H3BC...A whole new world

Rented it out of obligation and just beat it. My opinions haven't changed much. This quote sums up my feelings quite a bit. Read at your own risk.

I just thought it was funny how Mass Effect 3 and Reach presented such a perfect duality.

Both of them shoot for a dark, devastated narrative that tries to hammer home the cost of war. Both of them pick off companions one by one in a series of sacrifices.

Reach fails for most of the game and then elevates itself with a brilliant final ten minutes.

Mass Effect 3 succeeds, by and large, for most of the game and then throws away three games of buildup and investment in the last ten minutes.

I will say that I don't mind playing Reach every few days, while I have no intention of playing Mass Effect 3 again.

*Some spoilers can be inferred form reading below*

I don't believe my problem with it is that I don't "get it" (and I always hate that excuse). My problem with the ending is that it provides no closure, comes out of nowhere, and is riddled with plotholes. To be fair, I do understand the appeal behind the dea of the endings. However, pasting the ending of Deus Ex to Mass Effect 3 with little buildup wasn't the way to do it.

It almost makes me believe the theory that the last 10 minutes is a hallucination.

You know what, GameFAQs private message system sucks. I'll just post what I want to here. Read at your own risk people. Halo or Mass Effect, you should know by now that very little of what I post isn't spoilerific in some way.

*ONE EXTRA SPOILER WARNING*

Before I start, I will say that this is less of a list of holes and more just an explanation of why I found the ending unsatisfying. As always, I'll preface this that you're more than welcome to your opinion. I think we are both intelligent and mature enough to agree to disagree in circumstances.

I'll begin with saying that the Reaper's motivation, while not a plothole, is shoddily explained. The technological Singularity is a broad concept and shouldn't have been shoe-horned into the last 10 minutes of the game, especially after two entire games dedicated to the idea that organics and synthetics could co-exist (with very few opportunities to say otherwise). The idea that they are synthetics destroying organics in order to prevent synthetics from destroying organics is the only point that really comes across and it just sounds stupid.

The end result of destroying the current society, controlling the current society (while still destroying most of it), and compromising with the Reapers and merging synthetic and organic (while still destroying most of current society) is a neat idea, but Deus Ex did it better because exploring the concept of transhumanism and technology was a big part of it. Mass Effect was never about that, and usually tended to shy away from big issues (such as when the Genophage was changed so it's less like an abortion plague). At its heart, it's always been a goofy space opera, and Mass Effect 2 and most of Mass Effect 3 put great emphasis on characters over the narrative. This sudden shift didn't gel with me at all. The means to carrying out this plan are also left completely unanswered. For a series that went to great lengths to explain FTL travel and biotics, a magic green laser and merges synthetics and organics (and destroys Mass Relays without blowing up the whole star system) is given no explanation at all.

The Catalyst itself raises a few questions about the previous games. If the Citadel itself houses the controller of the Reapers, why did they need Sovereign as a Vanguard? Why did the Catalyst not tell Sovereign about the Protheans messing with the Keepers? What is Harbinger if the Catalyst is the Reaper leader? How did the Citadel even get to Earth? It brings a funny image of Reapers with tow cables dragging the Citadel away.

I don't have too much to say about the epilogue. The fact that it's a still image (taken from Deviantart) with some minor changes and a few models added to it is questionable, but I found it inoffensive myself. One simple question, though: was that the best take they could get? The voice acting on that section is horrible.

But the biggest problem is simply the lack of closure and catharsis. All of the emotional investment in characters and their stories was completely nullified and rendered irrelevant. I'd be more okay with the existing endings if we got epilogues to explain what effect our decisions had. Pushing a button and getting a cutscene (in which the only major difference is the color of the laser that comes out of the Citadel), then watching the Normandy crash is a slap in the face. The only real resolution we're given is from Shepard himself (who, despite the game's attempts, still isn't much of a character of his own) and the Reapers. Even the fate of Earth remains fairly nebulous unless you got it blown up. As Mordin said in ME2, "Want personal connection. Can't anthropomorphize galaxy."

Overall, Mass Effect 3 was like the dessert of a wonderful three course meal. Unfortunately, the last few bites left me throwing up all night. Even though the rest of the meal was excellent, the only thing that really sticks in my mind is the taste of bile.

*ONE MORE BIT OF SPOILERS, PEOPLE. READ AT OWN RISK*

One more point that I couldn't get in due to character limitations (and because i wanted the 117th post). This is a more personal thing about the endings.

I went through my playthrough mostly paragon and always believing that synthetics were just as important as organics. I didn't buy the Catalyst's motivation any more than I did Sovereign's. Control was the Illusive Man's plan, and I rejected it. Merge was Saren's plan, and I rejected it (if not for his sake then for the sake of avoiding the blatantly forced symbolism). Destroy is the closest option the game gives me to rejecting the plans of all of the main antagonists in the series. It is the only one that sends the message that my Shepard believed the growth of synthetic life is not inherently evil. It's also the only one that kills all synthetic life in the galaxy (except for EDI in certain circumstances... and Shepard* with a high EMS... and we never actually see any Geth just drop dead). I understand the idea that everything comes with a sacrifice, but this not a difficult choice with different advantages and drawbacks. It's a Morton's Fork that leads to a sacrifice that renders itself meaningless.

*When bringing this up, some comment that Shepard is only partially synthetic. I don't buy this. If Shepard's survival was never questioned, why did the Catalyst even bring it up? Also, why does the place where Shepard takes that gasping breath look nothing like the Citadel?

I got out of it that they let organic life live for as long as they thought was safe for the Universe as a whole. Remember, the Reapers don't wipe out all life just advanced life and they do that because, should synthetics rise above organics, no organic life will be safe. Basically, the Reapers allow life to forever continue while, if the Reapers didn't exist, synthetics could wipe out all organics everywhere simply to rule.

Now, like you said, it's been shown that synthetics and organics can co-exist peacefully, but I'd imagine that wasn't always the case. Even the Geth were hostile even if only because organic life threatened them first. That could have easily been the case in previous cycles.

A fair point. However, this doesn't change the fact that we have to infer all of this ourselves. We have no proof outside of the Catalyst's word (and a few offhand comments from a deranged Prothean zealot that is supposed to be "optional" DLC) that synthetic life is always going to be hostile. I agree that the motivation makes enough sense. However, Bioware failed to give it the importance it deserved. The Reaper's motivation is the pivotal piece of information from that scene and is supposed to be the thing that most influences Shepard's final choice. If the game wanted me to believe that Synthetics could be hostile, they should show more of that and tell me less. They had 25 hours of game time to foreshadow it in ME3 alone, and they spent all of the time proving the Catalyst wrong. I don't mind the Singularity explanation. However, as I said, it's a broad concept that some writers (and, to an extent, the entire subgenre of cyberpunk) can dedicate their entire story to exploring. Here, it feels tacked on as a way to make the ending of the game seem more profound and cerebral than it actually is.


The Catalyst said that Shepard is part synthetic, presumably because of when he was rebuilt. So I think it's because it was him specifically that jumped into the beam that caused synthetics and organics to merge. Had any normal person jumped in, maybe all life would be organic, or it would have a completely different effect or none at all.

But how exactly does it happen? Does the Crucible wave of green space magic just latch Shepard DNA (does being rebuilt with cybernetics even affect DNA?) to everything? Like I said, I don't mind them making **** up. However, seeing them write stuff like this:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Element_zero
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/FTL
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Biotic

and then end with nothing was jarring. It made the Crucible and Catalyst feel less like important elements of the universe and more like cheap plot devices.

I could make a few guesses, but those questions simply come from not knowing enough about the Catalyst. We don't know how much control the Catalyst has besides his control of the Reapers and we don't know how much knowledge he has of galactic events. But the franchise is far from over and they're still expanding on this trilogy through books, comics and movies so I expect we'll get an answer at some point if it's not already out there.

The inability of the game to explain itself is a problem. I didn't like Halo 3 when it made me read Evolutions to understand the Cortana moments and I will not excuse Bioware for it either, particularly since their writing is held at a better standard and this could've easily been solved if they had an Investigate option added to the final conversation.

Also, if Deception is any indication of the future quality of the series' expanded universe, I will not be seeking explanations from it.

I read the adult was Buzz Aldrin, so that could be the reason for less than great voice acting.

A reasonable explanation, but a terrible excuse. Bioware shouldn't have sacrificed quality on that scene just to have a meaningful name in their credits.

Reading through my post again (as well as some in a couple other forums), I feel the need to clarify something again. If anything I post comes off as hostile, please note that it is not my intention. As I said, I believe you and I are above the common debate perception that if we have a disagreement, it means that one of us must be wrong. I fully respect your opinion and the opinion of anyone that likes the endings as they are. If you are satisfied with the whole package, good for you. I mean that truthfully. I merely wish to clarify my opinion on why I was not satisfied with what I saw and why I no longer feel invested in the Mass Effect universe. _Sawyer's post is not the first one I have seen that believes my dislike comes from a lack of understanding. I just want to get the point across that I do understand what happened and that my issues stem from other elements.