Reviews by The Walrus: Mass Effect 3 (PC)

[JWeinCom]

Scoobes said:

Dulfite said:

Just out of curiosity, what was the ending like before they patched it?

And yea I totally agree the game was super forboding up to that point.

The ending didn't go into anywhere near enough detail before the patch. The starchild just gave you three options with little real explanation (it was just about enough to understand the basics for the ending to work) and you picked one of the three. You then saw what happened to Shephard, the Reapers, the Mass Relays, and a vague end to the Normandy and crew. 

It didn't show the effect of any of your other decisions throughout the course of the trilogy so smaller decisions and even major ones just got sidelined leaving you with numerous questions as to what happened with x, y and z. In the patched ending they at least addressed that and showed the effects of even relatively minor decisions and gave more detailed stories for the more important characters. It improved things a lot, but it was still a little too simplistic for many. 

Personally I don't have the hatred many have for the ending. I enjoyed it for what it was and understood the point the developers tried to make in that some things are inevitable (in that Shephard always dies no matter what). 

That said, it was a bit too simple considering the complexity of the trilogy, but I'm not sure what else they could have done that would have made for a more satisfying ending. 

*Spoilers*

Was the point the developers trying to make that some things are inevitable?  Again, we only have evidence to the contrary.  In ME1 it seems pretty inevitable that the citadel will fall, but you overcome impossible odds.  In Mass Effect 2, you go on what is constantly called a suicide mission, but you are able to make it out with all crew members alive, if you make the right choices.  You're able to end the genophage, end the seemingly endless battle between Geth and Quarian, overcome the reaper's mind control in several cases, etc etc.

So, Shepard routinely does the impossible.  The whole series is about ending a cycle that has been going on forever.  If the point was that certain things are inevitable, that would be a strange and sudden shift.  And of course, in one ending it seems that Shepard lives, so that throws another wrench in it.

As for what they could have done, the indoctrination theory, whether it was ever intended or not, would have been pretty satisfying as an ending.  Either that, or they could have just kept it simple, and had the united force of the galaxy defeat evil.  They would have had to change some things along the way, but it would have worked.  Wouldn't have been the most creative thing, but sometimes it's fine just to blow up the death star and have the good guys go home happy.

method114 said:

JWeinCom said:

1.  The reason for the catalyst is because apparently conflict between synthetic and organic life is inevitable.  However, in the game you only see evidence to the contrary.  If you play your cards right, you are able to broker peace between the Geth and the Quarians.  EDI, an unshackled AI, is a valuable ally to her human crew.  The conflict between the Geth and the Geth heretics show that even with a purely synthetic world, peace is not a given.  Conflict can exist even within a hive mind.

The starchild says that the conflict is inevitable, and you just have to go with it.  In the DLC ending, you can challenge him on it, but he shuts you down.  This is odd considering you'd been able to change the mind of every major villain (Serin (sp) in ME1, the Elusive man right before) in the game to that point.

2.  The DLC ending isn't a new ending per se.  It's basically a fleshed out version of the original.  There is more conversation with the starkid, and an epilogue at the end.  There is also a scene showing your crewmates getting saved by the normandy when they rush the citadel.  It was offered as DLC originally.  I think it was built into future versions of the game.  

You can also completely reject the starchild or shoot him, but that basically leads to the developers saying "go fuck yourself".

They've been doing this for countless years. Do I really believe this would be the one life cycle to get it right? The point is even though you negotiated peace it would fall apart. Just like in the real world. We've had peace with nations then we go to war with them. Also you see plenty of conflict between organically and synthetic. You basically made up the "only see evidence to the contrary ". You see evidence of both but in the end then it said it always leads to synthetics ruling.

I'm not talking about the real world.  I'm talking about the game. *spoilers*

First off, the game makes a point of countlessly emphasizing that this cycle is vastly different at least than the protean cycle.  It is emphasized throughout the series that humans in general are and Shephard in particular is special. The very fact that your cycle is able to construct the catalyst is proof that your cycle is unique.

The star child says it always leads to synthetics ruling, but we have no reason to trust him.  When you confront him, he tells you that literally minutes before he was trying to deceive the illusive man into acting according to his will.  So we know he's willing to lie to humans.  He's allied with the reapers, and if you shoot him he'll speak to you in a reaper voice.  There are a lot of characters who lie.  

But, even if the star child is absolutely convinced of this, that doesn't make it true.  Maybe he's seen it happen time and time again, but we haven't.  The game can't constantly show me that conflict is not inevitable, then have a deus ex machina at the end tell me it is.  I mean, they can do that, but it's shitty writing.  

I didn't make up the "only see evidence to the contrary".  I made the claim, and backed it up with several examples.  If you can present a counterpoint from the game, then go for it.