Mass Effect 3

[Angel4576]

I never really had a problem with the genocide side of the destroy ending. TBH I don't really see it as genocide at all, it's a sacrifice that you make. Both EDI and the Geth knew the score when they allied themselves to you. EDI even states in-game that she'd die to stop the Reapers if necessary. Consequently, although I'd have preferred not to have had to sacrifice them, I still felt that it was the lesser evil of the proposed choices.

Synthesis speaks for itself. Control - is just too much of a risk. It's made clear that although the Shepalyst would retain the memories and experiences of Shepard, it would NOT be Shepard. I'd be worried about what else went into the Shepalyst's makeup. Equally I'd be concerned about the Shepalyst changing its mind at some point in the future and effectively becoming Catalyst Mk II. Anything that leaves the Reaper fleet intact was unacceptable to me. Destruction was the only realistic way of removing the Reaper threat for good. Yeah, we're left with future potential clashes between Organics and Synthetics, but we've just beaten the Reapers. Is it really very realistic to believe that any synthetic race would get to being as advanced and as powerful as the Reapers without something having to be done about them beforehand? This is assuming that the Catalyst's logic was even sound to begin with......

 

[Thestral]

Of course on the other hand if you let the Geth (especially) live - assuming you worked it so they made peace with the Quarians - you have a proper example of organics and synthetics not wiping each other out, thus clearly doing an end-run on the Catalyst's whole logic.

 

[Angel4576]

Of course on the other hand if you let the Geth (especially) live - assuming you worked it so they made peace with the Quarians - you have a proper example of organics and synthetics not wiping each other out, thus clearly doing an end-run on the Catalyst's whole logic.

The Catalyst would undoubtedly qualify that with a "for now".

Irrespective of your ending choice though, if you broker peace on Rannoch then it shows that there's no reason that synthetics can't actually take their place as positive contributors to galactic society, just like the organic races. Even moreso than some.

 

[RyuRoots]

The destroy ending can be summed up by paraphrasing Fallout 3 a bit. "[The galaxy], with all its flaws, was deemed worthy of preservation."

You don't rape every culture in the galaxy with reaper tech on the word of the enemy general or submit Shep's mind to inevitably fall to the Reaper hivemind and start all this over again; because remember, literally no one we've seen that has jumped in to control or co-opt or otherwise partner with the Reapers has been anything but subsumed. Remember how for the entirety of all three games, we've been beaten broadside over and over with the idea that one of the Reapers' biggest and scariest powers is convincing people that LUDICROUSLY BAD ideas are in their best interest?

Also, no one should take starbrat at his word about inevitability. The one being who has personally ensured every cycle says that if you kill him and his forces, the cycle won't stop.

Uh huh.

I also thought it was stupid that destroy hits "all synthetic life". Why not just say it hits everything with Reaper code since EDI, the Geth (if they survive) and...obviously everything on the Reaper side all have it? It sounds a bit less like important-sounding nonsense that way but that's just me.

But that's a side tangent. The point is that even if we DO fuck up with machines later on, that'll be on US. We're given the CHANCE not to, we're given the freedom to have the chaos of life, in whatever form it takes, to go on.


I personally ignore this stupidity altogether and just headcanon in my own ending and have Citadel as an epilogue, though. I suppose it's fun to talk about in a weird way, but when seriously coming down to it, I never will accept "Press button, save (or doom in one of two horrific ways) the galaxy" as a conclusion.

 

[Angel4576]

BW talk about the possibility of a spin-off game from the main trilogy;

Digital Spy

All I can say is, more melee-focused? Kai Leng? I seriously hope they're fcuking joking.

 

[RyuRoots]

Kai Leng? That HAS to be a joke. They can't seriously think his perception is anything but a really, really bad joke in ME3 itself, right? He was the very definition of a cliche'd idiot who survived purely on plot armor.

And honestly, I'm not sure I'd be interested even if it was a Garrus game, and I love him. If I'm going to be interested in ME again, I think it'd have to be something completely divorced from the Reapers or Shepard.

 

[Skywalker]

Of course it would be Walters who suggests the spinoff could focus on Kai Leng. The font of bad ideas himself.

 

[ATimson]

Kai Leng? That HAS to be a joke. They can't seriously think his perception is anything but a really, really bad joke in ME3 itself, right? He was the very definition of a cliche'd idiot who survived purely on plot armor.

Kai Leng was interesting in the third Karpyshyn novel (where the character first appeared). Just... not so much in the Dietz novel or the game.

 

[Reverend]

Yeah, I really hope that they won't go down the road they're suggesting. I'd rather they do something new, not milk the last dregs of nostalgia people might have for the existing characters. As far as games are concerned that is. Novels, comics and the like are the best place to be telling small side stories, prequels and character pieces as the recent 'Homeworlds' series proved.

Oh and there's no way in hell I'd play any game where Kai Leng in the focus. They may as well make it about Conrad Verner. At least that way you know it's a joke!

 

[RyuRoots]

Oh no, now a Conrad Verner game I would totally play. That would be *amazing*. The objective could be to complete the shrine to Shepard, which would use your import data for the appearance of the pictures in said shrine.

 

[TheGodBen]

I came across this rumour on reddit, a guy claiming to have attended a private PAX panel hosted by Bioware reveals some info about the next Mass Effect game. People in the know seem to think there's a good chance it's legit.

If true, it looks like the next game will be a sequel, with two new races (possibly indicating it taking place centuries after ME3), a renewed focus on exploration, and multiple types of vehicle. Sounds promising.

 

[ATimson]

If true, it looks like the next game will be a sequel, with two new races (possibly indicating it taking place centuries after ME3), a renewed focus on exploration, and multiple types of vehicle. Sounds promising.

Mac Walters is still the lead writer, right? That'll undo any other "promising" information Bioware puts out.

 

[Reverend]

^ I doubt he was solely responsible for ME3's failing. Mostly I think it was poor planning and a lack of foresight, which actually makes it more (though not exclusively) the fault of the producer or director or whoever's in change of overall development. Basically they should have done the ending first and built everything up to that, but instead from what I gather they did the middle missions first, leaving the beginning and end to last...and it showed. Based on some of the unused files it looks like they have much bigger plans for the London mission than just a lame horde mode mission, but ran out of time.

That said these rumours do sound promising *if* there's any truth to them. In the very least is sounds consistent with those cryptic N7 day tweets the team was putting out earlier this month. Taking place post ME3, refocus on exploration and the implication that the PC could possibly be customized from a choice of several different species.

 

[Skywalker]

^ I doubt he was solely responsible for ME3's failing. Mostly I think it was poor planning and a lack of foresight, which actually makes it more (though not exclusively) the fault of the producer or director or whoever's in change of overall development.

That would be Casey Hudson.

 

[RyuRoots]

Really, ME3's biggest problem is that it wasn't frigging FINISHED. It was an incomplete game, and it showed badly. If Bioware's evil overlords actually let them complete the game, I think that'll have more of an influence than whether Mac and Casey are around or not.

 

[Reverend]

That's the thing though, they must have known going in what their deadline was and budgeted their time accordingly. As much as I dislike EA's policies, you can't really blame them for Bioware being unable to deliver a completed game in the allotted time. Indeed, if memory serves, they were already granted an extension as I think ME3 was originally due out Q3-4 of 2011.

The simple fact is that they grossly underestimated how important the ending would be to the fans and left it to last. No wonder it felt rushed and half arsed!

I don't think EA told Bioware to stunt cast Chobot in what has to be the most bafflingly pointless character in recent memory, they didn't tell them to chicken out and just photoshop a random model shot off google images and call it Tali's real face and I'm sorry, but no amount of extra time would have made the three choice ending any better.

Indeed as the Extended Cut DLC proved, all the extra time would have done is allow them to plug the most blatant omissions and give some tiny bit of closure.

Incidentally, are all those disciples of "Indoctrination Theory" still banging on, or have they finally given up the ghost?

 

[AlphaMan]

Well, I loved ME3 and felt it was one if the best if the entire generation. The last 5% of the game was terrible only because I felt that it was left unfinished, but for me, it didn't undo the journey I took to get there.

 

[RyuRoots]

If the destination is the bottom of a spike pit, the journey doesn't seem so great.

And you make a lot of good points, Reverend, but I still feel like it's on EA. If the game isn't finished on schedule, the proper response is not "WELL PUT IT THE HELL OUT ANYWAY", it's to ride them harder as you go and give them more time. Give them a new schedule, but make them stick to it and keep closer tabs on development. If they're faffing about, then crack the whip, but shoving out an undone product is never a good business decision. Outside of modern video games, anyway.

Tho the BS about Tali's face, Allers, and how anything on the ending is throwing good writing after bad? Totally legit, I agree 100%.

As far as I know, Indoctrination theory is more or less dead. At this point, I think most people just do what I do and ignore casey and mac's idiocy and substitute our own ending in.

 

[ATimson]

And you make a lot of good points, Reverend, but I still feel like it's on EA. If the game isn't finished on schedule, the proper response is not "WELL PUT IT THE HELL OUT ANYWAY", it's to ride them harder as you go and give them more time. Give them a new schedule, but make them stick to it and keep closer tabs on development. If they're faffing about, then crack the whip, but shoving out an undone product is never a good business decision. Outside of modern video games, anyway.

EA did give them a new schedule at least once. But they can only afford to throw good money after bad for so long.

As far as I know, Indoctrination theory is more or less dead. At this point, I think most people just do what I do and ignore casey and mac's idiocy and substitute our own ending in.

Shepard killed all of Cerberus and stole the Normandy-A from them. THE END.

 

[Skywalker]

The initial mistake was EA's in giving them such a limited development window. They treated ME3 like it was another generic sci-fi action game when it was an expansive RPG just like its predecessors. Games with that much content to them take a lot more time than typical shooter games do. They made the same mistake with Dragon Age II; fortunately it seems they've wizened up a bit by giving Dragon Age: Inquisition a lot more room to breathe.