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

[Morty]

Huh. For some reason, my RenegadeShep's scars disappeared in ME3. Maybe I need to work up my Renegade reputation for them to reappear.

[Trazoi]

How is Synthesis "completing the Reapers' job for them?"

Starkid is the Reaper boss, and Shepard is forced to choose one of Starkid's options. So all of the endings involves Shepard supplicating to the boss of the Reapers.

Synthesis however is presented as the most ideal option by the Starkid, i.e. most ideal for the boss of the Reapers.

[VanBuren]

Starkid is the Reaper boss, and Shepard is forced to choose one of Starkid's options. So all of the endings involves Shepard supplicating to the boss of the Reapers.

Synthesis however is presented as the most ideal option by the Starkid, i.e. most ideal for the boss of the Reapers.

And yet that reasoning doesn't exactly prove Synthesis to be the wrong choice. If the Catalyst liked sugar, that wouldn't mean that sugar was the wrong choice.

Also keep in mind that Synthesis is a new option that wasn't possible before Shepard attached the Crucible, that the Catalyst hadn't even conceived of.

[Derthric]

And yet that reasoning doesn't exactly prove Synthesis to be the wrong choice. If the Catalyst liked sugar, that wouldn't mean that sugar was the wrong choice.

Also keep in mind that Synthesis is a new option that wasn't possible before Shepard attached the Crucible, that the Catalyst hadn't even conceived of.

Yes but that proves that the Catalyst is flawed. Meaning its absolutist basis for all its actions is flawed. That's one of the many many problems with the Catalyst, it deals in absolutes. Synthesis is only the right answer if you believe the Catalyst, but if it is fallible how can you accept is entire premise, which relies upon you accepting it 100% for truth?

And even then since the Catalyst defines the ending, your response to the Catalyst colors your actions. I loathe the Catalyst so much that he could make me hate sugar.

This gets back to what I posted at the top of this page, about stripping player agency for sake of an arbitrary and forced ending.

[Erik Vale]

On a funny note on the endings, here's some demotes I found when procrastinating on the subject.
And two other ones I found fun, one slightly linked through Haelstrom, the other you can all guess about. With explanation cause I can.

Ok, Scap That, image paste doesn't work from google images.
Anyhow, it was a funny search, I particurly like the dark matter one.

[Zevox]

Synthesis is only the right answer if you believe the Catalyst,

Didn't I already debunk that argument a while back? I could swear I've pointed out before that there are certainly other reasons for choosing it. I did, and I thought that the Catalyst was a complete idiot.

Zevox

[Derthric]

Didn't I already debunk that argument a while back? I could swear I've pointed out before that there are certainly other reasons for choosing it. I did, and I thought that the Catalyst was a complete idiot.

Zevox

I could have missed it you know if its in this thread or the last. Or was it part of the synthesis=body horror argument? Because I remember you posting about that.

[TheLaughingMan]

Didn't I already debunk that argument a while back? I could swear I've pointed out before that there are certainly other reasons for choosing it. I did, and I thought that the Catalyst was a complete idiot.

Zevox

It is a bit like just doing what the Reapers tell you to, but the other options are genocide and possible genocide.

The only winning move is not to play.

[Luzahn]

It is a bit like just doing what the Reapers tell you to, but the other options are genocide and possible genocide.

The only winning move is not to play.

Ahh, it would have been great to have that option. Just blow the whole damned starchild setup up and defeat the reapers with conventional warfare.

We'd take way more casualties, but defiance to the end, and all that.

[Zevox]

I could have missed it you know if its in this thread or the last. Or was it part of the synthesis=body horror argument? Because I remember you posting about that.

I think the latter spun out of the former. My basic point for why I picked it is because the other options are unacceptable. Destroy kills the Geth, and hell no I'm not committing genocide on an entire species - one I struggled to save not too long ago - when there are alternatives available. Control is risky as all get out - there's no indication of how you'll maintain control over them given you'll be dead, and there's always the rather huge concern about them breaking free or someone less than totally responsible and moral getting their reigns and abusing them. You know, the things that would've lead to you arguing against it with the Illusive Man.

By contrast, the only real problem with Synthesis is that some people might not like becoming part robot. Which ranks far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the risks of the control option.

Ahh, it would have been great to have that option. Just blow the whole damned starchild setup up and defeat the reapers with conventional warfare.

We'd take way more casualties, but defiance to the end, and all that.

Except for the part where you'd lose. You've known from the start that you can't defeat the Reapers conventionally, and it's not like the battle with them was going in your favor before you got the Crucible running.

Zevox

[Psyren]

And guess what Biopware? If you don't clarify the ending very well, you can't stop me! Muahahahaha!)

They can't stop you anyway - the beauty about IDT is that it's impossible to disprove.

Reapers' Plan: Make freakish hybrids with organic life.

Catalyst's Plan: Make freakish hybrids with organic life.

It just seems pretty off, y'know?

It's also wrong. The Reapers are out to harvest advanced civilizations before they can cause a technological singularity, not merge synthetics and organics. The process of creating a reaper does combine synthetic and organic materials, but that's incidental to the Catalyst's process, rather than being his goal.

Synthesis is totally different. Given how little Joker and EDI appeared to have changed, I don't think "freakish hybrids" is a fair moniker. Certainly they didn't become Reapers.

And as far as EDI/Joker go, if EDI can survive Destroy then she is clearly an exception to ending-horribleness-syndrome, and the same goes for Synthesis.

Joker/EDI /= the entire galaxy.

You're right, we don't outright see the effects on the entire galaxy. But assuming everyone else becomes horrors while those two (an organic and a synthetic, respectively) don't is being negative for its own sake, yet again.

Starkid is the Reaper boss, and Shepard is forced to choose one of Starkid's options. So all of the endings involves Shepard supplicating to the boss of the Reapers.

Synthesis however is presented as the most ideal option by the Starkid, i.e. most ideal for the boss of the Reapers.

You're not choosing one of HIS options. You're choosing one of the CRUCIBLE'S options. He outright tells you that the new possibilities are beyond his power to achieve.

Just because he explains what they are to you, doesn't mean he came up with them. Your device is what made them possible.

[Luzahn]

I think the latter spun out of the former. My basic point for why I picked it is because the other options are unacceptable. Destroy kills the Geth, and hell no I'm not committing genocide on an entire species - one I struggled to save not too long ago - when there are alternatives available. Control is risky as all get out - there's no indication of how you'll maintain control over them given you'll be dead, and there's always the rather huge concern about them breaking free or someone less than totally responsible and moral getting their reigns and abusing them. You know, the things that would've lead to you arguing against it with the Illusive Man.

By contrast, the only real problem with Synthesis is that some people might not like becoming part robot. Which ranks far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the risks of the control option.


Except for the part where you'd lose. You've known from the start that you can't defeat the Reapers conventionally, and it's not like the battle with them was going in your favor before you got the Crucible running.

Zevox

Oh, of course we'd probably lose. It's still worth it though. If every civilization would be extinguished, but the Reapers destroyed, it would be worth it, rather than offering some aspect of ourselves to the starkid as sacrifice in order to have him grant us victory.

[Zevox]

Oh, of course we'd probably lose. It's still worth it though. If every civilization would be extinguished, but the Reapers destroyed, it would be worth it, rather than offering some aspect of ourselves to the starkid in order to have him give us victory.

...and how on Earth do you think the Reapers would be destroyed? That's the whole problem: you can't win conventionally. They're too powerful. Admiral Hackett told you this point-blank, and you can see it happening in how the battle is going before you activate the Crucible. Not picking one of the Crucible's functions to defeat the Reapers means nothing less than deliberately losing a struggle for survival that you can win, and every advanced species in the galaxy paying for it with their lives.

Zevox

[Psyren]

Yep - Hackett even tells you this again after you've gathered all your war assets and have 100% readiness. It's just not possible.

"We can't win without the Crucible."

[Luzahn]

...and how on Earth do you think the Reapers would be destroyed? That's the whole problem: you can't win conventionally. They're too powerful. Admiral Hackett told you this point-blank, and you can see it happening in how the battle is going before you activate the Crucible. Not picking one of the Crucible's functions to defeat the Reapers means nothing less than deliberately losing a struggle for survival that you can win, and every advanced species in the galaxy paying for it with their lives.

Zevox

Well, we had been seen reliably inflicting capitol ship casualties, something which seems to only have occurred around twice in the span of cycles.

I'm not saying it's the wisest choice; It's just more in keeping with my morality. Any casualties inflicted on the reapers would set them back immensely; even before the catalyst, I believe a couple of capitol ships were destroyed, which the reapers can't make back with the harvest.

With the Citadel system disabled, the Reapers could eventually be whittled down to nothingness. I just wish we'd been given the option to reject what amounted to the same flaw that led to the cycle being enabled each time: Reliance on Reaper tech to solve our problems.

[Zevox]

I'm not saying it's the wisest choice; It's just more in keeping with my morality.

I find that a rather disturbing statement, but I don't think I should be saying any more than that, in order to avoid too heated or personal an argument.

Zevox

[Luzahn]

I find that a rather disturbing statement, but I don't think I should be saying any more than that, in order to avoid too heated or personal an argument.

Zevox

Edited above to clarify slightly. I don't like the reliance on reaper tech as a general principle. It was a theme in the earlier games that galactic civilization is trapped by their tech, and guided on a specific path, and this is treated as a bad thing.

With three's ending, they force you to rely on reaper tech to win. I'm aware that the basis of all of their tech is still reaper-based, but at least they understand it. With the Catalyst, it's a case of plugging in a device of unknown function and hoping for the best. I'd rather the situation had been presented with more leeway with regards to not using it and still achieving some sort of victory.

[Psyren]

With three's ending, they force you to rely on reaper tech to win. I'm aware that the basis of all of their tech is still reaper-based, but at least they understand it. With the Catalyst, it's a case of plugging in a device of unknown function and hoping for the best. I'd rather the situation had been presented with more leeway with regards to not using it and still achieving some sort of victory.

If that were an option it would be considered the "real ending," and totally undermine the gravity of the remaining choices. "Oh, we can win without the macguffin? Tell TIM and Kai Leng to slag off then!" There'd be no point to any other choice.

[Luzahn]

If that were an option it would be considered the "real ending," and totally undermine the gravity of the remaining choices. "Oh, we can win without the macguffin? Tell TIM and Kai Leng to slag off then!" There'd be no point to any other choice.

Well, I could see catalyst-victory as still being more efficient. Less casualties, and all that.

Kind of reinforces my point about the endings artificially limiting morality, if there can be a "best" one. Look at 1 and 2. None of the ending choices were better or worse than each other by nature, they were differentiated solely by how your morality directed you.

Personally, I believe the losses of all three endings should have been equal, with any differences being on a moral basis, such as using the reapers for gain or destroying them.

[TheLaughingMan]

If that were an option it would be considered the "real ending," and totally undermine the gravity of the remaining choices. "Oh, we can win without the macguffin? Tell TIM and Kai Leng to slag off then!" There'd be no point to any other choice.

I gotta say, one good ending completely undermining three terrible ones wouldn't make me lose any sleep at night.

[Corvus]

Except for the part where you'd lose. You've known from the start that you can't defeat the Reapers conventionally, and it's not like the battle with them was going in your favor before you got the Crucible running.

Zevox

I tend to disagree - there are plenty who think it is possible, given what we are shown and told. Would it be easy? No. Would it be preferable? Infinitely so over the lame starchild 'pick A, B or C' we were given.

[Corvus]

Yep - Hackett even tells you this again after you've gathered all your war assets and have 100% readiness. It's just not possible.

"We can't win without the Crucible."

And that makes no sense. They have no idea what the Crucible is, does, or even if it will work. And yet they place blind faith in it.

[Trazoi]

You're not choosing one of HIS options. You're choosing one of the CRUCIBLE'S options. He outright tells you that the new possibilities are beyond his power to achieve.

The Starkid tells Shepard that it's the Crucible's options. And obviously Shepard trusts the Starkid - you don't get to be boss of the Reapers by being untrustworthy.

That said, I do trust what he said - because it was obvious that there was a writer on board spilling out what happens when you push buttons A, B and C. That's why Synthesis is the best choice; because the writer says it is. It's also why the Indoctination Theory is so enticing; the Starkid is so obviously goading you towards various options and it feels so fake it's enticing to think it's a trick rather than the result of crappy writing.

[Psyren]

And that makes no sense. They have no idea what the Crucible is, does, or even if it will work. And yet they place blind faith in it.

Because desperation. Things were that bad.
You're talking about a military force so overwhelming that they can roflstomp the two most powerful fleets in the galaxy (Turians and Humans) simultaneously.

The Starkid tells Shepard that it's the Crucible's options. And obviously Shepard trusts the Starkid - you don't get to be boss of the Reapers by being untrustworthy.

It makes sense logically though. He obviously wants Synthesis - if he could have done it pre-Crucible, he would have.

[Anarion]

I think the latter spun out of the former. My basic point for why I picked it is because the other options are unacceptable. Destroy kills the Geth, and hell no I'm not committing genocide on an entire species - one I struggled to save not too long ago - when there are alternatives available. Control is risky as all get out - there's no indication of how you'll maintain control over them given you'll be dead, and there's always the rather huge concern about them breaking free or someone less than totally responsible and moral getting their reigns and abusing them. You know, the things that would've lead to you arguing against it with the Illusive Man.

By contrast, the only real problem with Synthesis is that some people might not like becoming part robot. Which ranks far lower on my list of concerns than genocide or the risks of the control option.


Except for the part where you'd lose. You've known from the start that you can't defeat the Reapers conventionally, and it's not like the battle with them was going in your favor before you got the Crucible running.

Zevox

See, where I came from in choosing synthesis is that if people are alive then scientists could work to undo the effect, if they even wanted to undo it. That's a much better alternative than genocide to the Geth or unreliable control.

I gotta say, one good ending completely undermining three terrible ones wouldn't make me lose any sleep at night.

Um, how would doing nothing be a good ending? You said that letting millions die left you uncomfortable, but if you ignored the Catalyst and just blew up the whole thing, then billions would die and the entire cycle would lose to the reapers.

I dunno, after reading this whole thread and the last one, I kinda think some people here actually wouldn't be satisfied with anything except bouncing blue babies.

[Luzahn]

See, where I came from in choosing synthesis is that if people are alive then scientists could work to undo the effect, if they even wanted to undo it. That's a much better alternative than genocide to the Geth or unreliable control.



Um, how would doing nothing be a good ending? You said that letting millions die left you uncomfortable, but if you ignored the Catalyst and just blew up the whole thing, then billions would die and the entire cycle would lose to the reapers.

I dunno, after reading this whole thread and the last one, I kinda think some people here actually wouldn't be satisfied with anything except bouncing blue babies.

Well, I personally believed that the game had had plenty of darkness and Pyrrhic victory already; it wasn't necessary to arbitrarily include more in the endings.

But it seems that the attitudes from most people are that the endings are very ambiguous and open to interpretation, as we've seen, which seems to be provoking a lot of argument.

[TheLaughingMan]

Um, how would doing nothing be a good ending? You said that letting millions die left you uncomfortable, but if you ignored the Catalyst and just blew up the whole thing, then billions would die and the entire cycle would lose to the reapers.

I dunno, after reading this whole thread and the last one, I kinda think some people here actually wouldn't be satisfied with anything except bouncing blue babies.

I wasn't referring to the ending proposed itself, but rather that having the current three endings serve as collateral damage for any halfway decent ending wouldn't cause me any ire.

And I don't care if the ending is a sappy "everyone rides off into the sunset" type deal, I just wish every option didn't look so bleak. A hero's journey usually is made to right some wrong, whether big or small, even if it requires sacrifice. With our current set of endings, it seems we've sacrificed ourselves so we might either right a wrong only to produce a new wrong or make the current wrong even more pronounced.

[Zevox]

Edited above to clarify slightly. I don't like the reliance on reaper tech as a general principle. It was a theme in the earlier games that galactic civilization is trapped by their tech, and guided on a specific path, and this is treated as a bad thing.

With three's ending, they force you to rely on reaper tech to win. I'm aware that the basis of all of their tech is still reaper-based, but at least they understand it. With the Catalyst, it's a case of plugging in a device of unknown function and hoping for the best. I'd rather the situation had been presented with more leeway with regards to not using it and still achieving some sort of victory.

Um, no you're not. The Crucible was designed by the other races that the Reapers harvested, not by the Reapers, and it was built by the current set of species.

And honestly, I don't see how it matters what you use to stop the Reapers. Being trapped by Reaper tech is regarded as a bad thing because it's something the Reapers exploit - a weakness to any civilization that does it, mostly coming in the form of the Citadel and their surprise attack using it, the Mass Relays keeping the expansion of each rising organic race to certain areas for the Reapers' convenience, and the Reapers' understanding of the tech being inherently vastly superior to the organic races using it, making it easier for them to fight it. If the Reapers are stopped, using Reaper tech ceases to be an issue (unless you're using Husk or Indoctrination stuff, but then your problem is moral issues, not practical ones).

And that makes no sense. They have no idea what the Crucible is, does, or even if it will work. And yet they place blind faith in it.

Because they have no choice. They know just enough about the Crucible to know it's designed to stop the Reapers, and seems capable of generating enough power to do so. Given that they know they have no way to win conventionally, going with a device they don't fully understand but have reason to believe could win things for them is certainly better than the alternatives. It offers them hope where they'd otherwise have none, if nothing else.

Zevox

[Anarion]

Well, I personally believed that the game had had plenty of darkness and Pyrrhic victory already; it wasn't necessary to arbitrarily include more in the endings.

But it seems that the attitudes from most people are that the endings are very ambiguous and open to interpretation, as we've seen, which seems to be provoking a lot of argument.

It's more than just ambiguity though, it's a literal catch-22.

If the ending is purely happy, people claim it's unrealistic and fails to take obvious setting details into account. It also detracts from the reapers as a legitimate threat and removes all the tension from the game.

If Shephard has no choice but to die, people say that's taking choice out of player hands unfairly.

If Shephard lives and you destroy the reapers at great cost, the claim is still that the galaxy will receive only a Pyrrhic victory and if they don't that's even more blatant ignoring of the setting and unrealistic hand-waiving.

So tell me. What kind of ending is acceptable? Or was Bioware royally screwed from the start and it was impossible to write a satisfactory ending for ME3?

[Zevox]

It's more than just ambiguity though, it's a literal catch-22.

If the ending is purely happy, people claim it's unrealistic and fails to take obvious setting details into account. It also detracts from the reapers as a legitimate threat and removes all the tension from the game.

If Shephard has no choice but to die, people say that's taking choice out of player hands unfairly.

If Shephard lives and you destroy the reapers at great cost, the claim is still that the galaxy will receive only a Pyrrhic victory and if they don't that's even more blatant ignoring of the setting and unrealistic hand-waiving.

So tell me. What kind of ending is acceptable? Or was Bioware royally screwed from the start and it was impossible to write a satisfactory ending for ME3?

Some people would complain no matter what, certainly. They still botched it pretty badly with all the things that don't make sense though (*cough* Catalyst).

Zevox