You only have the reapers word for that. Sorry can;t trust him. But civilisation utterly destroyed never to rise again can be trusted due to the last ending, assuming it's not just a tall tale.
Repears' word? The child isn't an expression of the Reapers, they're an expression of those who created the Reapers. The Reapers were their solution to a galaxy-wide robot apocalypse.
One option destroys all the Reapers and most advanced technology. The scene with the child shows that "The Shepard"(clever, the one who shows the galaxy the way forward) saved sentient life from the cycle by:
1. Controlling the Reapers. This sends the Reapers away, but according to the child, breaking the cycle in this way leads to an inevitable war between synthetics and organic life.
Shepard disagrees.
2. Destroying the Reapers, and all senthetic life with it. This option removes the Reapers from the equation entirely, kills off the Geth, destroys a lot of technology. But in the end, it saves many lives, and gives the universe a chance to rebuild.
3. Combining synthetic and organic life. The idea is that, by removing the created/creator, synthetic/organic distinction, all life can continue in a new step of evolution and coexist peacefully because they are all the same. This option is definitely the worst thought-out(and has some terrible implications, especially when we consider the Human/Robot relationship has always been used in science fiction as an allegory for race-based slavery), and seems to stem from a desire to create a "good" ending that the child can agree causes peace without at the same time killing the Geth and setting technology back. Still, the core theme in the ending is a good one: By realizing we are all the same, we can peacefully coexist. They just go the sci-fi route of including a sciencey piece of technology at the center of the lesson, which in this case comes off weak. Honestly, I feel like the "Control the Reapers" option is close enough to this without the scary implications, and they really should have given the qualities of this ending to that one in a more explicit way.
All the endings set civilizations back a lot of years, yes. But the Reapers winning does that anyway, that's sort of what the Reapers DO. There are no Mass Relays and as such there won't be a gigantic, pre-built technological jumpstarter floating in every system, but now the organic life as is has a chance to build their own future in all of the endings, in a way that they definitely did not before. Nothing is predetermined for them, because the cycle is broken.
The hero attempts to save the universe, the attempt fails, a god-like creature appears that hasn't said a word before and essentially solves the situation for the hero. That's Deus Ex Machina without a doubt.
It was of course clear from the beginning of ME3 that they were building a machine with an unknown purpose. They weren't building the god from the machine though. That one's always been there and has been orchestrating all these cycles of almost-genocide as his "solution" to preventing complete genocide (?!?).
The child is a VI. That's it. It could have just as easily been a computer monitor with three buttons on it. The hero didn't fail, the hero built the Crucible. The Crucible hadn't activated because you need to make the choice of what Crucible Beam to fire.
Everything follows what you would expect from the plot of the game up to that point. Shepard fights, Shepard builds machine, Shepard pushes one of two/three buttons on said machine. The child is just a VI that is used to explain the buttons.
Did you miss the fact he's supposed to control the reapers? Ergo -cannot trust.
What's the best way of preventing the resistance when the civilisations manage to come together? Destroy how they managed it. The cycle may not be broken in any of the endings.
Decisions do not matter is the important part, and the hidden ending explains it a a tale told around a fire. This is bad enough but all the endings are the same with a paltte swap. I'm glad I didn't buy the game, depsiute having the others.
ME1 what is the difference between a trap and a fortress?
ME2 Should we learn from others despite the possible cost?
ME3 Technology is bad.
Did you miss the fact he's supposed to control the reapers? Ergo -cannot trust.
You're going to have to explain how this sentence makes anything remotely similar to sense and logic.
What's the best way of preventing the resistance when the civilisations manage to come together? Destroy how they managed it. The cycle may not be broken in any of the endings.
Er, what?
Destruction: There are no Reapers, thus no Reaper Cycle.
Control: Reapers leave, don't kill everyone. If they wanted to kill everyone, and the Crucible wasn't keeping them from killing everyone, then Joker/EDI/Squadmates wouldn't be in the ending cutscene, nor would we be able to see the ending bit with the old man and the child.
Synthesis: Joker/EDI, Old Man/Child, thus Reapers again don't kill everyone.
Decisions do not matter is the important part, and the hidden ending explains it a a tale told around a fire. This is bad enough but all the endings are the same with a paltte swap. I'm glad I didn't buy the game, depsiute having the others.
The "tale around a fire" bit isn't a "hidden ending", it shows up after the credits regardless. It shows that humanity survives and continues to dream about a future in the stars thanks to Shepard's actions. It says that details have "been lost" over generations, which I'm guessing is their way of fudging the need to clean the slate for future Mass Effect media. Shepard having become a legendary figure in the distant future doesn't mean he wasn't REAL, it's simply a matter of him becoming larger than life, like a leader of an ancient civilization.
The core ending decision is a good one, the expression in the form of palette swaps is a matter of poor execution of a good ending.
I really want to know if there's an option where, if you do the minimum amount of effort to reach an ending, the Reapers win. For me, this would at least give me the satisfaction of doing something by getting the endings described.
Though I am in favor of a patch or something that contains a short Fallout-style epilogue where you find out what happens to all the characters and civilizations.
The Catalyst is the master AI that controls the Reapers [...] When encountered by Commander Shepard, the Catalyst represented itself using a hologram, taking the form of a young boy
The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. [...] the Catalyst was tasked with solving a dire problem: the inevitable creation of synthetic intelligence by advanced organic civilizations, and the equally inevitable conflict that results.
The kid is, for the purposes of this story, as I have previously stated, a God. Without this God and his enormous powers inside, the Crucible machine is obviously worth shit.
The Crucible hadn't activated because you need to make the choice of what Crucible Beam to fire. [...]Shepard fights, Shepard builds machine, Shepard pushes one of two/three buttons on said machine.
if Shepard's "Effective Military Strength" score is low enough that the player is on track to the worst ending, the Catalyst will not offer a choice; the Catalyst will automatically assume that Shepard either wants to destroy the Reapers (if Shepard destroyed the Collector Base during the suicide mission) or wants to control the Reapers (if Shepard preserved the Collector Base during the suicide mission). No "merge" option is provided.
It is a god-like machine that at will giveth and taketh away the options the Crucible has to offer. It renders to and/or pressures on Shepard a decision that it SHOULD make itself, given that the problem-solving is what it was created to do. Case closed.
So wait, they are machines that wipe out organic life to avoid having organic life wiped out by machines? Yes... it all makes sense now
Yes, that's it. To avoid the conflict between man and machine, billions of billions of living creatures are wiped out at regular intervals. All for the prosperity of... ah, I don't know. So much sense.
The Reapers have once told Shepard that he/she would not understand their harvest. Well, it seems like he/she could eventually understand after only a simple two-minute explanation. Why Shep didn't answer appropriately with "That's bullshit", I will never understand.
The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. [...] the Catalyst was tasked with solving a dire problem: the inevitable creation of synthetic intelligence by advanced organic civilizations, and the equally inevitable conflict that results.
Oh, I see. Mass Effect 3 is trying to be Battlestar Galactica. Okay.
I've never seen Gateway. Actually though, reading it again, ME3 seems a bit more of some weird love-child of Battlestar Galactica and the Matrix.
Gateway is a series of books by Frederick Pohl, wherein humanity discovers an abandoned space station (Gateway) constructed by a mysterious unknown race which allows for interstellar travel. The main crisis of the series is a group of mysterious machine intelligences coming to wipe out all life in the galaxy. ME diverges from it in a lot of ways, but yeah...
That only proves that the character is in the game, but not the DLC (which, btw, has to download 700 mb of information or something like that, so it's NOT on the disc and it IS downloadable). Which doesn't contradict what BioWare has said. Some people mention that there was a leak of the script regarding the Prothean/DLC stuff last year. Well, that ALSO doesn't cotnradict what BioWare has said. Plus, people already have said that changing the line only adds the character to the party, no missions or out of combat dialogue.
Game development of a massive game is a very complicated process. The way it could go down is that, having a script and a character ready, people at BioWare have estimated that they may need to push the certification date further so all content would be included. So they took the least complete/important (otherwise known as the most optional) feature they had planned and scheduled to fully develop it during the certification process and release it as DLC. No contradictions or bullshitting there.
Now, mind you. I do not agree with the fact that it's a PAID DLC. In fact, I REALLY dislike paid DLCs. I think paid DLCs should be more akin to the expansion packs of old, while small DLCs should be more similar to bonus stuff that would be added to patches in the days of old. For free. And Mass Effect 3 Day 1-DLC is not a huge amount of content, it doesn't deserve to be a paid-for-DLC. More than that, I believe that if it would be a free DLC, there would be absolutely no complaints at all from the consumer public. In fact, they'd be HAPPY. Like, 'Whoah, not only do I get a full game, but also a free DLC for no extra fee?! GIVE ME TWO!'.
I am not reading this thread because I don't want to spoil the story of ME3 for myself. However, I am in here to say that there are various games which I have played in the past that people hate on., so I'm also going to judge the game for myself after I play it (which I fully intend to do.)
Mass Effect Wiki]The Catalyst is the master AI that controls the Reapers [...] When encountered by Commander Shepard, the Catalyst represented itself using a hologram, taking the form of a young boy
I'm not sure where they got this information. The child acts just like the Protean "personality Imprint" VI at the end of the first Mass Effect.
The kid is, for the purposes of this story, as I have previously stated, a God. Without this God and his enormous powers inside, the Crucible machine is obviously worth shit.
Before the kid shows up, you expect to build a machine that can destroy or control the Reapers. After the kid shows up though? You have this weird magical device that can control or destroy the Reapers! Woah! Totally OUT OF NOWHERE.
The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. [...] the Catalyst was tasked with solving a dire problem: the inevitable creation of synthetic intelligence by advanced organic civilizations, and the equally inevitable conflict that results.
Oh! I see! It's bad because it's able to explain things!
It is a god-like machine that at will giveth and taketh away the options the Crucible has to offer. It renders to and/or pressures on Shepard a decision that it SHOULD make itself, given that the problem-solving is what it was created to do. Case closed.
It..."Giveths" the options of the machine that we knew we were building from the first few minutes of the game, giving us the options that are hammered into your head repeatedly every step of the goddamn way. This is like complaining every time Aladdin makes a wish(despite genie mechanics being laid out quite early in the story). The machine we knew we were building was built and gave us the choices we expected. The twist is that it can talk. A computer that can TALK in Mass Effect?! How absurd!
Synthesis coming from EMS is likely an expression of Sheperd "adding" the option of cooperation through getting a really solid group of guys to work together. It should probably be able to come from making choices that allow the Geth and Quarians to cooperate and/or advancing the Joker/EDI romance, honestly, but the core idea here is actually fine.
So wait, they are machines that wipe out organic life to avoid having organic life wiped out by machines? Yes... it all makes sense now
Yeah man, that's really stupid. It's like fighting fire with fire, which never works.
The child hologram quite flatly states that they see themselves as agents of preservation while allowing organic life to continue to exist and grow in variety, which is a very literal evolutionary stance. The way they see it:
Universe sans Reapers
Organics live on planets.
Organics advance, build robots.
Robot apocalypse happens.
No more organic life anywhere
Universe with Reapers
Organics live on planets
Organics advance
REAPER ATTACK
Old organics preserved in Reaper form
Primative organics get to live
Synthetic life isn't able to reproduce or change in the traditional evolutionary stance, and if you see the overall goal of organic life as being able to reproduce and change for the better, then yeah, the plan of those who built the Catalyst makes sense, though only IF robot apocalypse is inevitable. The Catalyst is a bit genre-savvy, and realizes that yeah, in sci-fi universes the robots ALWAYS REBEL.
Yeah man, that's really stupid. It's like fighting fire with fire, which never works.
Ah, argument from analogy, we meet again.
...
No more organic life anywhere
... Universe with Reapers
...
Primative organics get to live
And here is the big logical flaw. Without reaper technology, FTL travel would be impossible in the galaxy as it is so any synthetics created would be confined to a single planet. If FTL travel was developed, what possible reason would synthetics have to go around to primitive worlds squashing all life? It just seems stupid.
The analogy works. Just saying "Killing to avoid killing? That's stupid!" is completely idiotic without further clarification. We hunt deer to keep them from assured self-destruction, and that follows the exact same logic being lampooned here.
And here is the big logical flaw. Without reaper technology, FTL travel would be impossible in the galaxy as it is so any synthetics created would be confined to a single planet. If FTL travel was developed, what possible reason would synthetics have to go around to primitive worlds squashing all life? It just seems stupid.
You don't need a single race of synthetics, just multiple races of sentient organics. Organic species continue along the same curve, eventually make sentient synthetics, and incite robot apocalypse. The Mass Relays make sure that the Reapers know where everybody is roughly around the time they make these robots because, you know, once you control the trade network, you control the civilization. Otherwise, you'd just have organic species after organic species being destroyed by the genre they inhabit.
To me, it all sounds like BioWare is pulling a Molyneux. I mean, they advertise Mass Effect as a series where everything you do has direct consequences to the rest of the game. Which should have included the final ending. Instead it sounds like a cop-out where every action you previously did in all of the three games were for naught. Or at least made as if whatever you did didn't matter.
I mean, look at it this way. Let's say Notch was a bastard. He let you build up your world, fight monsters to create a Nether Portal, meanwhile building up a huge village. Then, at the end, you fight the Netherdragon and defeat it. Now instead of just spawning a dragon egg and allowing you to see the three(?) minutes long ending sequence it teleports you to your house, which is now ON FIRE. FILLED WITH CREEPERS. AND HALF OF YOUR VILLAGE IS FILLED WITH TNT. Yes, all the work you put into your house, your village, the world itself, it has all been for naught, because now you'll need to clean up the mess the fire and all the creepers and TNT left.
On second thought, pretend I never written it down. I'm pretty sure Mojang is crazy enough to actually do this.
Or, in a more extreme case, after the ending of Minecraft it all ends up being a dream. You wake up at your original spawn, and the rest of the world AND your inventory isn't there anymore. It's like you started a new save.
The analogy works. Just saying "Killing to avoid killing? That's stupid!" is completely idiotic without further clarification. We hunt deer to keep them from assured self-destruction, and that follows the exact same logic being lampooned here.
Arguments from analogy are inherently flawed because no matter how similar two different situations may seem, they are never exactly the same. I.E. we hunt deer to ostensibly keep them from dying from overpopulation, reapers hunt organic life to keep them from being killed by synthetics.
You don't need a single race of synthetics, just multiple races of sentient organics. Organic species continue along the same curve, eventually make sentient synthetics, and incite robot apocalypse. The Mass Relays make sure that the Reapers know where everybody is roughly around the time they make these robots because, you know, once you control the trade network, you control the civilization. Otherwise, you'd just have organic species after organic species being destroyed by the genre they inhabit.
This still doesn't address how what the reapers do is in any way different from what synthetics would do otherwise. They wipe out all organic life advanced enough to potentially be capable of wiping themselves out. Low-tech civilizations would be spared either way, and the cycle would continue in the same way regardless of whether the reapers were there or not.
I mean, they advertise Mass Effect as a series where everything you do has direct consequences to the rest of the game. Which should have included the final ending. Instead it sounds like a cop-out where every action you previously did in all of the three games were for naught. Or at least made as if whatever you did didn't matter.
Bioware has made a lot of promises for ME3 it could not keep (the "revolutionary battle system" being one of them). I am really disappointed with the ending, but I never thought that it could do that, take every choice of previous games into account and have different endings for each combination.
I have no doubt that the series Mass Effect is, from the viewpoint of interactive storytelling, a huge achievement that will stay unrivaled for quite some time. But the limitations Bioware's "story algorithms" underlie were always visible since Knights of the Old Republic; I expected to see these limitations most obviously in Mass Effect's finale - and for sure I did.
I'm in the process of writing a longer article about it, but I might actually start a blog with that.
I'm not sure where they got this information. The child acts just like the Protean "personality Imprint" VI at the end of the first Mass Effect.
Dashing, I think you have an interesting angle in arguing that by building the Crucible, Shepard's active Heros role is preserved. I am very willing to discuss the idea, but I don't think it's really necessary for you to openly deny the information the actual game gives you. Please note in the following original final conversation:
How the AI describes its own actions and competences ("I");
how the AI refers to its own power over the Reapers;
how the AI in fact identifies with the Reapers ("we" or "us");
how the described AI power refers to past, present and also the future.
how the AI heavily advocates the last option (not available to all players and thought of as the "good ending" in some forums).
C "Wake up."
S "What? Where am I?"
C "The Citadel. It's my home."
S "Who are you?"
C "I am the Catalyst."
S "I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst."
C "No, the Citadel is part of me."
S "I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?"
C "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
S "Solution? To what?"
C "The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."
S "By wiping out organic life?"
C "No. We harvest advanced civilisations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive the last time we were here."
S "But you killed the rest."
C "We helped them ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."
S "I think we'd rather keep our own form."
C "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created this cycle so that never happens. That's the solution."
S "But you're taking away our future, we have no hope. Without hope, we might as well be machines, programmed to do what we're told."
C "You have hope. More than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. But it also proves that my solution won't work anymore."
S "So now what?"
C "We find a new solution."
S "Yeah, but how?"
C "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen. I know you've thought about destroying us. You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth. Even you are partly synthetic...
S "But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
C "Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the Chaos will come back."
S "Maybe..."
C "Or do you think you can control us?"
S "Huh. So the Illusive Man was right after all."
C "Yes, but he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."
S "But I can..."
C "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."
S "But the Reapers will obey me?"
C "Yes. There is another solution."
S "Yeah?"
C "Synthesis."
S "And that is?"
C "Add your energy to the Crucible's. Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out. The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new... DNA."
S "I don't know."
C "Why not? Synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?"
S "And there will be peace?"
C "The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen. You have a difficult decision. Releasing the energy of the Crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays. The paths are open. But you have to chose."
Based on everything I've read about the ending (which isn't a lot, seeing as I don't really give much about Mass Effect in general), I have come up with a better ending overall.
Let's say the previous three endings still uphold, but add a new added dialog depending on what you did in the previous games. Let's say this added dialog option is something along the lines of "Go screw yourself."
Now, we'll skip the long and hard battle that comes afterwards. If you get killed at that point, it doesn't trigger a game over, but some ending I can't come up with.
Okay, so Shephard somehow finds himself in his own ship again, for some reason. Depending on how loyal you are to your crew, you can then order your crew to return and do an all-out suicide assault. The ending is pretty much still the same, but at least you got the choice to decide upon the fate of your crew. The universe is still boned, but at least people can't say you didn't try. At least part of the problem solved, as your previous actions, showing loyalty to your crew, is being taken into account. Perhaps as a joke ending, if you acted like a douchebag towards your crew, they launch you out of a torpedo bay instead. Your face will splatter against the side of something, and the universe is still boned, but at least you got a good laugh out of it or something. Sure it's a shitty ending, but at least it's better than to just have no choice in the game at all.
Dashing, I think you have an interesting angle in arguing that by building the Crucible, Shepard's active Heros role is preserved. I am very willing to discuss the idea, but I don't think it's really necessary for you to openly deny the information the actual game gives you. Please note in the following original final conversation:
Thanks for providing the conversation. I couldn't find a video of it, and I didn't want to transcribe the entire thing, so this makes the structure of the conversation a lot easier to go through.
However, you are dealing with only half of the equation. For comparison, we must go back to the original virtual being infodump ending: Vigil in Mass Effect 1..
Vigil describes his own actions and competences("I" began to shut down life support) , and identifies with his creators(This is why "we" sent "our" warning through the beacons).
Vigil refers to the past, present, and future within his experience. "This is what happened to the Protheans, this is what I think the Reapers do, if you get to the Conduit you can stop the one you call Saren, etc").
Vigil showed control over pieces of technology.
Vigil advocated certain actions, as though he had an opinion on the matter.
Vigil had his own independent thoughts and theories.
The child seems to be a better-maintained VI, an expression of the will of the Reapers' creators, much the same way Vigil was an expression of the Prothean's will. The child doesn't identify with the Reapers in the sense that you say.
C "I am the Catalyst."
C "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
Every use of "we" can be interpreted as being said from the perspective of Reapers' creators. "This is why [the VI that follows the will of the Reaper Creator species; 'we'] continue to do this thing through our plan and instruments(the Reapers)." On the other hand, the references to the Reapers as separate entities cannot be so interpreted, nor does that view have the in-universe precedent(Vigil). The idea that the child "is" the Reapers simply isn't supportable.
C "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen.
The Child VI doesn't grant Shepard power, Shepard grants the VI power.
Before the child shows up, we expect that Shepard will build a machine that can destroy or control the Reapers.
This is what we build.
In ME1, we spend the whole game assuming that the Conduit is a weapon(or at least, the in-game characters assume as much). Instead, it is a miniature Mass Relay that can send people to the Citadel's main control room.
In ME3, we spend the whole game assuming the Crucible is a weapon. The Illusive Man believes he can use it to control the Reapers. It is, and is not, these things. The Crucible is a means of "reprogramming" the Catalyst, adding options to its programming. The Crucible isn't a gun, it's a means of changing the mental core of the Reaper cycle.
Just like the Conduit in Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 3 ends on an important device that has been the center of the narrative up to that point, and that both is and isn't what was expected. There's a really nice parallel there.
This still doesn't address how what the reapers do is in any way different from what synthetics would do otherwise. They wipe out all organic life advanced enough to potentially be capable of wiping themselves out. Low-tech civilizations would be spared either way, and the cycle would continue in the same way regardless of whether the reapers were there or not.
Synthetics would not preserve organic DNA.
Synthetics wouldn't create a cycle. Instead, they'd represent an endpoint. Wipe out life before they create synthetic intelligence, and you can allow new life to grow in the same place.
Synthetic apocalypse has a lot of unknown factors. The synthetics CAN roam the galaxy, wiping out organic life and replacing them entirely. They don't need to breathe, they don't have lifespans. It would take them a LONG TIME to travel the galaxy, but the Reapers and their creators work on very large timescales anyway. It has been thousands of years since they last showed up. Even with sublight travel, roaming synthetics from various start points could overwhelm a galaxy.
Synthetics wouldn't create a cycle. Instead, they'd represent an endpoint. Wipe out life before they create synthetic intelligence, and you can allow new life to grow in the same place.
Synthetic apocalypse has a lot of unknown factors. The synthetics CAN roam the galaxy, wiping out organic life and replacing them entirely. They don't need to breathe, they don't have lifespans. It would take them a LONG TIME to travel the galaxy, but the Reapers and their creators work on very large timescales anyway. It has been thousands of years since they last showed up. Even with sublight travel, roaming synthetics from various start points could overwhelm a galaxy.
I guess, though it still strikes me as an incredibly weak plot point. Minus the magic wand of science fiction FTL stuff, travel at much greater than (if I recall my astrophysics lessons correctly) .2 light-speed is impossible for reasons of inertia. That's still really damn fast, but it would take any being (realistically) travelling at that speed millions and millions of years to spread across the galaxy.
And it relies on the silly sci-fi trope of AI inevitably rebelling against their creators.
Anyway, I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere, and I just realized I'm arguing about b-movie science fiction logic on the internet, so I think I shall bow out of the conversation.
And it relies on the silly sci-fi trope of AI inevitably rebelling against their creators.
Honestly, I don't see this as a trope. It's actually starting to look like it might be a real concern in the future. I mean, nearly everyone has computers now, and the computers are getting smarter. What happens when we get a computer smart enough to program a computer to be even smarter than it is? I really don't want to find out.
We should stop coming up with zombie plans and start coming up with "my computer is trying to kill me" plans.
I just finished the game, and I agree: This is bad, bad writing.
Although you get to "choose" between two three endings, the choice comes through a stupid deus ex machina (quite literally, actually) at the very end of the game.
Also, they employ a reality which was completely absent in the three games to shoehorn this "choice" in. This is not about a "sad" or a "happy" ending, this is about an ending that has zero to do with the series. There can not be a feeling of accomplishment for the players. Bioware is now taking a beating because fans demand a "happier" ending. I think what they REALLY want is one that actually makes sense.
Lastly, who survives and who doesn't depends on a certain score which seems to be massively raised through the stupid Origin multiplayer mode. I did whatever I could to raise this without the multiplayer, and I thought I did things pretty perfectly. To no avail.
A failure for the ages, unfortunately. :mad:
This issue has shown me what a great developer telltale is a studio that cares about it´s fans .
You are nr 1 in my book don´t ever change telltale.
Honestly, I don't see this as a trope. It's actually starting to look like it might be a real concern in the future. I mean, nearly everyone has computers now, and the computers are getting smarter. What happens when we get a computer smart enough to program a computer to be even smarter than it is? I really don't want to find out.
We should stop coming up with zombie plans and start coming up with "my computer is trying to kill me" plans.
Cracked had an article in which one of the points stated was that an AI revolution would be unlikely, as it would need to be programmed to do things it wasn't programmed to do. Seeing as we as humans are too stupid to actually come up with a good AI that could surpass us, it will be unlikely there would be a robot uprising ever.
Cracked had an article in which one of the points stated was that an AI revolution would be unlikely, as it would need to be programmed to do things it wasn't programmed to do. Seeing as we as humans are too stupid to actually come up with a good AI that could surpass us, it will be unlikely there would be a robot uprising ever.
Oh we wouldn't need to do that. We'd only have to come up with an AI smart enough to build a slightly smarter AI. Then it's a rollercoaster to destruction from there.
This article explains why I personally am not a fan of the ending.
When I play through RPGs, contrary to what people thing, I always seem to play the nice guy. I really need to try playing as an asshole once in a while, but there you go. When I finally do get round to playing the ME trilogy, I'll probably be the world's nicest saviour ever. The ending to ME3 won't let me do that. Sad face.
EDIT: Reading the comments, I gather that's not necessarily the way the Illusive Man shooting thing has to take place, which is kind of important. But the rest of the article does seem fairly accurate.
I really liked that scvene and tried to get every bit of knownledge out of the conversation I could. Too bad this all is largely ignored in ME2.
What I really wanted to say though: Who in his or her right mind would coose to not safe Ashley?
Vigil describes his own actions and competences("I" began to shut down life support) , and identifies with his creators(This is why "we" sent "our" warning through the beacons).
Vigil refers to the past, present, and future within his experience. "This is what happened to the Protheans, this is what I think the Reapers do, if you get to the Conduit you can stop the one you call Saren, etc").
Vigil showed control over pieces of technology.
Vigil advocated certain actions, as though he had an opinion on the matter.
Vigil had his own independent thoughts and theories.
The child seems to be a better-maintained VI, an expression of the will of the Reapers' creators, much the same way Vigil was an expression of the Prothean's will. The child doesn't identify with the Reapers in the sense that you say.
Some good points, and I'd like to evaluate them in more detail later on (I'm at work now ). What strikes me as a flaw in the Vigil comparison is his origin. Vigil - as a VI - is an echo of a Prothean that lived some thousands of years ago. Two significant differences to the Crucible: first, the Protheans were (almost) extinct by the time of Shep's talk with the VI; and second, the Protheans always were an organic life form.
The Child/Crucible is a a synthetic life form. All details in the conversation aside for now, there is no need for an "artificial", hence immortal life form to put this cycle into the hands of a downgraded, "virtual" intelligence.
This article explains why I personally am not a fan of the ending.
When I play through RPGs, contrary to what people thing, I always seem to play the nice guy. I really need to try playing as an asshole once in a while, but there you go. When I finally do get round to playing the ME trilogy, I'll probably be the world's nicest saviour ever. The ending to ME3 won't let me do that. Sad face.
EDIT: Reading the comments, I gather that's not necessarily the way the Illusive Man shooting thing has to take place, which is kind of important. But the rest of the article does seem fairly accurate.
This description of the ending seems...ill-informed would be the really nice way to put it, which makes sense because it's an opinion piece written by Luke Plunkett. Also it's on Kotaku.
As you said, the Illusive Man scene? Bullshit. The Illusive Man scene mirrors the Saren scene in ME1, where you can convince Saren that he's indoctrinated if you have fully leveled up your Persuade or Intimidate skills. In ME3, your ability to persuade is based on your Reputation score. The requirement to convince him is high because he's under Reaper control, just like with Saren, but it's certainly entirely possible.
The rest of the article continues to be stupid. Tough decisions do show up, now and then, in the series. People PRAISED the Geth decision, which didn't fit in line with "Hey guys, let's all sing a campfire song/Hey guys, I'm going to rip out your intestines and shoot you in the fucking face" The decisions fall in line with the characters of Paragon/Renegade Shepard. It's obvious that Control fits with Paragon(doesn't sacrifice the Geth), Destruction fits with Renegade(We need these things DESTROYED, at ANY COST), and the "middle way" is the "good" ending. In all three, Shepard sacrifices his/her life for the good of the galaxy, and I have no idea what could be more of a nice guy action than that.
I really liked that scvene and tried to get every bit of knownledge out of the conversation I could. Too bad this all is largely ignored in ME2.
What I really wanted to say though: Who in his or her right mind would coose to not safe Ashley?
I saved Ashley, but pretty much only because I was walking the tightrope of romantic interest options in ME1 until the last second. Honestly I don't really like her. Her poetry is stuffy, her military obsession is obnoxious, her family garbage is boring and trite, and her down-home brand of racism is unsettling. Kaiden is actually a far more interesting character to me.
What strikes me as a flaw in the Vigil comparison is his origin. Vigil - as a VI - is an echo of a Prothean that lived some thousands of years ago. Two significant differences to the Crucible: first, the Protheans were (almost) extinct by the time of Shep's talk with the VI; and second, the Protheans always were an organic life form.
And that's what I think the child is. Computers don't build themselves. I assumed the whole time through that I was talking to a VI created by the Reapers' creators, an echo of their will. That the child controls the Reapers is no less a proof against that than the fact that Vigil controlled life support systems.
The Child/Crucible is a a synthetic life form. All details in the conversation aside for now, there is no need for an "artificial", hence immortal life form to put this cycle into the hands of a downgraded, "virtual" intelligence.
The Crucible? Do you mean the Catalyst?
Again, I think it's silly to think a synthetic form could come into existence without an organic creator. The Reapers, the Catalyst, I believe it's strongly hinted that they were all fabricated. A Catalyst is something that affects change without being changed itself, and it seems obvious to me that the Catalyst and/or the Reapers were built during or in the wake of a synthetic apocalypse, in an attempt to keep it from ever happening again.
Ok, I said I wouldn't get drawn back into this but the idea that the whole game was the ending is just patently ridiculous. For someone who seems to pride himself on his literary chops, Tycho very fundamentally misunderstands the distinctions between climax, denouement, and conclusion. I don't totally disagree with some of their individual points about the complaints RE the endings, but that central point of theirs is just wrong.
A new ipad app released by Gametrailers that shows the development process has apperantly deleted scenes that shows that the ending the originally planned was even more depressing.
A thread jumped from 1 to 50 pages in less than a half-hour forcing the moderator Chris Priestly to shut down the forums.
All hell has broken loose at this point what a mess for Bioware just a total disaster.
A new ipad app released by Gametrailers that shows the development process has apperantly deleted scenes that shows that the ending the originally planned was even more depressing.
A thread jumped from 1 to 50 pages in less than a half-hour forcing the moderator Chris Priestly to shut down the forums.
All hell has broken loose at this point what a mess for Bioware just a total disaster.
Comments
One option destroys all the Reapers and most advanced technology. The scene with the child shows that "The Shepard"(clever, the one who shows the galaxy the way forward) saved sentient life from the cycle by:
1. Controlling the Reapers. This sends the Reapers away, but according to the child, breaking the cycle in this way leads to an inevitable war between synthetics and organic life.
Shepard disagrees.
2. Destroying the Reapers, and all senthetic life with it. This option removes the Reapers from the equation entirely, kills off the Geth, destroys a lot of technology. But in the end, it saves many lives, and gives the universe a chance to rebuild.
3. Combining synthetic and organic life. The idea is that, by removing the created/creator, synthetic/organic distinction, all life can continue in a new step of evolution and coexist peacefully because they are all the same. This option is definitely the worst thought-out(and has some terrible implications, especially when we consider the Human/Robot relationship has always been used in science fiction as an allegory for race-based slavery), and seems to stem from a desire to create a "good" ending that the child can agree causes peace without at the same time killing the Geth and setting technology back. Still, the core theme in the ending is a good one: By realizing we are all the same, we can peacefully coexist. They just go the sci-fi route of including a sciencey piece of technology at the center of the lesson, which in this case comes off weak. Honestly, I feel like the "Control the Reapers" option is close enough to this without the scary implications, and they really should have given the qualities of this ending to that one in a more explicit way.
All the endings set civilizations back a lot of years, yes. But the Reapers winning does that anyway, that's sort of what the Reapers DO. There are no Mass Relays and as such there won't be a gigantic, pre-built technological jumpstarter floating in every system, but now the organic life as is has a chance to build their own future in all of the endings, in a way that they definitely did not before. Nothing is predetermined for them, because the cycle is broken.
The child is a VI. That's it. It could have just as easily been a computer monitor with three buttons on it. The hero didn't fail, the hero built the Crucible. The Crucible hadn't activated because you need to make the choice of what Crucible Beam to fire.
Everything follows what you would expect from the plot of the game up to that point. Shepard fights, Shepard builds machine, Shepard pushes one of two/three buttons on said machine. The child is just a VI that is used to explain the buttons.
What's the best way of preventing the resistance when the civilisations manage to come together? Destroy how they managed it. The cycle may not be broken in any of the endings.
Decisions do not matter is the important part, and the hidden ending explains it a a tale told around a fire. This is bad enough but all the endings are the same with a paltte swap. I'm glad I didn't buy the game, depsiute having the others.
ME1 what is the difference between a trap and a fortress?
ME2 Should we learn from others despite the possible cost?
ME3 Technology is bad.
Er, what?
Destruction: There are no Reapers, thus no Reaper Cycle.
Control: Reapers leave, don't kill everyone. If they wanted to kill everyone, and the Crucible wasn't keeping them from killing everyone, then Joker/EDI/Squadmates wouldn't be in the ending cutscene, nor would we be able to see the ending bit with the old man and the child.
Synthesis: Joker/EDI, Old Man/Child, thus Reapers again don't kill everyone.
The "tale around a fire" bit isn't a "hidden ending", it shows up after the credits regardless. It shows that humanity survives and continues to dream about a future in the stars thanks to Shepard's actions. It says that details have "been lost" over generations, which I'm guessing is their way of fudging the need to clean the slate for future Mass Effect media. Shepard having become a legendary figure in the distant future doesn't mean he wasn't REAL, it's simply a matter of him becoming larger than life, like a leader of an ancient civilization.
The core ending decision is a good one, the expression in the form of palette swaps is a matter of poor execution of a good ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8
Though I am in favor of a patch or something that contains a short Fallout-style epilogue where you find out what happens to all the characters and civilizations.
The kid is, for the purposes of this story, as I have previously stated, a God. Without this God and his enormous powers inside, the Crucible machine is obviously worth shit.
It is a god-like machine that at will giveth and taketh away the options the Crucible has to offer. It renders to and/or pressures on Shepard a decision that it SHOULD make itself, given that the problem-solving is what it was created to do. Case closed.
Yes, that's it. To avoid the conflict between man and machine, billions of billions of living creatures are wiped out at regular intervals. All for the prosperity of... ah, I don't know. So much sense.
The Reapers have once told Shepard that he/she would not understand their harvest. Well, it seems like he/she could eventually understand after only a simple two-minute explanation. Why Shep didn't answer appropriately with "That's bullshit", I will never understand.
Oh, I see. Mass Effect 3 is trying to be Battlestar Galactica. Okay.
To be fair, in a lot of ways it is actually more like Gateway.
I've never seen Gateway. Actually though, reading it again, ME3 seems a bit more of some weird love-child of Battlestar Galactica and the Matrix.
Gateway is a series of books by Frederick Pohl, wherein humanity discovers an abandoned space station (Gateway) constructed by a mysterious unknown race which allows for interstellar travel. The main crisis of the series is a group of mysterious machine intelligences coming to wipe out all life in the galaxy. ME diverges from it in a lot of ways, but yeah...
That only proves that the character is in the game, but not the DLC (which, btw, has to download 700 mb of information or something like that, so it's NOT on the disc and it IS downloadable). Which doesn't contradict what BioWare has said. Some people mention that there was a leak of the script regarding the Prothean/DLC stuff last year. Well, that ALSO doesn't cotnradict what BioWare has said. Plus, people already have said that changing the line only adds the character to the party, no missions or out of combat dialogue.
Game development of a massive game is a very complicated process. The way it could go down is that, having a script and a character ready, people at BioWare have estimated that they may need to push the certification date further so all content would be included. So they took the least complete/important (otherwise known as the most optional) feature they had planned and scheduled to fully develop it during the certification process and release it as DLC. No contradictions or bullshitting there.
Now, mind you. I do not agree with the fact that it's a PAID DLC. In fact, I REALLY dislike paid DLCs. I think paid DLCs should be more akin to the expansion packs of old, while small DLCs should be more similar to bonus stuff that would be added to patches in the days of old. For free. And Mass Effect 3 Day 1-DLC is not a huge amount of content, it doesn't deserve to be a paid-for-DLC. More than that, I believe that if it would be a free DLC, there would be absolutely no complaints at all from the consumer public. In fact, they'd be HAPPY. Like, 'Whoah, not only do I get a full game, but also a free DLC for no extra fee?! GIVE ME TWO!'.
All I'm really saying is: Haters gonna hate.
Before the kid shows up, you expect to build a machine that can destroy or control the Reapers. After the kid shows up though? You have this weird magical device that can control or destroy the Reapers! Woah! Totally OUT OF NOWHERE.
Oh! I see! It's bad because it's able to explain things!
It..."Giveths" the options of the machine that we knew we were building from the first few minutes of the game, giving us the options that are hammered into your head repeatedly every step of the goddamn way. This is like complaining every time Aladdin makes a wish(despite genie mechanics being laid out quite early in the story). The machine we knew we were building was built and gave us the choices we expected. The twist is that it can talk. A computer that can TALK in Mass Effect?! How absurd!
Synthesis coming from EMS is likely an expression of Sheperd "adding" the option of cooperation through getting a really solid group of guys to work together. It should probably be able to come from making choices that allow the Geth and Quarians to cooperate and/or advancing the Joker/EDI romance, honestly, but the core idea here is actually fine.
Yeah man, that's really stupid. It's like fighting fire with fire, which never works.
The child hologram quite flatly states that they see themselves as agents of preservation while allowing organic life to continue to exist and grow in variety, which is a very literal evolutionary stance. The way they see it:
Universe sans Reapers
Organics live on planets.
Organics advance, build robots.
Robot apocalypse happens.
No more organic life anywhere
Universe with Reapers
Organics live on planets
Organics advance
REAPER ATTACK
Old organics preserved in Reaper form
Primative organics get to live
Synthetic life isn't able to reproduce or change in the traditional evolutionary stance, and if you see the overall goal of organic life as being able to reproduce and change for the better, then yeah, the plan of those who built the Catalyst makes sense, though only IF robot apocalypse is inevitable. The Catalyst is a bit genre-savvy, and realizes that yeah, in sci-fi universes the robots ALWAYS REBEL.
And here is the big logical flaw. Without reaper technology, FTL travel would be impossible in the galaxy as it is so any synthetics created would be confined to a single planet. If FTL travel was developed, what possible reason would synthetics have to go around to primitive worlds squashing all life? It just seems stupid.
You don't need a single race of synthetics, just multiple races of sentient organics. Organic species continue along the same curve, eventually make sentient synthetics, and incite robot apocalypse. The Mass Relays make sure that the Reapers know where everybody is roughly around the time they make these robots because, you know, once you control the trade network, you control the civilization. Otherwise, you'd just have organic species after organic species being destroyed by the genre they inhabit.
I mean, look at it this way. Let's say Notch was a bastard. He let you build up your world, fight monsters to create a Nether Portal, meanwhile building up a huge village. Then, at the end, you fight the Netherdragon and defeat it. Now instead of just spawning a dragon egg and allowing you to see the three(?) minutes long ending sequence it teleports you to your house, which is now ON FIRE. FILLED WITH CREEPERS. AND HALF OF YOUR VILLAGE IS FILLED WITH TNT. Yes, all the work you put into your house, your village, the world itself, it has all been for naught, because now you'll need to clean up the mess the fire and all the creepers and TNT left.
On second thought, pretend I never written it down. I'm pretty sure Mojang is crazy enough to actually do this.
Or, in a more extreme case, after the ending of Minecraft it all ends up being a dream. You wake up at your original spawn, and the rest of the world AND your inventory isn't there anymore. It's like you started a new save.
This still doesn't address how what the reapers do is in any way different from what synthetics would do otherwise. They wipe out all organic life advanced enough to potentially be capable of wiping themselves out. Low-tech civilizations would be spared either way, and the cycle would continue in the same way regardless of whether the reapers were there or not.
Bioware has made a lot of promises for ME3 it could not keep (the "revolutionary battle system" being one of them). I am really disappointed with the ending, but I never thought that it could do that, take every choice of previous games into account and have different endings for each combination.
I have no doubt that the series Mass Effect is, from the viewpoint of interactive storytelling, a huge achievement that will stay unrivaled for quite some time. But the limitations Bioware's "story algorithms" underlie were always visible since Knights of the Old Republic; I expected to see these limitations most obviously in Mass Effect's finale - and for sure I did.
I'm in the process of writing a longer article about it, but I might actually start a blog with that.
Dashing, I think you have an interesting angle in arguing that by building the Crucible, Shepard's active Heros role is preserved. I am very willing to discuss the idea, but I don't think it's really necessary for you to openly deny the information the actual game gives you. Please note in the following original final conversation:
C "Wake up."
S "What? Where am I?"
C "The Citadel. It's my home."
S "Who are you?"
C "I am the Catalyst."
S "I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst."
C "No, the Citadel is part of me."
S "I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?"
C "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
S "Solution? To what?"
C "The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."
S "By wiping out organic life?"
C "No. We harvest advanced civilisations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive the last time we were here."
S "But you killed the rest."
C "We helped them ascend so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."
S "I think we'd rather keep our own form."
C "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created this cycle so that never happens. That's the solution."
S "But you're taking away our future, we have no hope. Without hope, we might as well be machines, programmed to do what we're told."
C "You have hope. More than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. But it also proves that my solution won't work anymore."
S "So now what?"
C "We find a new solution."
S "Yeah, but how?"
C "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen. I know you've thought about destroying us. You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth. Even you are partly synthetic...
S "But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
C "Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the Chaos will come back."
S "Maybe..."
C "Or do you think you can control us?"
S "Huh. So the Illusive Man was right after all."
C "Yes, but he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him."
S "But I can..."
C "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."
S "But the Reapers will obey me?"
C "Yes. There is another solution."
S "Yeah?"
C "Synthesis."
S "And that is?"
C "Add your energy to the Crucible's. Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out. The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new... DNA."
S "I don't know."
C "Why not? Synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?"
S "And there will be peace?"
C "The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen. You have a difficult decision. Releasing the energy of the Crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays. The paths are open. But you have to chose."
.
Let's say the previous three endings still uphold, but add a new added dialog depending on what you did in the previous games. Let's say this added dialog option is something along the lines of "Go screw yourself."
Now, we'll skip the long and hard battle that comes afterwards. If you get killed at that point, it doesn't trigger a game over, but some ending I can't come up with.
Okay, so Shephard somehow finds himself in his own ship again, for some reason. Depending on how loyal you are to your crew, you can then order your crew to return and do an all-out suicide assault. The ending is pretty much still the same, but at least you got the choice to decide upon the fate of your crew. The universe is still boned, but at least people can't say you didn't try. At least part of the problem solved, as your previous actions, showing loyalty to your crew, is being taken into account. Perhaps as a joke ending, if you acted like a douchebag towards your crew, they launch you out of a torpedo bay instead. Your face will splatter against the side of something, and the universe is still boned, but at least you got a good laugh out of it or something. Sure it's a shitty ending, but at least it's better than to just have no choice in the game at all.
However, you are dealing with only half of the equation. For comparison, we must go back to the original virtual being infodump ending: Vigil in Mass Effect 1..
Vigil describes his own actions and competences("I" began to shut down life support) , and identifies with his creators(This is why "we" sent "our" warning through the beacons).
Vigil refers to the past, present, and future within his experience. "This is what happened to the Protheans, this is what I think the Reapers do, if you get to the Conduit you can stop the one you call Saren, etc").
Vigil showed control over pieces of technology.
Vigil advocated certain actions, as though he had an opinion on the matter.
Vigil had his own independent thoughts and theories.
The child seems to be a better-maintained VI, an expression of the will of the Reapers' creators, much the same way Vigil was an expression of the Prothean's will. The child doesn't identify with the Reapers in the sense that you say.
C "I am the Catalyst."
C "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are my solution."
Every use of "we" can be interpreted as being said from the perspective of Reapers' creators. "This is why [the VI that follows the will of the Reaper Creator species; 'we'] continue to do this thing through our plan and instruments(the Reapers)." On the other hand, the references to the Reapers as separate entities cannot be so interpreted, nor does that view have the in-universe precedent(Vigil). The idea that the child "is" the Reapers simply isn't supportable.
C "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen.
The Child VI doesn't grant Shepard power, Shepard grants the VI power.
Before the child shows up, we expect that Shepard will build a machine that can destroy or control the Reapers.
This is what we build.
In ME1, we spend the whole game assuming that the Conduit is a weapon(or at least, the in-game characters assume as much). Instead, it is a miniature Mass Relay that can send people to the Citadel's main control room.
In ME3, we spend the whole game assuming the Crucible is a weapon. The Illusive Man believes he can use it to control the Reapers. It is, and is not, these things. The Crucible is a means of "reprogramming" the Catalyst, adding options to its programming. The Crucible isn't a gun, it's a means of changing the mental core of the Reaper cycle.
Just like the Conduit in Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 3 ends on an important device that has been the center of the narrative up to that point, and that both is and isn't what was expected. There's a really nice parallel there.
Synthetics would not preserve organic DNA.
Synthetics wouldn't create a cycle. Instead, they'd represent an endpoint. Wipe out life before they create synthetic intelligence, and you can allow new life to grow in the same place.
Synthetic apocalypse has a lot of unknown factors. The synthetics CAN roam the galaxy, wiping out organic life and replacing them entirely. They don't need to breathe, they don't have lifespans. It would take them a LONG TIME to travel the galaxy, but the Reapers and their creators work on very large timescales anyway. It has been thousands of years since they last showed up. Even with sublight travel, roaming synthetics from various start points could overwhelm a galaxy.
I guess, though it still strikes me as an incredibly weak plot point. Minus the magic wand of science fiction FTL stuff, travel at much greater than (if I recall my astrophysics lessons correctly) .2 light-speed is impossible for reasons of inertia. That's still really damn fast, but it would take any being (realistically) travelling at that speed millions and millions of years to spread across the galaxy.
And it relies on the silly sci-fi trope of AI inevitably rebelling against their creators.
Anyway, I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere, and I just realized I'm arguing about b-movie science fiction logic on the internet, so I think I shall bow out of the conversation.
Honestly, I don't see this as a trope. It's actually starting to look like it might be a real concern in the future. I mean, nearly everyone has computers now, and the computers are getting smarter. What happens when we get a computer smart enough to program a computer to be even smarter than it is? I really don't want to find out.
We should stop coming up with zombie plans and start coming up with "my computer is trying to kill me" plans.
This issue has shown me what a great developer telltale is a studio that cares about it´s fans .
You are nr 1 in my book don´t ever change telltale.
Cracked had an article in which one of the points stated was that an AI revolution would be unlikely, as it would need to be programmed to do things it wasn't programmed to do. Seeing as we as humans are too stupid to actually come up with a good AI that could surpass us, it will be unlikely there would be a robot uprising ever.
humans sure are stupid
Oh we wouldn't need to do that. We'd only have to come up with an AI smart enough to build a slightly smarter AI. Then it's a rollercoaster to destruction from there.
When I play through RPGs, contrary to what people thing, I always seem to play the nice guy. I really need to try playing as an asshole once in a while, but there you go. When I finally do get round to playing the ME trilogy, I'll probably be the world's nicest saviour ever. The ending to ME3 won't let me do that. Sad face.
EDIT: Reading the comments, I gather that's not necessarily the way the Illusive Man shooting thing has to take place, which is kind of important. But the rest of the article does seem fairly accurate.
I really liked that scvene and tried to get every bit of knownledge out of the conversation I could. Too bad this all is largely ignored in ME2.
What I really wanted to say though: Who in his or her right mind would coose to not safe Ashley?
The endings don't seem to make sense in how they link.
I'd have made synthesis if we were going to do that, linked to quarian/geth peace. (Makes a lot of sense)
Control if the geth are in the fleet? Kroqan cured of genophage?
Destruction is the one that should always be open.
Link the endings logically to what happened and their would be less of an outcry.
Some good points, and I'd like to evaluate them in more detail later on (I'm at work now
The Child/Crucible is a a synthetic life form. All details in the conversation aside for now, there is no need for an "artificial", hence immortal life form to put this cycle into the hands of a downgraded, "virtual" intelligence.
As you said, the Illusive Man scene? Bullshit. The Illusive Man scene mirrors the Saren scene in ME1, where you can convince Saren that he's indoctrinated if you have fully leveled up your Persuade or Intimidate skills. In ME3, your ability to persuade is based on your Reputation score. The requirement to convince him is high because he's under Reaper control, just like with Saren, but it's certainly entirely possible.
The rest of the article continues to be stupid. Tough decisions do show up, now and then, in the series. People PRAISED the Geth decision, which didn't fit in line with "Hey guys, let's all sing a campfire song/Hey guys, I'm going to rip out your intestines and shoot you in the fucking face" The decisions fall in line with the characters of Paragon/Renegade Shepard. It's obvious that Control fits with Paragon(doesn't sacrifice the Geth), Destruction fits with Renegade(We need these things DESTROYED, at ANY COST), and the "middle way" is the "good" ending. In all three, Shepard sacrifices his/her life for the good of the galaxy, and I have no idea what could be more of a nice guy action than that.
I saved Ashley, but pretty much only because I was walking the tightrope of romantic interest options in ME1 until the last second. Honestly I don't really like her. Her poetry is stuffy, her military obsession is obnoxious, her family garbage is boring and trite, and her down-home brand of racism is unsettling. Kaiden is actually a far more interesting character to me.
I look forward to it.
And that's what I think the child is. Computers don't build themselves. I assumed the whole time through that I was talking to a VI created by the Reapers' creators, an echo of their will. That the child controls the Reapers is no less a proof against that than the fact that Vigil controlled life support systems.
The Crucible? Do you mean the Catalyst?
Again, I think it's silly to think a synthetic form could come into existence without an organic creator. The Reapers, the Catalyst, I believe it's strongly hinted that they were all fabricated. A Catalyst is something that affects change without being changed itself, and it seems obvious to me that the Catalyst and/or the Reapers were built during or in the wake of a synthetic apocalypse, in an attempt to keep it from ever happening again.
I didn't. Partly because I was playing a FemShep and partly because I wanted to see if Kaiden would snap and start killing everyone later on.
Also, Kaiden was voiced by the same guy who voiced Carth... so yeah. You can't even kill Carth in an evil playthrough of KOTOR, I don't think.
Wonderful. spoiler free!
Ok, I said I wouldn't get drawn back into this but the idea that the whole game was the ending is just patently ridiculous. For someone who seems to pride himself on his literary chops, Tycho very fundamentally misunderstands the distinctions between climax, denouement, and conclusion. I don't totally disagree with some of their individual points about the complaints RE the endings, but that central point of theirs is just wrong.
A thread jumped from 1 to 50 pages in less than a half-hour forcing the moderator Chris Priestly to shut down the forums.
All hell has broken loose at this point what a mess for Bioware just a total disaster.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9999272/50
You mean, Mass Effect 3 is being slaughtered by the fans?
Sorry, I think I'm threadmerge-stalking you today.