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

[Psyren]

That's there, this is here. I have been avoiding Godwin's Law this whole time. For the exact reason people don't like it now, its a debate ender.

I never said you did; that was actually directed at chiasaur.

Maybe Your Shepard killed those Batarians, but after finding out it means diddly squat in the alteration of War Assets in ME3 I just import a save pre-arrival. Honestly I disliked Arrival it was poorly executed and had a very poorly thought out story. Who knew it would be a portent of things to come.

Did you also manage to import a save where you neither unleashed the Rachni on the galaxy once more, nor condemned them to extinction? How about a save where you neither ignored the Geth's plight, nor mass-brainwashed the Heretics, nor slaughtered them?

The point is that Shepard does make galactic decisions without first consulting the galaxy. Synthesis is merely the most far-reaching one s/he can make, but it's certainly not the first.

I stand by my presented idea. Art is not produced or created by simply being. It is a status attained through consensus of Audience, Critic, and Creator.

That being said, if an artist is misinterpreted as Bioware has been, on such a massive scale then the artist has failed. And revision is needed.

I am willing to wait and see on the EC. I hope they have learned from this, both Bioware and EA.

I agree with all of this, but who constitutes the "Audience?" Just as many of us say ME3 IS art (if poorly executed) as those who say it is not. So where then does the Audience stand?

[Derthric]

I never said you did; that was actually directed at chiasaur.

Did you also manage to import a save where you neither unleashed the Rachni on the galaxy once more, nor condemned them to extinction? How about a save where you neither ignored the Geth's plight, nor mass-brainwashed the Heretics, nor slaughtered them?

The point is that Shepard does make galactic decisions without first consulting the galaxy. Synthesis is merely the most far-reaching one s/he can make, but it's certainly not the first.

Scale and the context are everything here. Your choice on the rachni and the geth heretics are informed by others actions and opinions. You are also able to stand for your actions afterwards. Arrival makes no such distinction, its purely they will die Shepard has no say otherwise. Same thing at the end of ME3, Synth vs Organic is inevitable, its is writer fiat. And that's why they fail. My problem is less with galaxy spanning decisions and more with how they are framed. You and I disagree on the nature of the Catalyst as a mouthpiece for the writers. I see it as such, thus its statements of "The Peace won't last" and the definitive way it acknowledges that Synthesis is right comes off as them telling us this is the right answer. Just as how there was no other option in Arrival. That's the real reason I skip it. It is an interesting concept that is poorly executed, in both Arrival and the endings.

I agree with all of this, but who constitutes the "Audience?" Just as many of us say ME3 IS art (if poorly executed) as those who say it is not. So where then does the Audience stand?

If the Audience is divided then consensus is not reached. And this avoids any discussion about the breaking of the dramatic arc or the hero's journey. Let alone the philosophies and themes of their own creation.

[Marnath]

So, I've been thinking about my decision to not buy this game(and by extension, a new Xbox360) and I have a question. If I liked the ending of DA2 and still play through Kotor2 sometimes despite the fact that you can see the ragged edges where they hacked off the last chapter to meet their deadline, would the ending of ME3 ruin my enjoyment of the series? Or do you think I'd be able to overlook that?

[Derthric]

So, I've been thinking about my decision to not buy this game(and by extension, a new Xbox360) and I have a question. If I liked the ending of DA2 and still play through Kotor2 sometimes despite the fact that you can see the ragged edges where they hacked off the last chapter to meet their deadline, would the ending of ME3 ruin my enjoyment of the series? Or do you think I'd be able to overlook that?

Kotor 2 is a great game they never finished so don't worry about that. It depends on what your opinion of ME is overall. Less so about Bioware or similar companies work. And also what you liked about the ending of DA2.

Plus DA2's ending was leaps and bounds better than ME3's if you ask me and I was not a fan of how they ended DA2.

[BRC]

I look at the endings a little like this:

• Destroy: Most people live.
• Control: Everyone lives, but it might not work.
• Synthesis: Everyone lives, but has something possibly unpleasant happen to them.

They've all got their downsides. Destroy kills a lot of people, Control isn't certain and Synthesis has unpleasant side effects. It all depends on which downside you're willing to put up with.

My issue with Control was less that I didn't believe the Starchild, and more that there were too many questions unanswered, specifically WHO is controlling the Reapers. Starchild says Shepard is, but Shepard is dead. So, how are the Reaper's controlled. Is it Shepard's Ghost? Maybe it's the Shepard VI.

[Aeryr]

DA2 endings were definitively much better.

Watch playthroughts in youtube is a good game till the last 10/5 minutes.

[Anarion]

I look at the endings a little like this:

• Destroy: Most people live.
• Control: Everyone lives, but it might not work.
• Synthesis: Everyone lives, but has something possibly unpleasant happen to them.

They've all got their downsides. Destroy kills a lot of people, Control isn't certain and Synthesis has unpleasant side effects. It all depends on which downside you're willing to put up with.

This is an excellent summary.

If the Audience is divided then consensus is not reached. And this avoids any discussion about the breaking of the dramatic arc or the hero's journey. Let alone the philosophies and themes of their own creation.

It can't be the case that being art requires that the audience not be divided. I've never heard of a work receiving universal praise, even the most popular and beloved works. You can always find someone that has a problem with it. Plus, a lot of the works that have gone down as being truly great were and remain controversial. Catcher in the Rye, for example, or even Harry Potter getting banned in some places. And we're having this discussion on a site for a webcomic, which I suspect many people would still call puerile and a waste of time.

I don't have a definition of art that I want to force on everyone though. My personal definition is broad, but I have trouble articulating it. Probably just anything with a minimal amount of creativity in it, although I do think a lot of art can be utter trash.

What I would like to ask, however, is that people be careful saying that broad categories of things are definitively not art because that can have significant consequences for what is available on the web due to fair use. Creative and especially transformative uses of a work are accorded much better legal treatment than other uses, so attributing a wide conception of "art" to authors and movie makers is directly related to what kind of material is available for all of us to enjoy.

[Psyren]

Scale and the context are everything here.

Why does scale matter? Is affecting the lives of a 1000 people without their prior consent fine, but 1 million too many? Or is 1 million okay, but 1 billion not? Anywhere you draw that line past "myself" is going to be arbitrary.

I agree that the context of a choice like Synthesis absolutely matters - context such as, say, your other options being perilously vague on one hand and cruelly genocidal on the other (and doing nothing is also genocidal.)

My problem is less with galaxy spanning decisions and more with how they are framed. You and I disagree on the nature of the Catalyst as a mouthpiece for the writers. I see it as such, thus its statements of "The Peace won't last" and the definitive way it acknowledges that Synthesis is right comes off as them telling us this is the right answer. Just as how there was no other option in Arrival. That's the real reason I skip it. It is an interesting concept that is poorly executed, in both Arrival and the endings.

My choice of Synthesis had nothing to do with any suggestions made by the Catalyst. His logic is deeply flawed, so any endorsements on his part beyond neutral/factual information would be suspect.

Rather, I chose Synthesis based on what he told me about Destroy, and what he didn't tell me about Control.

If the Audience is divided then consensus is not reached.

So there is no art until the entire audience can agree that it is? Because that will never, ever happen for anything of modern creation - certainly not for anything in our medium, which is still struggling mightily to break free of the "children's entertainment" label.

And this avoids any discussion about the breaking of the dramatic arc or the hero's journey. Let alone the philosophies and themes of their own creation.

I don't know about your Shepard, but mine certainly had a hero's journey.

[Dienekes]

My issue with Control was less that I didn't believe the Starchild, and more that there were too many questions unanswered, specifically WHO is controlling the Reapers. Starchild says Shepard is, but Shepard is dead. So, how are the Reaper's controlled. Is it Shepard's Ghost? Maybe it's the Shepard VI.

I kind of thought that Shepard's consciousness would override that of all the Reapers. Making a fleet of robot-ship Shepards. Though yes, this is one of my biggest questions about the ending.

[Luzahn]

So, Liara is going about her daily business on Illium when a Reaper floats up to her window to have a chat about the good ol' days of fighting Saren.

[Psyren]

So, Liara is taking a shower on Illium when a Reaper floats up to her window to have a chat about the good ol' days of fighting Saren.

FTFY

[Luzahn]

FTFY

Wasn't gonna go there.

[MCerberus]

I kind of thought that Shepard's consciousness would override that of all the Reapers. Making a fleet of robot-ship Shepards. Though yes, this is one of my biggest questions about the ending.

And this leave Starchild with enough loopholes to go 'eh, let's get back to reaping'. And now you've effectively made the 'new solution' be the old one, only with a giant fleet of organic slaughtering Shepard's.

[Luzahn]

"My name is Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite harvesting station on the citadel."

[BRC]

And this leave Starchild with enough loopholes to go 'eh, let's get back to reaping'. And now you've effectively made the 'new solution' be the old one, only with a giant fleet of organic slaughtering Shepard's.

Three cycles later, on the Citadel. The representative from the Esqualidoids stares contemptuously at an upstart Star Champion. Que (Esqualidoids have five genders) raises Quer barbed tentacles in the air

"Ah, yes, Shepards..."

[Derthric]

It can't be the case that being art requires that the audience not be divided. I've never heard of a work receiving universal praise, even the most popular and beloved works. You can always find someone that has a problem with it. Plus, a lot of the works that have gone down as being truly great were and remain controversial. Catcher in the Rye, for example, or even Harry Potter getting banned in some places. And we're having this discussion on a site for a webcomic, which I suspect many people would still call puerile and a waste of time.

I don't have a definition of art that I want to force on everyone though. My personal definition is broad, but I have trouble articulating it. Probably just anything with a minimal amount of creativity in it, although I do think a lot of art can be utter trash.

What I would like to ask, however, is that people be careful saying that broad categories of things are definitively not art because that can have significant consequences for what is available on the web due to fair use. Creative and especially transformative uses of a work are accorded much better legal treatment than other uses, so attributing a wide conception of "art" to authors and movie makers is directly related to what kind of material is available for all of us to enjoy.

Consensus does not equal Universal. For example I do not like the new Star Trek movie, that does not mean its not a good movie. Or just because someone likes The Room, does not mean it is high quality. Universal notions are few and far between, its part of why I dislike the absolutism of the endings. But also why I chose consensus as my qualifier. I think it is safe to say there is no consensus about the artistic quality of the endings. There will always be outliers and people who just reject or accept somethings, but on something as intrinsically subjective as "what is art?" you need to find a broad definition and consensus allows this.

That all being said, It is the prerogative of the artist/creator on weather or not changes should or could occur. Its why we are powerless to stop George Lucas. And its a strong sign on Bioware's part that they are willing to listen to their audience.

Why does scale matter? Is affecting the lives of a 1000 people without their prior consent fine, but 1 million too many? Or is 1 million okay, but 1 billion not? Anywhere you draw that line past "myself" is going to be arbitrary.

"Kill 1 person it is a tragedy, kill 1,000,000 it is a statistic"

Just wanted to get that out of the way. But scale does matter, and arbitrary or not its still a factor. One that I put on, which is something that the game should have allowed for more. Allow the players influence on the morals of the game to be the final arbiter and not the Catalyst/narrator. I reject Snythesis for its scale, you do not, that is fine. However the fact that the Catalyst pushes this, as the narrator's avatar, is where they fail.

For want of a nail a kingdom fell.

The smallest actions have consequence and can alter things in indeterminate ways. The ending rejects this and goes for blanket statements and actions. This is why scale is a problem, things on this scale create problems that cannot be addressed by those acting at this stage. Its part of the reaction to Shepard's actions that the game used so well prior to the ending. But then that is ignored and the scale drawn up, creating the problems I have with it.

Scale is always a factor, one of many factors. And the other two decisions are on the same scale, its why the vagueness of all 3 choices makes each one unappetizing. You cannot say that the genocide of the geth or the enslavement of the reapers is of greater evil than changing the entirety of the nature of life. All on the word of what, at best, can be described as a well intentioned extremist.

I agree that the context of a choice like Synthesis absolutely matters - context such as, say, your other options being perilously vague on one hand and cruelly genocidal on the other (and doing nothing is also genocidal.)

Yes but then Synthesis is just as vague and only valued positively if you accept the Catalyst at face value. All three endings have their failings but in story and out of story. I just have the most out of story objections to Synthesis. This would not be a problem if the writers. in the form of the Catalyst, did not frame it as the ideal outcome. They even do so with the out of story framing, by making Synthesis the last choice unlocked it puts the connotation that its the better ending you have worked for. When its just as bad, and in my personal view worse, than the others.

My choice of Synthesis had nothing to do with any suggestions made by the Catalyst. His logic is deeply flawed, so any endorsements on his part beyond neutral/factual information would be suspect.

Rather, I chose Synthesis based on what he told me about Destroy, and what he didn't tell me about Control.

And my choice to reject Synthesis is based on the fact that he fails to uphold his prime argument and gives no detail on what the nature of life is after we force the change. As I said before, all three choices suffer from lack of information. To me this hurts Synthesis more so than any of the others because it is altering the nature of the setting and life in general.

So there is no art until the entire audience can agree that it is? Because that will never, ever happen for anything of modern creation - certainly not for anything in our medium, which is still struggling mightily to break free of the "children's entertainment" label.

I said consensus not universal truth. As I said before there will always be elements on either end, and neither can offset the majority. But if art is art without the appreciation of those who perceive it then what is the point? You cannot factor out the mind of the one seeing it when evaluation art or any form of expression, its why one of the first rules of writing is "know your audience". If it is based solely on the will of the creator over what meaning it brings forth, then why have it available for others at all?

I don't know about your Shepard, but mine certainly had a hero's journey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

This is what I was referring to, a story cycle that carries the hero through each stage towards conclusion. Not that Shepard was in anyway not heroic.

[MCerberus]

Three cycles later, on the Citadel. The representative from the Esqualidoids stares contemptuously at an upstart Star Champion. Que (Esqualidoids have five genders) raises Quer barbed tentacles in the air

"Ah, yes, Shepards..."

As this upstart makes his way into trouble and attracts the attention of the Shepards, eventually he gets a face-to-face where it's revealed that 'and you are my favorite species to harvest on the citadel'.

[Dienekes]

And this leave Starchild with enough loopholes to go 'eh, let's get back to reaping'. And now you've effectively made the 'new solution' be the old one, only with a giant fleet of organic slaughtering Shepard's.

Honestly with all the power Starkid implies to have, I think any solution can allow him to say "Well, let's go back to Reaping." Honestly I'm curious how the cycle even got started, did he just make the reapers? If so, after i destroy them what's to stop him from making them again? If I choose synthesis, well, honestly he still has control of the Reapers. What if he decides that we aren't synthesized enough for his liking after another AI uprising. Because let's be honest, from what we've seen everyone is going to dabble in AI eventually (my money is on Alliance or Salarians), and a couple of them will still rebel if all of creation is half-synthesized or not. Starkid can just go, "Welp that didn't work." and order the Reapers to begin harvesting once more.

We don't know the limits of the decisions and how they actually play out, or even if we can trust the Starkid. Maybe he's being honest that he's completely giving up control of the Reapers to Shepard. Maybe he's lying. How in the name of Benezia's over-sized bust was he able to alter the DNA of the galaxy. Is this even permanent? Does it hurt? It's all completely baffling.

Though I will add, even if the Starkid can take control of the Reapers from Shepard again. It'd be much more awesome if a fleet of Shepard's started harvesting everything as opposed to a fleet of Reapers.

[Aotrs Commander]

Three cycles later, on the Citadel. The representative from the Esqualidoids stares contemptuously at an upstart Star Champion. Que (Esqualidoids have five genders) raises Quer barbed tentacles in the air

"Ah, yes, Shepards..."

Pffftahahahahahaha!

Okay, you see, I'd have gone with that as an ending, because it would have been funny. (I'll forgive - almost - any level of stupid if it makes me laugh...)

In fact, I still stand by my statement that the ending being a shot of the galaxy exploding and a picture the lead writer doing a trollface would have been a better ending because at least it would have been funny...

(They totally should have coded that one so it happened if you completed the game of April Fool's day...)

[Trazoi]

So, I've been thinking about my decision to not buy this game(and by extension, a new Xbox360) and I have a question. If I liked the ending of DA2 and still play through Kotor2 sometimes despite the fact that you can see the ragged edges where they hacked off the last chapter to meet their deadline, would the ending of ME3 ruin my enjoyment of the series? Or do you think I'd be able to overlook that?

It depends. A lot of why people are so disappointed is that most of ME3 is a great game. There's a few cracks here and there, but otherwise you'll get sucked right in just like with ME1 & 2. Then right at the very end it sucker punches you.

For me, I still enjoyed ME3. But it did throw a bucket of water on my desire to replay the whole trilogy. Even thought I could quit ME3 at that particularly point where the crappy ending takes over, it colours the whole series knowing the saga of Shepard is incomplete.

I'd still recommending playing it since you sound like you're into the Bioware style games (I thought DA2 was okay too, and loved what Obsidian were going for with KoTOR2.) If you're not interested in the multiplayer though I'd recommend borrowing it off a friend or waiting until it's discounted.

I have said it before and I say it again: Bioware are very good craftsmen. When they do the traditional standard Bioware Story (tm) they are BRILLIANT. But they are simply put not competent enough as writers to be able to pull off "creative" and "artsy". Both the ME3 ending and the entire DA2 proves that.

I thought DA2 wasn't going for "artsy", just different. ME3's ending I agree is definitely going for "artsy".

Actually word of god is that it is the fault of the lead writer and the lead designer. They, themselves, drew up the ending deliberately without input from anyone.

Worse is that they apparently kept the ending secret from their own writing team. It wouldn't nearly be so bad if they built up to it with some heavy foreshadowing.

Regardless of whether it's morally or ethically justifiable or whatever, synthesis still makes no goldang sense.

I chose synthesis because I thought that path was the most dramatic way to let my Shepard escape the ending.

[Luzahn]

Aw dammit, I can't tell if my upholding of Destroy is just confirmation bias now.

[Morty]

The funny thing about the arguments about the endings and which one of them is best is that it's all basically confirmation bias and filling in the blanks, because the Starkid tells us a whole big load of nothing. I hope the extended cut will shed some light onto them, but there's still the issue of the ending itself and the Starkid's motivation not making sense... but we've covered that.

[Luzahn]

I'm also concerned that Shepard surviving may be coloring my choice a bit. Sure, I picked destroy when I had no idea that that would happen, but I didn't understand a few things correctly then.

But as you say, the real choice occurs after the DLC...Where I will probably still enact bloody, sole-survivor style vengeance on the Reapers.

[kamikasei]

First off, that's not what made the Genophage bad. If it was a 50% or even 75% infertility rate (instead of 99.9999%) it wouldn't actually be a problem.

I don't see how synthesis "jerks over" anyone. So everyone's body changes somewhat to incorporate synthetic parts (or organic ones if you're a Geth or EDI) - how is that a problem?

I really can't think of a politer way to phrase "what the hell" and "you people scare me".

[Trazoi]

Aw dammit, I can't tell if my upholding of Destroy is just confirmation bias now.

If the ending allowed Shepard to act like Shepard it's the only option that makes sense. Shepard's military, on a mission to destroy the Reapers, looking for the trigger button. That's the first choice the VI points out. Shepard should be saying "'K thanks" while rushing over to press it. Even if the VI isn't trustworthy, the alternative is Shepard randomly smashning buttons. (And if the VI isn't trustworthy, it's not as if the other two options aren't more stupid.)

[Luzahn]

I really can't think of a politer way to phrase "what the hell" and "you people scare me".

By the way, I declare Zevox to be part pumpkin now. For the Greater Good.

[Beowulf DW]

In honor of the title of this thread, I feel the urge to post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGzB...Ltc8MtYLYFr0Xg

It's about 20 seconds in, but you should see it.

I could almost have forgiven Bioware for the ending if Star Kid had shouted that when the Crucible fired.

[Inspectre]

In honor of the title of this thread, I feel the urge to post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGzB...Ltc8MtYLYFr0Xg

It's about 20 seconds in, but you should see it.

I could almost have forgiven Bioware for the ending if Star Kid had shouted that when the Crucible fired.

Okay, I have to delurk to say that when I pictured the Starkid saying that, I completely lost it for about twenty seconds. I haven't had that hard of a laugh in a while. Thank you for that!

[Beowulf DW]

Okay, I have to delurk to say that when I pictured the Starkid saying that, I completely lost it for about twenty seconds. I haven't had that hard of a laugh in a while. Thank you for that!

If I can make one person laugh, it was good day.

[chiasaur11]

I look at the endings a little like this:

• Destroy: Most people live.
• Control: Everyone lives, but it might not work.
• Synthesis: Everyone lives, but has something possibly unpleasant happen to them.

They've all got their downsides. Destroy kills a lot of people, Control isn't certain and Synthesis has unpleasant side effects. It all depends on which downside you're willing to put up with.

As incredibly awful as this sounds:

Destroy, with maxed assets, on the scale of the war so far, might not kill a lot of people. "Just" millions. (Maximum estimates for the number of Geth programs was a billion, and every platform tended to have at least ten or so. )Considering every world being reaped loses 1.86 million+ a day, and the war's been going on multiple worlds for months, 100 million doesn't sound that bad. Heck probably kills nobody, if Shep had to kill the Geth earlier. EDI can survive destroy.

Cold calculus of war. 10 billion die here so 20 billion over there can live.

And that's all taking the Starchild at his word. Which is part of why Synthesis is so awful.

You're taking marching orders from the inventor of the Reapers. That's a being who's evil on a scale that few can match. He's committed genocide hundreds, maybe hundreds of thousands of times. Not like Shepard or the salarians do it, either. They feel bad and try to make it as not-incredibly-painful as possible. Heck, the Krogan generally go for speed.

This guy takes the slow, painful route. Talking to Javik reveals the beginnings of how nasty things get late in a cycle.

Synthesis is what the thing wants. Even ignoring the whole totally-rewriting-everyone's-genetics-without-consent and the how-is-this-stupid-thing-supposed-to-work/stop-the-reapers factors, that's a good reason to stay far, far away.

Oh, and morally, I'm pretty sure the best option is doing Arrival. Either way, all the batarians are dead. Not doing it just gets a lot of good alliance marines killed and loses intel. Thing has to be done. No honor in shirking.