big bad into shooting himself because he was misguided in trying to save the galaxy, it would have fit. But without squadmates it would have been a pain in the butt.

It would have been an awesome challenge, I think.

Not very cool and I'm glad they scrapped it. TIM worked best as a manipulator pulling a rather ungodly number of strings at once without the puppets at the ends of those strings knowing it but rarely ever getting his hands dirty. Turning him into some sort of Reaper-tech monster and having him fight you would have been too much of a contrast.

Party pooper

But he does get his hands dirty in the end (or tries to.)

[Derthric]

The one with the highest required EMS is Destroy, Shep Lives; if anything, that's the one being portrayed as "best."

I was using the metric of their statements prior to release about achieving the best ending without multiplayer to mean that you unlock Synthesis. Also its obvious that they intended for Synthesis to be seen as the ideal end. Its the only one the abomination says will bring about permanent peace. And he frames it as the optimal choice.

At this point I take everything that runt says as coming direct from Walters and Hudson lips.

[Anarion]

Party pooper

But he does get his hands dirty in the end (or tries to.)

Right, but he gets his hands dirty with a single pistol after manipulating the situation such that Shephard is badly injured and Anderson incapable of moving. I think he's cooler having minimal combat prowess.

Now, what I was hoping for personally was some kind of last stand kind of thing. Like, after TIM is gone, they go with the backup plan of swarming you with husks, then cannibals and marauders, then brutes and banshees, and then a mix of everything and you have to hold on while the conduit attaches itself. That doesn't work so well with Shephard being so badly injured by the reaper beam, but I don't think that was really necessary anyway.

[MCerberus]

Right, but he gets his hands dirty with a single pistol after manipulating the situation such that Shephard is badly injured and Anderson incapable of moving. I think he's cooler having minimal combat prowess.

Now, what I was hoping for personally was some kind of last stand kind of thing. Like, after TIM is gone, they go with the backup plan of swarming you with husks, then cannibals and marauders, then brutes and banshees, and then a mix of everything and you have to hold on while the conduit attaches itself. That doesn't work so well with Shephard being so badly injured by the reaper beam, but I don't think that was really necessary anyway.

Speaking of which, WTF why was Harbinger relegated to a passing mention and a couple of doom-laser strikes (plus since Harby was descending into the atmosphere, he was most likely ripped to shreds when returning to the space battle since it's stated that they're weaker when making the transition. Sword... likely wouldn't pass up the opportunity.)

[Morty]

Party pooper

But he does get his hands dirty in the end (or tries to.)

Like Anarion said, at that point Shepard is heavily injured and Anderson is somehow incapable of moving... mind you, I never quite got how TIM immobilized Anderson. That whole confrontation cracked around the edges a bit.

[Derthric]

I finally found this clip. This is what I wanted to say to the abomination. Captain Sheridan, such an underrated sci-fi hero.

[Somebloke]

I think the encounter with TIM was handled perfectly. It comes down to Shepard having a battle for moral superiority with him- the actual physical fight itself is reduntant, and best handled as a quick interrupt.

Reviewing the Starchild bit...I'm hating it less and less (the scene after you make your choice, on the other hand...). The entire reason that there wasn't another debate, like with TIM, was that Starchild had already conceeded defeat- the cycle was already broken- nor did the decisions feel particularly forced. One of them (destruction) was your goal all along; one of them (control) was TIM's goal all along, with lots of foreshadowing; the last (synthesis) was ST's/Reaper choice, and did come out of nowhere, but was an intriguing idea. I can sort of imagine a conversation going like this:

Shepard: Your logic is wrong- we've shown we can break the cycle. I did it-
Starchild: I know.
Shepard: What?
Starchild: I've already given up- weren't you paying attention? You can destroy or control us, like you wanted- I just wanted to explain why we did all this and tell you there's another way.
Shepard: Oh, right...blood loss. Ah, so, those choices-
Starchild: Your words are as empty as my future.
Shepard: Um...
Starchild: You are the vanguard of my destruction.
Shepard: Well-
Starchild: This exchange is over.
Shepard: No wonder the Reapers were jerks with you as their creator.

But yeah, a hint that the mass relays weren't the end of galactic civilisation and more of a closure with the other characters would have been helpful.

[Psyren]

Right, but he gets his hands dirty with a single pistol after manipulating the situation such that Shephard is badly injured and Anderson incapable of moving. I think he's cooler having minimal combat prowess.

He wouldn't be the first primarily mental villain to go OWA.

I guess I primarily just wanted that really badass concept art to be used. Didn't necessarily have to be TIM himself, though I can think of few other antagonists worthy of it. (Maybe a revived Saren, but that's it.)

I finally found this clip. This is what I wanted to say to the abomination. Captain Sheridan, such an underrated sci-fi hero.

The youtu.be links are blocked at work for me, what's the regular url? (i.e. youtube.com/watch etc. etc.)

[kamikasei]

How cool would that have been?

Not at all.

I think the Illusive Man's role should have been expanded - but by making your interaction with him be the choice point for the kind of ending you get. That is, if that choice isn't made much earlier by the sum of a range of different actions you did or didn't take - which is what I'd prefer, but would be a considerably larger change. (And Harbinger really should have had more of a role, too.)

[Luzahn]

Not at all.

I think the Illusive Man's role should have been expanded - but by making your interaction with him be the choice point for the kind of ending you get. That is, if that choice isn't made much earlier by the sum of a range of different actions you did or didn't take - which is what I'd prefer, but would be a considerably larger change. (And Harbinger really should have had more of a role, too.)

Eh, Harbinger's getting old. Let the younger ones handle things. He'll be over here, taking a nap.

[GloatingSwine]

Reviewing the Starchild bit...I'm hating it less and less (the scene after you make your choice, on the other hand...). The entire reason that there wasn't another debate, like with TIM, was that Starchild had already conceeded defeat- the cycle was already broken- nor did the decisions feel particularly forced. One of them (destruction) was your goal all along; one of them (control) was TIM's goal all along, with lots of foreshadowing; the last (synthesis) was ST's/Reaper choice, and did come out of nowhere, but was an intriguing idea. I can sort of imagine a conversation going like this:

Trouble is, that's not how it goes.

The starchild's assertion is that the created will always rise up against their creators, and that synthetics will destroy all organics (It even says that this will inevitably happen if you choose the Destroy option, "your children will create synthetics, and chaos will return"), and you don't get to challenge that at all. You get to "choose a new solution", but you don't get to refute the existence of the problem.

That is why all of the endings are unacceptable. Your philosophy is defeated in the ending, and you cannot even argue it, this in a game where you have on multiple occasions been able to do exactly that (most commonly against one of the things you are being asked to choose in the ending, and which is now colour coded "good"), going as far as having your interlocutor shoot themselves in the head when the magnitude of their error is laid bare to them.

[Derthric]

He wouldn't be the first primarily mental villain to go OWA.

I guess I primarily just wanted that really badass concept art to be used. Didn't necessarily have to be TIM himself, though I can think of few other antagonists worthy of it. (Maybe a revived Saren, but that's it.)



The youtu.be links are blocked at work for me, what's the regular url? (i.e. youtube.com/watch etc. etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tj4q...utu.be&t=2m48s
Should start you at the right time. But if not skip to 2:45ish

Trouble is, that's not how it goes.

The starchild's assertion is that the created will always rise up against their creators, and that synthetics will destroy all organics (It even says that this will inevitably happen if you choose the Destroy option, "your children will create synthetics, and chaos will return"), and you don't get to challenge that at all. You get to "choose a new solution", but you don't get to refute the existence of the problem.

That is why all of the endings are unacceptable. Your philosophy is defeated in the ending, and you cannot even argue it, this in a game where you have on multiple occasions been able to do exactly that (most commonly against one of the things you are being asked to choose in the ending, and which is now colour coded "good"), going as far as having your interlocutor shoot themselves in the head when the magnitude of their error is laid bare to them.

This is what I have been trying to say. The way it is framed by thegame in the form of the abomination, Control and Destroy don't come off as "we will find another way". But rather, "yeah do that you're just dooming yourselves anyway". The only ending with any sense of finality to is Synthesis. And I have already shared my problems with that.

Also Interlocutor is now my word of the day

[Dienekes]

Trouble is, that's not how it goes.

The starchild's assertion is that the created will always rise up against their creators, and that synthetics will destroy all organics (It even says that this will inevitably happen if you choose the Destroy option, "your children will create synthetics, and chaos will return"), and you don't get to challenge that at all. You get to "choose a new solution", but you don't get to refute the existence of the problem.

That is why all of the endings are unacceptable. Your philosophy is defeated in the ending, and you cannot even argue it, this in a game where you have on multiple occasions been able to do exactly that (most commonly against one of the things you are being asked to choose in the ending, and which is now colour coded "good"), going as far as having your interlocutor shoot themselves in the head when the magnitude of their error is laid bare to them.

Personally, and I do not know if this was intentional, I took the control and destroy paths were the equivalent of saying screw off Starkid I don't believe you. The Starkid's role is saying what he believes completely to be true and your Shepard can accept it or not.

Admittedly, I still don't like the concept of the ending and it would have been nice to instead of just walking to the ending if we could do it via dialogue option with the control/destruction choices allowing the Shepard to actually say "Screw off Starkid I don't believe you."

And for the record, I wouldn't like to fight the Illusive Man. It made sense to fight Saren in some way because he was a fighty villain, supposedly Shepard's equal in combat and they had been building up to a showdown between the two. Illusive Man, not so much. He's an old man who's only abilities are his odd charisma and ruthless intelligence. Proving him wrong was the only resolution I needed.

[kamikasei]

He's an old man

I just want to take this opportunity to raise an eyebrow over one issue in Mass Effect.

We're told advanced medical technology has humans living to about 150, before the introduction of Citadel science which is expected to extend this further. I would assume this includes a longer active lifespan as well rather than people spending 50+ years as physically frail as the average modern 90-year-old.

Yet I think Hackett is the oldest character for whom I can recall being given a birthday and he's just over 50 in ME3. Anderson's just under 50. TIM may be older as he was a soldier in the First Contact War (which might put him ten or twenty years ahead of Anderson, say), Miranda's father is probably older just based on her age... but really, it's odd how few human characters we see who are older than the high end of middle age by today's standards.

[Derthric]

I just want to take this opportunity to raise an eyebrow over one issue in Mass Effect.

We're told advanced medical technology has humans living to about 150, before the introduction of Citadel science which is expected to extend this further. I would assume this includes a longer active lifespan as well rather than people spending 50+ years as physically frail as the average modern 90-year-old.

Yet I think Hackett is the oldest character for whom I can recall being given a birthday and he's just over 50 in ME3. Anderson's just under 50. TIM may be older as he was a soldier in the First Contact War (which might put him ten or twenty years ahead of Anderson, say), Miranda's father is probably older just based on her age... but really, it's odd how few human characters we see who are older than the high end of middle age by today's standards.

Given those ages, most of the leaders we have encountered would have been 20-30 at the discovery of Mass Effect tech. I don't think its a great leap to think that this would be the type of people who would sign up to go running off and colonize wild worlds. people who are middle aged are established and settled, up rooting is tougher and less appetizing at that time. So we are seeing the first generation of leadership of the first adopters of spacer life. We never interact with the President of the United North American States or see the people in the board rooms on earth, or even the Parliament where I imagine there are more aged people.

Plus we know that the 3rd world is at late 20th century standards of living. So with the low birth rates in the first world, and a gap in quality of life you could say the average 1st worlder is 150 and the 3rd is 75ish like it is now for us. Just a theory.

Its all speculation, but the good kind

[Anarion]

That is why all of the endings are unacceptable. Your philosophy is defeated in the ending, and you cannot even argue it,

There's a bit of a catch-22 here. Imagine that there was an extended dialogue tree that let you argue back and forth for a while before making the decision. There would probably be a bunch of people complaining "but he's barely conscious and losing blood. Don't stand there talking, just make the decision already!"

[GloatingSwine]

Personally, and I do not know if this was intentional, I took the control and destroy paths were the equivalent of saying screw off Starkid I don't believe you. The Starkid's role is saying what he believes completely to be true and your Shepard can accept it or not.

That's not what's presented in the game though.

What's presented in the game is that the villain expounds his philosophy, that a solution must be chosen to the inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics (how is the Destroy ending a refutation of that when it explicitly exterminates all synthetics?), and the hero must accept that philosophy and choose a "solution" to a problem that the game has made abundantly clear does not in fact exist.

It's a good idea to go back up the thread and watch this again, and understand it in context. The leadup to that moment is largely the same, the races of the galaxy have united against overwhelmingly powerful aliens who are willing to resort to omnicide in order to impose their philosophy, there is no hope of a military victory, but in that scene Delenn and Sheridan defeat the philosophies of the Vorlons and Shadows, and it is a satisfying conclusion.

Now, I can't imagine that the writers haven't seen B5 (The Illusive Man even parrots the Shadow philiosophy, that chaos is desirable because the competition it breeds forces development) verbatim. The trouble is that they stopped stealing ideas from it. As Grant Morrison said of the Matrix sequels "They should have kept stealing from me".

[Dienekes]

Yes I agree it should be presented in the game better, and say so in that very post. But I don't think most Shepard would straight up choose the destruction of all organic life, therefore if he chooses any option other than synthesis then to me, he's disagreeing with Starkid's claims. It would have been 100x better if Shepard would have had the opportunity to actually say so. We should have got to listen to Shepard point out the flaws in Starkid's plan. We should have not of even had to listen to Starkid in the first place. But in my mind when my Shepard took the control action he was thinking "screw you kid, and your damn Reapers too." Blatantly defying the Starkid's predictions for life in the galaxy and choosing his own path (namely sending everyone home and then making the Reapers fly into a few stars)

[Calemyr]

So apparently an early concept was to have TIM be a final boss fight similar to Saren. His Reaper implants would have turned him into a monster for an epic throwdown. (See picture in spoiler from "Art of Mass Effect.")

Spoiler

Show

How cool would that have been?

Personally, I agree with their decision here. It would feel tacked on and arbitrary, like the archmage in Dragon Age II - a left-field transformation that breaks character by turning an indirect player into a physical threat.

I also agree that they should have left the kid out of the equation and made the decision point the three-way standoff between Shep, Anderson, and TIM. Together they could have very effectively painted the options and debated their merits quite well without the travesty that came next.

[Binks]

There's a bit of a catch-22 here. Imagine that there was an extended dialogue tree that let you argue back and forth for a while before making the decision. There would probably be a bunch of people complaining "but he's barely conscious and losing blood. Don't stand there talking, just make the decision already!"

Pish posh. He's Commander Shepard. He doesn't need blood to live, he's got enough pure awesome running through his veins to keep him going without it.

But yeah, that is a valid concern. Of course the fact that Shepard is bleeding out in that scene isn't strictly necessary, it's a function of what's come before, but nothing made them do the ending that way. An ending where Shepard barely makes it to the beam without getting zapped, beat the Illusive man without getting shot, then have a long philosophical conversation is just as possible going into the ending as 'bleeding out for no good reason' Shepard.

[Luzahn]

Of course, the real reason Shepard needs no blood is that Shepard was a Cerberus AI all along, He just forgot near the end of ME2.

[Calemyr]

So apparently an early concept was to have TIM be a final boss fight similar to Saren. His Reaper implants would have turned him into a monster for an epic throwdown. (See picture in spoiler from "Art of Mass Effect.")

Spoiler

Show

How cool would that have been?

Personally, I agree with their decision here. It would feel tacked on and arbitrary, like the archmage in Dragon Age II - a left-field transformation that breaks character by turning an indirect player into a physical threat.

I also agree that they should have left the kid out of the equation and made the decision point the three-way standoff between Shep, Anderson, and TIM. Together they could have very effectively painted the options and debated their merits quite well without the travesty that came next.

[Marnath]

Personally, I agree with their decision here. It would feel tacked on and arbitrary, like the archmage in Dragon Age II - a left-field transformation that breaks character by turning an indirect player into a physical threat.

I also agree that they should have left the kid out of the equation and made the decision point the three-way standoff between Shep, Anderson, and TIM. Together they could have very effectively painted the options and debated their merits quite well without the travesty that came next.

That's the most time delay I've ever seen on a double post. O.o

[Psyren]

I just want to take this opportunity to raise an eyebrow over one issue in Mass Effect.

We're told advanced medical technology has humans living to about 150, before the introduction of Citadel science which is expected to extend this further. I would assume this includes a longer active lifespan as well rather than people spending 50+ years as physically frail as the average modern 90-year-old.

Yet I think Hackett is the oldest character for whom I can recall being given a birthday and he's just over 50 in ME3. Anderson's just under 50. TIM may be older as he was a soldier in the First Contact War (which might put him ten or twenty years ahead of Anderson, say), Miranda's father is probably older just based on her age... but really, it's odd how few human characters we see who are older than the high end of middle age by today's standards.

How old is Chakwas? (Too lazy to check.)

That is why all of the endings are unacceptable. Your philosophy is defeated in the ending, and you cannot even argue it, this in a game where you have on multiple occasions been able to do exactly that (most commonly against one of the things you are being asked to choose in the ending, and which is now colour coded "good"), going as far as having your interlocutor shoot themselves in the head when the magnitude of their error is laid bare to them.

This was a (don't hit me) artistic decision. All throughout the game you can argue down just about anything, sure - but never the Reapers. Sovereign didn't listen, Harbinger didn't listen, and... Ranny(?) didn't listen. Why should they listen now?

[Luzahn]

How old is Chakwas? (Too lazy to check.)



This was a (don't hit me) artistic decision. All throughout the game you can argue down just about anything, sure - but never the Reapers. Sovereign didn't listen, Harbinger didn't listen, and... Ranny(?) didn't listen. Why should they listen now?

The difference is that Shepard has always challenged them regardless. In arrival, he shouts defiance at Harbinger, despite Harbinger's apathy over the whole thing.

[thegurullamen]

The difference is that Shepard has always challenged them regardless. In arrival, he shouts defiance at Harbinger, despite Harbinger's apathy over the whole thing.

Untrue--Harbinger was annoyed. Shepard got under the skin of the millions-years-old-civilizations-harvester.

But yeah, in addition to being out of character for Shepard, it still doesn't fit with the themes of the story. Shepard can argue down the impossible. And frankly, convincing a creature (that should have been) bound by logic and reason that its actions are illogical (which has been the dominant theme of these past ending threads) doesn't fall under that purview.