I don't get how Mass Effect 3 was a bad game (major spoilers)...

[JWeinCom]

Airaku said:

JWeinCom said:
                                       

I can see what you mean in the case of Ant-man. Wasn't he seen as abusive on more than one occasion though? Was this after or before the fact? Sorry I don't read the comics so I really can't comment on this :/

After the fact.  This is the incident that started it, and they just kind of rolled with it from there.  People read it in the comics, so they couldn't really say it didn't happen (especially in the time before internet) and they couldn't just not deal with it.  So, the author never intended for Hank to be a wife beater, yet he is.  If he tried to say that Hank never hit his wife, he would be demonstrably wrong, even if that was his intention.

What you say about the Reapers makes some sense for an argument, except we also don't see any evidence that they are lying. One of the reasons the Reapers can be considered with good intentions. Is that their actions is not unlike what god did in the bible when he caused the great flood. I do not know if this is what Bioware intended as I didn't ask about this. If I get the chance again in the future, I will bring this up in a conversation.

Eh... I have a feeling this will lead down a bad road, so I'll just say this.  I'm an atheist, and I don't necessarily believe god as portrayed in the bible is a particularly good moral guide.

The reapers frequent manipulation seems like a good reason to doubt them.

To be clear though, I don't think the reapers are lying.  Leviathan seems to corroborate their story (although that was added in after the fact).  However, I don't think they are right.

The two most prominent examples of synthetic life in the game are Edi and the Geth.  The crew is initially worried about unshackling Edi, but their fears are not justified.  When Edi is free she becomes a loyal part of your team.

The Geth are portrayed as generally peaceful.  The only times that the Geth are violent is when they are acting in self defense or when they are being pushed to it by the reapers.  The Geth only fight the Quarians as much as was necessary.  Once the Quarians left, they did not pursue.  And of course, you can actually reconcile the Geth and the Quarians.

When synthetics are constantly portrayed as peaceful in the game, there is no reason to suggest the catalyst's explanation is accurate.  The reapers claim they are doing what they are to prevent organic life being wiped out by synthetics, but no synthetic in the game really shows any inclination to destroy all life.  

If the game's message is that organics and synthetics can not coexist peacefully without merging, why do we see so many examples of peaceful coexistance?

Being able to convince the catalyst that the solution is wrong through these examples actually would have been an amazingly satisfying ending.  

Keep in mind that Shepard is also both synthetic and organic. I just thought I'd bring this up. Take it or leave it. I agree that the cycle is different, but in some cases it might not be. The humans were the Protheans of this cycle. Trying to achieve dominate in the galaxy, the difference is... that the Protheans actually succeeded. It is unknown what the cycle before them, with the Inusannons was like. They seemed very peaceful and the Protheans stole their technology. This is the cycle where the Catalyst was completed. It took the Galaxy to set aside their differences and unite together to achieve this.

I don't think that's true.  Humanity are not the protheans... Humanity is still new, and is deciding what route they want to take.  There certainly are humans that want humanity to dominate the galaxy, most notably Udina and the illusive man, but there are also many humans who want to coexist peacefully such as Anderson and Hackett.  

Shepard is a wildcard that can go one way or the other depending on your choices.  He can go the prothean route and try to enforce human dominance (renegade) or strive for cooperation (paragon).

That's why you're "The Shepard".  The example you set guides humanity towards one path or the other.  This is the dominant theme of both of the first two games, and a good chunk of the third.  This is the choice you should have been making at the end of the game, but suddenly, organics vs synthetics is considered to be the most important thing.  

I also want to point out that in order to get the synthesis ending. Shepard had to unite the galaxy and achieve that highest war assets. In order to do this you had to bring everyone together. Set differences aside. With this ending you unify everything and everyone becomes one. Likely connected as a consciousness in the vein the Geth were in. This last sentence is merely just speculations. I fail to see why the ending the requires you to bring everyone together and then officially unites them isn't the best choice. True peace and a mindset that is a like, while retaining individualism, just like the Geth. I really just conclude the same answer that I was given by the developer to my game in my story. Everything lined up and I had a similar conclusion of my own before I was told. This only strengthened my belief.

You also need to max out your war assets to get the version of the destroy ending where Earth is saved and Shepard lives (presumably).  I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that  you actually need more war assets to keep Shepard alive.  So, the argument about war assets really doesn't hold up.  This is also the only ending where your character survives, which also seems to indicate it is the best choice.

Whether or not this will lead to lasting peace is up for debate.  Aside from the catalyst's word, I don't see any reason to believe it will. As for what would happen, the catalyst says it will make everything like Shepard is.  Shepard has some synthetic parts, but he's not part of a hive mind like the geth.  

Plus, it's just really really stupid.  I know this is sci-fi, and I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief.  But seriously, radiation turning everyone into robots is where I draw the line.  

Somehow I've seen and heard the opposite of what you've claimed regaurding the Catalyst. From my perspective, it defeats the whole purpous of even being there from a story telling perspective.

I absolutely agree that it defeats the purpose.  Which is why people hated the ending so much.  It just kind of comes out of left field.

This little douchey kid is telling you that peace between organic and synthetics is impossible.  But you only have evidence that it IS possible.  And most of your evidence (aside from the example of Shepard himself who is not really portrayed as very synthesized throughout most of the game) shows that merging organics and synthetics is a bad idea.  

The only synthetics you actually fight in the game are the reapers themselves, and those they have manipulated.  Without the reapers, there would really be no conflict between synthetics and organics.  So, the reapers are presenting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, or that they themselves caused.  So, yeah, it does defeat the purpose.  That's why it's a shit ending.

                               

I was only bringing up the biblical example to show a similar base concept between the two. The game really does seem to go into a new age way of thinking at the end of the game, but like you said. It came out of no where. Going with the "all is one" theory. Hence why it is considered canon (by BioWare), but I can see why some will disagree with it. I wouldn't go as far as calling them robots. The combination was supposed to show a peaceful species at the highest point of possible evolution. It's really weird, I know but it's supposed to be a perfect universal utopia where negativity no longer exists. Disagreements are gone, hate is gone. This is why, presumably, the synesthetic ending is the only one where the peace will last as peace will become permanent. The common misconception here is that people think that everyone loses their "individualism" in this ending. *sighs* No!, just no. xD

What is a little weird is that Shepard actually embraces this choice. It's the ultimate sacrifice and he/she falls down the middle and disintegrates, symbolically becoming one with the universe. This ending is the only one that gives us an idea of a conclusion to the journey. Call it ridiculous, call it brilliant, call it what you will.

They way you've described things regarding the organics and synesthetic suggests that all the Synthetic beings started out as peaceful, but became aggressive due to organics. This seems to be true throughout the game. Organics are the primary aggressors at the end of the day. I've pondered on this multiple times. It's more food for thought than anything.

Shepard is both organic and synthetic. Not synthetic in the way of the Geth or EDI. Shepard is half machine with all those implants. They support Shepard and he/she will die if it is destroyed. So in the destroy ending actually kills Shepard. So you must be wondering why you she Shepard in the high War Asset destroy ending? I can't prove anything here but I assume it was part of the cut "indoctrination" ending. Which was a planned, and cut. We are taken back to moments before the citadel and see Shepard wheezing out a breathe on Earth. Shortly after Shepard get's his crew back on the Normandy and toward the Citadel. Harbinger gets a good show on your and you clearly see the laser go toward Shepard. Screen fades to white. From here... it's all fair game and shit gets really weird. Movement, and distorted vision should have been a first clear hint to players. Shortly after Harbinger blasts you.
Earlier we see Shepard in dream states with the child throughout the game. This is also from the indoctrination ending. ME2 had some codec entries that foreshadow this and outline it in the Indoctrination codec entry. I still don't understand to this day, why the ending where Shepard lives is still in the game. All it does is make people believe that the indoctrination theory is true, when it is not. It's been cut from the game. The scene serves no purpose and is contradictive and irrelevant to the ending the game shipped with. Maybe it remains as a nod, I don't know.

 

I'm not sure if this is something I've mentioned before. But one of the thumb rules of gameplay design is to make the right path obvious to the player from the starting point. Meaning they can see the direction where they begin. The Synthesis ending, should it be unlocked for you. Set's straight a head of you. It is also the core of the Citadel/Catalyst. The Destroy and Control ending and left and right from you. Meaning the player needs to look and turn to go off the path. They are called "off sets" or optional paths. If we go strictly by a game design choice. The Synthesis ending is the canon in the designers eyes. Which is of course another thing that was pointed out to me. Unfortunately this is another reason on the pile of why I consider it to be the best choice.

At the end of the day. I will repeat what I was chosen. Regardless of what ending they (BioWare) considers to be canon. It is YOUR story. You are Shepard and that canon is yours. Not dictated by any one else. That is how BioWare games function. To give the player as much choice as possible despite technical limitations, that they forge their own story.

PS. I do want to add something here. I think the choices for the ending provided a neat little experiment on the human brain and if peace is possible within humanity themselves. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is doing something similar. There is a hidden cutscene that will unlock for everyone if they can set this differences aside and work together to disassemble every nuke in the world. Of course there are a lot of jackasses that continue to build nukes to ensure that this doesn't happen.

 

I was only bringing up the biblical example to show a similar base concept between the two. The game really does seem to go into a new age way of thinking at the end of the game, but like you said. It came out of no where. Going with the "all is one" theory. Hence why it is considered canon (by BioWare), but I can see why some will disagree with it. I wouldn't go as far as calling them robots. The combination was supposed to show a peaceful species at the highest point of possible evolution. It's really weird, I know but it's supposed to be a perfect universal utopia where negativity no longer exists. Disagreements are gone, hate is gone. This is why, presumably, the synesthetic ending is the only one where the peace will last as peace will become permanent. The common misconception here is that people think that everyone loses their "individualism" in this ending. *sighs* No!, just no. xD

If it came out of nowhere, then it's hard to really argue that it is the main theme.  It can't be considered canon by Bioware, because canon, by necessity, has to be official.  

As for whether there would be peace or not, we don't really know.  As I mentioned, even the Geth have wars among themselves.  The only reason we have to believe there will be peace is that the starchild said so.  

Shepard is both organic and synthetic. Not synthetic in the way of the Geth or EDI. Shepard is half machine with all those implants. They support Shepard and he/she will die if it is destroyed. So in the destroy ending actually kills Shepard. So you must be wondering why you she Shepard in the high War Asset destroy ending? I can't prove anything here but I assume it was part of the cut "indoctrination" ending. Which was a planned, and cut. We are taken back to moments before the citadel and see Shepard wheezing out a breathe on Earth. Shortly after Shepard get's his crew back on the Normandy and toward the Citadel. Harbinger gets a good show on your and you clearly see the laser go toward Shepard. Screen fades to white. From here... it's all fair game and shit gets really weird. Movement, and distorted vision should have been a first clear hint to players. Shortly after Harbinger blasts you. 

Shepard was knocked unconcious, so you could argue that he was just groggy from that.  But, there are a whole lot of things that just plain don't make sense unless you go with a dream sequence theory.  Some of the holes were filled in with the extended cut, but I'd still say the indoctrination theory is a perfectly valid interpretation.

At any rate, Shepard living (which is made even more clear in the extended cut) signifies that the Starchild is not always right, or not only truthful.  He says Shapard will die, and he doesn't.  So, reason to doubt that.

Earlier we see Shepard in dream states with the child throughout the game. This is also from the indoctrination ending. ME2 had some codec entries that foreshadow this and outline it in the Indoctrination codec entry. I still don't understand to this day, why the ending where Shepard lives is still in the game. All it does is make people believe that the indoctrination theory is true, when it is not. It's been cut from the game. The scene serves no purpose and is contradictive and irrelevant to the ending the game shipped with. Maybe it remains as a nod, I don't know.

The scene was in both versions, and expanded on the second.  So, I have to believe they left it there for a reason.  The indoctrination theory does make a whole lot of sense.  I don't know if I actually believe it, but it is a very valid interpretation.  

I'm not sure if this is something I've mentioned before. But one of the thumb rules of gameplay design is to make the right path obvious to the player from the starting point. Meaning they can see the direction where they begin. The Synthesis ending, should it be unlocked for you. Set's straight a head of you. It is also the core of the Citadel/Catalyst. The Destroy and Control ending and left and right from you. Meaning the player needs to look and turn to go off the path. They are called "off sets" or optional paths. If we go strictly by a game design choice. The Synthesis ending is the canon in the designers eyes. Which is of course another thing that was pointed out to me. Unfortunately this is another reason on the pile of why I consider it to be the best choice.

Meh.  I get what you're saying in most games, but I don't think that would apply to the ending, which is basically an interactive cutscene.  It seemed more like a nod to the choice wheel than anything.