Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut DLC Coming This Summer

This thread is still going? Haha.

indoctrinated

@Stubee said:

People who think ME3s ending is disappointing have obviously never played Borderlands

oh snap :O

EA rushed Bioware, from what I heard, the game needed another 6 months at lease. People are only bugging out, because they got so invested in the world; it was such a deep experience for them, that they expected something a little more in the end. and based on the flow of the whole game, you can tell that the "ending" wasn't the real one, just an attempt to finish the game.

Bioware or MS would not give anything for free, it's guilt for rushing Bioware.

I have finished the game twice, it was an enjoyable experience, if the DLC brings closure a few months from now and it's free, why not, but I am over it. Seeing so much potential in a game only for that simple ending.

Don't get me wrong, the game is amazing, and the experience for me was a rush, this is why the ending was a little bla to me consider the whole game. This only matter to people who got caught up in the story oin a deep way.

I appreciate the free stuff, so thanks to Bioware and EA (the worst company in America... just kidding), I am enjoying the multiplayer, and I am curious to see where they take the next "non free" single player DLC... whenever that comes out.

People who think ME3s ending is disappointing have obviously never played Borderlands

@VTheSystemV said:

Extended Cut DLC...does anyone else get the impression that this was their idea all along? To release the game to us and cause outrage over an obscure ending, then give us more to end with later on? Feels like they couldn't be bothered to finish the ending properly (didn't mind the ending as such, but felt there could have been a lot more) and just wait for fan response before saying 'Don't worry, we're fixing it!'.

im not sure they could of predicted the childish and embarrassing overreaction it got

Extended Cut DLC...does anyone else get the impression that this was their idea all along? To release the game to us and cause outrage over an obscure ending, then give us more to end with later on? Feels like they couldn't be bothered to finish the ending properly (didn't mind the ending as such, but felt there could have been a lot more) and just wait for fan response before saying 'Don't worry, we're fixing it!'.

@Leviathan2000 said:

SORRY FOR SAYING THIS: I really liked the end of ME3. It was heroic, it was final, and it was satisfying. I killed the Reapers, something I was set out to do in during ME1. I saved the galaxy from the Reapers terror, and annihilated any chance of their return. Of course with every victory comes a sacrifice, but that is what you sign up to do as a soldier. The artificial Mass Relays are destroyed, and organic civilization gets one more chance to get it right.

SORRY but what more can you ask for. This is a very mature of end of the franchise.

Dude don't be sorry for being mature.

@Lord_Punch said:

Did we, the players, deserve a better ending? Yes.

Does BioWare owe us a better ending? No.

To take that a step beyond what you're saying, and post my own thoughts...

Did we, the players, deserve a better ending? Yes.

Does BioWare owe us a better ending? No.

Do we, the players, have any right to demand a better ending? No.

Do we, the players, have any right to inform BioWare that we were not happy with their ending? Yes.

Do we, the players, have any right to suggest that BioWare should consider changing the ending through DLC? Of course.

That's how commercialism works. I would argue that all three of the Star Wars prequels are just awful movies, but with the first one out of the gate, LOADS of people hated the character of Jar Jar Binks. As a result, his character was barely seen in the sequels. And even when he did appear in the next two movies, his personality was drastically altered.

Fan input alters all forms of media. This is nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with it. The only difference is players don't have to wait until Mass Effect 4 to request a change. DLC allows that to happen long before the time it would take to get a sequel ready.

@Lord_Punch: But then again, they have established certain degree of quality with their previous products so wanting/waiting for similiar quality from the ending isn't IMO unfair. But yeah, there is always a risk that you won't like something you buy, it is just sad/annoying that you have to gamble with games that cost 50-80 euros/dollars when books and movie tickets are much smaller "investment" in money.

Personally I got mostly over the ending and finished my re-run of ME2 with renegade fem shep on insanity and started 3 with her also, I still hate the ending but atleast I can enjoy everything before it now, I'll just stop playing after missile tank gauntlet.

I agree with your points though but it doesn't mean that I and probably others too feel betrayed by Bioware.

On the notion that people want BioWare to change the ending, I don't think it is fair to ask that of them. In any entertainment venue, there is always an element of risk. Whether it's purchasing a movie ticket, purchasing a book, watching a TV show, or purchasing a video game, no part of that transaction includes a guarantee of quality. There is always the possibility that you will not like the product.

Did we, the players, deserve a better ending? Yes.

Does BioWare owe us a better ending? No.

Really surprised EA convinced Microsoft to allow them to release this DLC/patch for free. Don't MS have some pretty stringent rules regarding this stuff? EA must be suffering a pretty heavy financial loss because of this fiasco.

@VaddixBell:

I really enjoyed that video... and I'm tired of journalists... people who are supposed to be out there, not necessarily representing us, but certainly critically examining the people's complaints with the same professionalism that they take in their game reviews...

well, not doing that, anyways. I feel like some of those guys/gals are too far removed from the community at large.

@BuzzBR said:

It's really kinda brilliant. No one can say they didn't listen or respond, and they aren't actually changing anything.

I don't think that BioWare understands what the word "change" actually means, or they're just intentionally misrepresenting it to save face. To paraphrase BioWare: "Oh, we're not changing the ending. That would mean betraying the wonderful artistic vision of the ending. We're just adding a bunch of cutscenes and dialog to explain all of the things that we should have explained the the first place."

Um... that's literally changing the ending. That's how change works. It's not completely rewriting the ending, but it's certainly a change.

It's really kinda brilliant. No one can say they didn't listen or respond, and they aren't actually changing anything. I'm totally cool with both of those things.

I was also totally cool with the way the game ended. I'm generally totally cool about most things. I'm a totally cool guy.

@Lord_Punch: Nice btw how gameinformer just plain lies about the dlc, it won't offer new endings. It will just try to clarify the pile of crap that we were given, meaning that they didn't even have time to put their complete shit ending in the game.

"So yeah, we will give you more of same shit instead of something that makes sense or gives closure, enjoy!"

- edit - So long Bioware, we had fun but you are dead to me now, thanks a lot EA.

One thing I've noticed is a lot of journalists are staying out of this for professional reasons.

I obviously have no experience of videogame journalism but can imagine that if any journalists actually looked at some of the most compelling arguments of why the ending is broke and then joined in with the criticism of it, they're not going to get struck of a list because of it. EA & Bioware are still going to send the outlet games for reviewing, but they potentially could damage their career in the future with any of these companies.

Again, no experience of journalism in the videogame industry but it's a logical stance that being critical of the developer for the ending could make it that they personally don't get squeezed in for an interview at E3 or you get the review copy slightly later than everyone else or something along them lines. It is a shame that a lot of journalists just had a tepid reaction to it or made it into a "Us VS Them" attitude and there was no discussion about the ending.

Again, this guy upload a brand new video which is worth a watch.

@allworkandlowpay:

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/3/26/2898253/mass-effect-3-ending-talk

http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/03/12/mass-effect-3-opinion-video

http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/03/21/mass-effect-3-a-dangerous-precedent

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/04/05/mass-effect-3-extended-cut-dlc-offers-different-endings.aspx

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/bioware-agrees-to-do-something-about-that-mass-effect-3-ending-that-a-bunch-of-people-are-angry-about/4043/

@Lord_Punch:

Not in the slightest, though to be fair, outside of a few people, I haven't really seen this wave of "Scorn" occurring. What limited amounts I have seen, have been more akin to a fatherly statement of disappointment, going: "Come on guys, you are better than this."

I may be completely oblivious though, so help me out here.

@allworkandlowpay said:

@Lord_Punch said:

@Marokai said:

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that people bitching about the complaints about the ending are far more unhinged, senselessly bitter, and just plain stupid, than anything the original backlash to the ending had going on. I am amazed people complaining about the ending got pigeonholed by our own press as crazies when people that feel free to just, for no real reason at all, hope that the scorned fans continue to feel let down, get away with some sort of implicit defense by press members as the "reasonable" ones.

The strangest, and most unexpected, development of this whole controversy has been the reveal of the contempt and scorn that a lot of games journalists have for players who don't simply accept and agree with their viewpoints. Not all of them, mind you. But a lot of them. Many for whom I've had a great respect, at least until this happened.

It's sad that this situation turned into an "Us Vs. Them" scenario instead of an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

I think its less scorn and more disappointment at the childish antics of the fanbase they subscribe to and write for. Most game journalists, and most fans, generally want the medium to be treated like an appropriate art-form, and these type of juvenile mass protests, thread lockings, cupcake shipments and petition stuffing certain doesn't help the cause.

So, in an effort to have the games medium treated like an approriate art form, they resort to name-calling and distorting facts and the truth to push back against "the childish antics of the fanbase?"

Does this make any sense to you?

This world is full of false advertising, missed promises and lowered expectations.  The minute Bioware was tried to pass the ME:3 ending off as art made this whole "thing" a joke.  Bioware has the distinct disadvantage (or advantage... depends on the situation) of having some of the most intelligent people on this planet as their customer base.  Sure, a few make it out of the cracks, but for the most part, Bioware found a niche market and marketed almost entirely to them.
 
Over the last two iterations of Mass Effect, there have been 'things' that just didn't seem to belong to the franchise.  In Mass Effect 2, they cut out the RPG elements of the game and replaced those elements with more dialog and better gameplay action.  The people who were not a fan of these changes could easily overlook them because the core of the game was still intact.  
When Mass Effect 3 came out, it was changed further.  Multi-player was added, support for the kinect was added and the RPG Elements and conversation elements were further dumbed down, replaced with a load of auto conversation and actual OPTIONS to remove any conversation choices at all.   Once again, this kind of stuff can be overlooked.
 
Unfortunately, ME:3 also stuck to it's schedule (or lack of) and delivered quite possibly the worst thing imaginable.  They delivered an ending that did not fit into their own product.  It was obviously rushed and (see above:  very smart fanbase) they made the mistake of claiming it was "art" and "you just don't get it".  The problem here was, most of us got it just fine - but it was still rushed, had too few options and all three endings were exactly the same.
 
Broken promises, lowered expectations... just like any company who forgets about the product and only concentrates on the earnings.
Make no mistake, EA flat out TOLD bioware that they must make X % return on Y schedule and Z budget.  If bioware does not make these numbers, bioware is no more.  It's a hedge fund calling the shots, folks.  Every time you buy an EA title, you are supporting the very thing that is destroying our innovation and our economy.  If you lower the consumer's expectations over time, you can do this and no one blinks when they get that POS from china or india.
 
It's not only about a game and it's ending.

Wait, people are talking about ME3 being art when there's a cyborg ninja as one of the big time bad guys?

I don't understand.

@Lord_Punch said:

@Marokai said:

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that people bitching about the complaints about the ending are far more unhinged, senselessly bitter, and just plain stupid, than anything the original backlash to the ending had going on. I am amazed people complaining about the ending got pigeonholed by our own press as crazies when people that feel free to just, for no real reason at all, hope that the scorned fans continue to feel let down, get away with some sort of implicit defense by press members as the "reasonable" ones.

The strangest, and most unexpected, development of this whole controversy has been the reveal of the contempt and scorn that a lot of games journalists have for players who don't simply accept and agree with their viewpoints. Not all of them, mind you. But a lot of them. Many for whom I've had a great respect, at least until this happened.

It's sad that this situation turned into an "Us Vs. Them" scenario instead of an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

I sent Patrick a PM about this, I'd love to see an article on it. Journalists tend to either see us as super-fans or entitled-assholes and there isn't much room in-between. Look at just about anything Alex Navarro has written on the site and see how much he hates people that disagree with him. Jeff sits somewhere in the middle and Patrick is sitting the whole issue out, but people like Sterling McGarvey whom I've always respected seem to be agitated about the backlash and the journalists who stand on the other side of the controversy. I think, at the end of the day, journalism is just a job, and people get it in a field they can appreciate. These people aren't writing to make fans, they're writing for a check. They don't love people who love video-games, they just are people who love video-games. Their fans want them to be the voice of the community, but the community isn't paying them to do what they do. It's in their interests to take either a neutral or a pro-industry approach to the issue, and though I don't imagine that encourages them to write articles criticizing the criticizers, it probably quiets the journalists who actually agree with the people who want to see the ending changed.

@Lord_Punch said:

@Marokai said:

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that people bitching about the complaints about the ending are far more unhinged, senselessly bitter, and just plain stupid, than anything the original backlash to the ending had going on. I am amazed people complaining about the ending got pigeonholed by our own press as crazies when people that feel free to just, for no real reason at all, hope that the scorned fans continue to feel let down, get away with some sort of implicit defense by press members as the "reasonable" ones.

The strangest, and most unexpected, development of this whole controversy has been the reveal of the contempt and scorn that a lot of games journalists have for players who don't simply accept and agree with their viewpoints. Not all of them, mind you. But a lot of them. Many for whom I've had a great respect, at least until this happened.

It's sad that this situation turned into an "Us Vs. Them" scenario instead of an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

I think its less scorn and more disappointment at the childish antics of the fanbase they subscribe to and write for. Most game journalists, and most fans, generally want the medium to be treated like an appropriate art-form, and these type of juvenile mass protests, thread lockings, cupcake shipments and petition stuffing certain doesn't help the cause.

@Marokai said:

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that people bitching about the complaints about the ending are far more unhinged, senselessly bitter, and just plain stupid, than anything the original backlash to the ending had going on. I am amazed people complaining about the ending got pigeonholed by our own press as crazies when people that feel free to just, for no real reason at all, hope that the scorned fans continue to feel let down, get away with some sort of implicit defense by press members as the "reasonable" ones.

The strangest, and most unexpected, development of this whole controversy has been the reveal of the contempt and scorn that a lot of games journalists have for players who don't simply accept and agree with their viewpoints. Not all of them, mind you. But a lot of them. Many for whom I've had a great respect, at least until this happened.

It's sad that this situation turned into an "Us Vs. Them" scenario instead of an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that people bitching about the complaints about the ending are far more unhinged, senselessly bitter, and just plain stupid, than anything the original backlash to the ending had going on. I am amazed people complaining about the ending got pigeonholed by our own press as crazies when people that feel free to just, for no real reason at all, hope that the scorned fans continue to feel let down, get away with some sort of implicit defense by press members as the "reasonable" ones.

@Leviathan2000:

Have you watched the video posted above. It shows why the ending is broke, filled with contrivances and plot holes and completely goes against everything the series has done so far.

Have you ever heard of the term Deus Ex Machina? It's exactly what happened with that ending. It's lazy and just moronic. A god like being that can change life at the DNA level but the reapers are the only solution to a problem that may happen again???

SORRY FOR SAYING THIS: I really liked the end of ME3. It was heroic, it was final, and it was satisfying. I killed the Reapers, something I was set out to do in during ME1. I saved the galaxy from the Reapers terror, and annihilated any chance of their return. Of course with every victory comes a sacrifice, but that is what you sign up to do as a soldier. The artificial Mass Relays are destroyed, and organic civilization gets one more chance to get it right.

SORRY but what more can you ask for. This is a very mature of end of the franchise.

I am really glad they are doing this, seems like the right approach to the backlash. I haven't started ME3 yet, I wonder if I should wait.

@senorfuzzeh said:

Bioware is giving us free DLC and people are still butt hurts.

WTF is wrong with this country.

A big problem with this country is people speaking about matters in which they are not familiar, such as yourself.

Bioware is giving us free DLC and people are still butt hurts.

WTF is wrong with this country.

@MrWizard6600 said:

@VaddixBell said:

Yeah, because that's the exact point I was making, about file naming convention in modern videogame development.

The point was the endings are more or less the same with a change in colour palette. It's lazy and below what Bioware did for so long.

They had something else planned and ran out of time, it sounds like something else got as far as story-boarding, but that they just didnt have the time to finish it. Too bad.

And uh, can anybody cite that quote for me?

Anyways, this was brought up for another story, but I'll bump it here:

The ending simply fails to meet the core competencys of any narritive: there is no clear central conflict, the conventions of the genre are abandoned, and the characters who Bioware spent dozens of gameplay hours developing are also abandoned. The result is, as the video puts it, "a lack of narrivitve cohesion", which is a nice way of saying that the ending leaves you confused and with questions rather than with any sense of satisfaction.

The more I think about it the more I realize that the handling of the genophage and the quarian-geth relations really was pretty masterful, it would be an understatement to call the ending to that fiction "a pity".

Anyone who calls themselves a Mass Effect fan and defends the ending should watch this. He picks out exactly why it's not just bad, but broken.

It's been posted all over the place now but I'm not sure how many people who support the ending actually want to watch it because they want to stick with the "art" argument and would gladly ignore the video than find out why people think the ending is broke. Any chance of Mass Effect 3 being art doesn't exist with the God Child in it.

@VaddixBell said:

Yeah, because that's the exact point I was making, about file naming convention in modern videogame development.

The point was the endings are more or less the same with a change in colour palette. It's lazy and below what Bioware did for so long.

They had something else planned and ran out of time, it sounds like something else got as far as story-boarding, but that they just didnt have the time to finish it. Too bad.

And uh, can anybody cite that quote for me?

Anyways, this was brought up for another story, but I'll bump it here:

The ending simply fails to meet the core competencys of any narritive: there is no clear central conflict, the conventions of the genre are abandoned, and the characters who Bioware spent dozens of gameplay hours developing are also abandoned. The result is, as the video puts it, "a lack of narrivitve cohesion", which is a nice way of saying that the ending leaves you confused and with questions rather than with any sense of satisfaction.

The more I think about it the more I realize that the handling of the genophage and the quarian-geth relations really was pretty masterful, it would be an understatement to call the ending to that fiction "a pity".

It will probably still be shit. No new dialouge options will mean I have no chance of telling SC to take his three options and stick them all up in his circular logic wielding, omniponent asshole

@VaddixBell said:

@TheHT said:

@VaddixBell said:

All the criticism of the ending is completely valid. Bioware took the laziest possible way out of a story by introducing a god like being in the last 10 minutes. It's lazy and completely goes against what Bioware had done so well for the first two games and 95% of Mass Effect 3.

You can attempt to call it art all you want, the effort in the ending is so below what Bioware are capable of and this image illustrates just how much care went into the "multiple" endings.

Right, because it makes sense to name files with paragraphs instead of a couple of words.

Yeah, because that's the exact point I was making, about file naming convention in modern videogame development.

The point was the endings are more or less the same with a change in colour palette. It's lazy and below what Bioware did for so long.

You used the filenames to support this claim. I not, why'd you post it, especially given its caption?

The point was supported by a picture, and I challenged the support.

@WatanabeKazuma said:

You seem to think that the Catalyst being introduced at the offset seems to excuse its status as a deus-ex machina, which it clearly doesn't. Your interpretation seems to rest entirely on people labeling it a 'God' also, which is how you have earlier rebuffed that suggestion.

@Hailinel posted a perfect definition of it, yet you still refuse to accept thats in fact what the Catalyst ends up being. And on that note, how about this:

A deus-ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.

This sounds familiar, no? The catalyst's function is so offset precisely because the ME universe often has a solid grounding in how its universe works, whereas this breaks all of them. If the above definition doesn't perfectly what the Catalyst is, than I don't know what does. Even if you are aware of it early on in the story, its ultimate function is left undefined until the closing minutes of the game, and the closing of a trilogy no less. To suddenly hang all your dangling plot elements on this one device is hugely contrived. The Catalyst looked to have been a means to an end (destroying the Reapers), but ultimately the writers saw fit to encompass everything into it. So by that logic, if you choose to argue the fact that the Catalyst has a perfectly acceptable relation in the story, and it isn't a convenient device simply to solve the plot, I don't know how to respond.

I'm not saying that your arguments have been entirely without merit, but too often in this thread someone has offered a perfectly viable reason for their gripes, only for you to simply skirt these issues by delving into semantics. I'll leave it at that.

Could not have said it better myself.

@Kadayi said:

I'll be honest, I haven't witnessed much fan support for the endings as they stand. Even the people who 'liked them' are hard pressed to say that they lived up to expectations ('they could be better' tends to be the general acknowledgement) The only people I've seen who are intent on the endings not being changed are sanctimonious game 'journalists' (and I use that world loosely) who believe that when Dr Muzyka bandies around phrases like 'Artistic Integrity' it actually means anything to with respect to a game made by hundreds of people, under the auspices of a share holder owned corporation. I'm not entirely sure you can grant 'integrity' to a company that puts a 'game journalist' into their game for the marketing publicity let alone grant them 'artistic integrity'. Stanley Kubrick & Johnathan Blow it might be argued had/have Artistic integrity because they both stuck to their guns in terms of delivering their work without compromise, but I just don't think you can apply that same rule to Bioware. If they had integrity they'd of kept to Drews original outline for the series rather than change it at the eleventh hour that basically undermined the entirety of the previous two games.

Truth.

@TheHT said:

@VaddixBell said:

All the criticism of the ending is completely valid. Bioware took the laziest possible way out of a story by introducing a god like being in the last 10 minutes. It's lazy and completely goes against what Bioware had done so well for the first two games and 95% of Mass Effect 3.

You can attempt to call it art all you want, the effort in the ending is so below what Bioware are capable of and this image illustrates just how much care went into the "multiple" endings.

Right, because it makes sense to name files with paragraphs instead of a couple of words.

Yeah, because that's the exact point I was making, about file naming convention in modern videogame development.

The point was the endings are more or less the same with a change in colour palette. It's lazy and below what Bioware did for so long.

You seem to think that the Catalyst being introduced at the offset seems to excuse its status as a deus-ex machina, which it clearly doesn't. Your interpretation seems to rest entirely on people labeling it a 'God' also, which is how you have earlier rebuffed that suggestion.

@Hailinel posted a perfect definition of it, yet you still refuse to accept thats in fact what the Catalyst ends up being. And on that note, how about this:

A deus-ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.

This sounds familiar, no? The catalyst's function is so offset precisely because the ME universe often has a solid grounding in how its universe works, whereas this breaks all of them. If the above definition doesn't perfectly what the Catalyst is, than I don't know what does. Even if you are aware of it early on in the story, its ultimate function is left undefined until the closing minutes of the game, and the closing of a trilogy no less. To suddenly hang all your dangling plot elements on this one device is hugely contrived. The Catalyst looked to have been a means to an end (destroying the Reapers), but ultimately the writers saw fit to encompass everything into it. So by that logic, if you choose to argue the fact that the Catalyst has a perfectly acceptable relation in the story, and it isn't a convenient device simply to solve the plot, I don't know how to respond.

I'm not saying that your arguments have been entirely without merit, but too often in this thread someone has offered a perfectly viable reason for their gripes, only for you to simply skirt these issues by delving into semantics. I'll leave it at that.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

@jingy said:

@Jellybones: Thats a bad analogy, the more accurate analogy is you'll be perfectly content and happy if you find out that at the end of Dark Knight Rises, Batman actually had super powers, he can read minds, move super fast, and is actually invincible. None of his detective skills were skill and he was trolling you for 3 movies all along. Thus, it made the 1st 2 movies about his humanity and training all pointless since he none of the things he went through with scarecrow or joker actually affected him.

I don't understand what you're trying to say and I don't understand what anyone means when they say that everything they did through the course of the games was irrelevant. Did you not irrevocably change the galaxy in many fundamental ways? Someone said that the ending is Bioware's Shepard and not the player's Shepard, but every choice you make is Bioware's Shepard's options. It's not like you can go off and plan a wedding if you don't feel like saving the Krogan. It's a video game, the choices are binary, you're always choosing from a small handful of options, regardless of whether or not you would personally take any of them.

As for closure, why would you want everything wrapped up in a neat little bow? Do you never want to play another Mass Effect game? This is a trilogy about Shepard, and THAT story was concluded. If you didn't much care for it, that's fine, I didn't like all of it either, but people are up in arms like they were betrayed simply because they didn't like the way the ending was written. They didn't shit on your chest, you just didn't care for their creative work. I wish the internet could funnel this kind of outrage toward things that actually matter.

@Hailinel said:

A deus ex machina is a plot device derived from the ancient Greeks, who would commonly end their plays with gods appearing from out of nowhere to fix things at the very end. It's beyond cliche to use at this point and something that is only used in the modern era when writers are either lazy or have written themselves into a corner.

We know fairly early in the game, or closer to the middle, that there's a thing called the "Catalyst" and it's needed to make the Crucible work.

The Catalyst itself isn't capable of fixing anything, but it does tell you what your options are and brings you to where you need to be to use them.

So while we knew vaguely about it before, we couldn't expect it to be an AI, and while it cannot directly solve the problem of figuring out how to activate the Crucible it does tell Shepard how to, and just when he's about to fail at doing so. That sounds good enough to fall in the category of the plot device.

Bah, but we're told the Catalyst is the Citadel which is partially true. That it is more than just the Citadel isn't indicative of a deus ex machina, it's a different sort of plot twist: anagnorisis (coming to know the true nature of something). And once we know that the AI is the Catalyst, we know that it's what we need to activate the Crucible (not a sudden development). It's not like we didn't know about the Catalyst and it came out of nowhere and said to Shepard "hey, there's something extra you need to activate it, and it conveniently happens to be me". That would definitely be a deus ex machina, by virtue of being simultaneously sudden, arbitrary, and the protagonists only hope.

@khidi said:

@TheHT said:

@mutha3 said:

@TheHT said:

the Catalyst isn't a god,

He's a glowy, transcendent being that can use space magic to make people half-robot. Its pretty close!

The Catalyst is very much a part of this world, just like EDI and the prothean VI and the geth are. The Catalyst doesn't use the Crucible, Shepard does. So is Shepard a god now, having been the one to use the space magic advanced technology? Oh and the glowing. Gee, I guess a god would glow...

But can Avina perform space magic that alters all matter in the galaxy at atom level instantly? Unless... Avina is just a front for spacekidgodthingy!

Also looks like my post in other thread has been lost in the intarwebz so I'll repeat my mindstorming about the green ending particulary here, I apologize.

What if these new orgthetics create new synthetics? Will they also rise up against their creators because they are space-racists?

And what about scenario where before dead planet sprouts life after the space magic bit? Will it be "just" organic life or is every atom in known galaxy this hybrid matter?

And if it isn't this hybrid life, wouldn't it completely invalidate the whole merging bit and make the cycle necessary again meaning that not only did the ending make no sense but everything in the three games and especially the ending (which is pure crap imho still) pointless?

Yeah, synthesis either affected every single thing in the galaxy or anything new would be segregated or have to undergo synthesis, but that would require another Citadel and Crucible. Synthesis affecting everything is a much simpler explanation for what would happen to new life, and the other outcome would indeed seem to invalidate synthesis being an actual solution to the Catalysts purpose but the Catalysts words are enough to suggest that isn't the case.

That of course would mean that there wouldn't be new life. The Catalyst does say that Shepards energy combined with the Crucible's would be "sent out" and also that synthesis is the final evolution of life. Natural evolution would effectively stop throughout the galaxy and new life wouldn't come into being. I don't see why controlled evolution would have to stop though.

We know the Salarians were experimenting with that sort of tech, and the geth and other AI augment themselves and evolve constantly, so theoretically that sort of controlled evolution could be done on lesser organics or synthetics to stimulate development. Of course, there are some serious moral hurdles to deal with there, another issue altogether.

@TheHT said:

@mutha3 said:

@TheHT said:

the Catalyst isn't a god,

He's a glowy, transcendent being that can use space magic to make people half-robot. Its pretty close!

The Catalyst is very much a part of this world, just like EDI and the prothean VI and the geth are. The Catalyst doesn't use the Crucible, Shepard does. So is Shepard a god now, having been the one to use the space magic advanced technology? Oh and the glowing. Gee, I guess a god would glow...

But can Avina perform space magic that alters all matter in the galaxy at atom level instantly? Unless... Avina is just a front for spacekidgodthingy!

Also looks like my post in other thread has been lost in the intarwebz so I'll repeat my mindstorming about the green ending particulary here, I apologize.

What if these new orgthetics create new synthetics? Will they also rise up against their creators because they are space-racists?

And what about scenario where before dead planet sprouts life after the space magic bit? Will it be "just" organic life or is every atom in known galaxy this hybrid matter?

And if it isn't this hybrid life, wouldn't it completely invalidate the whole merging bit and make the cycle necessary again meaning that not only did the ending make no sense but everything in the three games and especially the ending (which is pure crap imho still) pointless?

@TheHT said:

@mutha3 said:

@TheHT said:

the Catalyst isn't a god,

He's a glowy, transcendent being that can use space magic to make people half-robot. Its pretty close!

The Catalyst is very much a part of this world, just like EDI and the prothean VI and the geth are. The Catalyst doesn't use the Crucible, Shepard does. So is Shepard a god now, having been the one to use the space magic advanced technology? Oh and the glowing. Gee, I guess a god would glow...

A deus ex machina is a plot device derived from the ancient Greeks, who would commonly end their plays with gods appearing from out of nowhere to fix things at the very end. It's beyond cliche to use at this point and something that is only used in the modern era when writers are either lazy or have written themselves into a corner.

@mutha3 said:

@TheHT said:

the Catalyst isn't a god,

He's a glowy, transcendent being that can use space magic to make people half-robot. Its pretty close!

The Catalyst is very much a part of this world, just like EDI and the prothean VI and the geth are. The Catalyst doesn't use the Crucible, Shepard does. So is Shepard a god now, having been the one to use the space magic advanced technology? Oh and the glowing. Gee, I guess a god would glow...

the Catalyst isn't a god,

@mutha3 said:

@TheHT said:

10. I never understand why people choose to emphasize an example of a deus ex machina plot device being literal. How would something literrally not be a deus ex machina? At that point it isn't a deus ex machina.

Its literally a dues ex machina in the sense that its literally a god that pops out of a machine.

Anyway, I'm tired of this conversation, so eh.

Oh, balls.

Well at least I see now what you meant by literally. You weren't talkin about it as a plot device. Instead, you were talking about it as an actual god in a machine. Well I'm sorry to tell you this but, the Catalyst isn't a god, so it's literally not a deus ex machina.

I was more interested in a discussion of the Catalyst being a deus ex machina in the plot device sense.

@Hailinel said:

@TheHT The only way it could be any more of a Deus ex Machina is if Space Child were an actual god. It really is that trite.

Can something really be more or less a deus ex machina? Something can literally be a god out of the machine or not (without gradation), but what about as a plot device?

Can something enter a story and kind of provide exposition and/or a plot twist? I figure that sort of thing too is an all or nothing.

10. I never understand why people choose to emphasize an example of a deus ex machina plot device being literal. How would something literrally not be a deus ex machina? At that point it isn't a deus ex machina.

@mutha3 said:

@TheHT said:

1. "But you killed the rest", "I think we'd rather keep our own form", "You'll never understand/We don't want to be preserved" "Maybe"

yeah, okay, when I think "protest" I think more along the lines of:

"But why do synthetics and organics inevitably kill each other ?"
"Destroying the Mass Relays will completely shatter our galactic society! How can you expect me to do this?"
"Why don't the reapers just defend Organic life as galactic police?"
"why

no seriously"

What you just wrote down I'd file more under "mild whimpering". And I'd even say acknowleding the Catalyst bullshit about synthetics and organics with a "maybe" is the opposite of being opposed to the idea.

2. It's different from krogan or rachni because that's what the Catalysts purpose is concerned with: synthetics. It doesn't care about organics killing each other, only that it's organics that survive.

That's stupid. The Krogan could(and probably would) have wiped out the entire current galactic community of life. So the Catalyst is totally okay with an Organic race wiping out all organic races in the galaxy and itself? Why is the possibility of a Synthetic race wiping out an organic race placed on a higher priority?Why is an arbitrary distinction made between "organics and synthetics" in the first place? Why does the catalyst--

Wait. You have yet to answer the entire question that started this conversation. Why do synthetics inevitably wipe out organics?

3. Why would geth rebelling against the quarians be because of the Catalysts view that synthetics will destroy organics? What on Earth led you to that conclusion.

Because that's what's being put under the lens here: the hilariously poorly thought-out conflict they've decided to hinge the entire trilogy on.

"Synthetics will inevitably rise up and wipe out their creators". The Geth don't do that. They defended themselves, chased of their aggresors and then isolate themselves. They didn't even wipe out their creators when they had the chance to do it right then and there.
You're trying to pretend that the idea put forth in the last 5 minutes is sensical and thematically consistent. It ain't.

The geth rebelled because the quarians were killing them.

Right. Which is a totally normal thing to do! And in no way hints at or implies an eternal metaphysical struggle!

And yes, the geth were absolutely fighting others races. Or did you forget the fact that they were being used by Saren and the Reapers and constituted the primary enemy force in the entire first game.

We find out in the second game that they joined up due to Reaper meddling. We find out that, if left alone, Geth are perfectly content to isolate themselves from the rest of the galaxy.

I view heretic Geth the same way I view husks-- Reaper forces.

The Geth/Quarian conflict is also a subplot at best. And the only place in the ME trilogy where "organics vs synthetics" is an actual theme. And, I'll repeat this again, "Organics vs Synthetics" is not the same thing as "Synthetics will inevitably rise up and wipe out their creators".

5. Show me where it's confirmed that without the Mass Relays, all intelligent life in the entire galaxy is just going to curl up and die. Then I'll accept it as 'canon' but won't accept it as not ridiculous.

There is nothing ridiculous about the idea. Homeworlds lack the resources to support their massive populations, because they've been stripped bare. Colony worlds usually specialize in one thing only and rely on import. Here is what Chris l'Etoile had to say, the guy who wrote the codex and planet description in the ME series:

Mass relays are not the only means of FTL, as others have pointed out. They're merely the most efficient way of moving long distances. When you're moving from system to system in a cluster, you're using Normandy's own mass effect FTL drive. As I always say, only assholes quote themselves, so I'll be an asshole and quote the ME1 codex:

Four thousand years ago, the Mu Relay was knocked out of position by a supernova and lost. Since then, Ilos and its cluster have been inaccessible.

Occasionally, a university will organize an expedition to chart a route to Ilos using conventional FTL drive. These never get beyond the planning stages due to the distance and danger. The journey could take years or decades, passing through the hostile Terminus Systems and dozens of unexplored systems.

As for colonization patterns, yeah, the bulk of the galaxy is toast. There are three basic types of world in the IP:

Homeworlds: Billions of inhabitants, too many to feed and maintain standard of living without massive resource importation. (Earth, Thessia, etc.)
Colony worlds: Millions of inhabitants, self-supporting but may lack heavy industry or R&D capabilities. (Terra Nova, New Eden, Illium)
Mining worlds: Hundreds or thousands of inhabitants, uninhabitable without regular imports of manufactured goods, O2, food, and so on. These worlds supply the resources that feed the homeworlds. (Therum)

What you'd realistically see post-relay is a massive die-off back to sustainable levels. For the mining worlds, nothing is sustainable - everyone dies. For the homeworlds, massive starvation and scarcity - a Malthusian crisis akin to what killed off the drell. Life becomes nasty, brutish, and short as people fight over the leftovers. The homeworlds have all the tech, but they're mined-out - there's not enough to start again from scratch. If they use up what they have, they're not getting back into space on their own.

The colonies fare the best. They can feed themselves and maintain their level of technology (possibly barring a few key industries). They'll certainly lack for brain power (the most prestigious universities and corporate labs are on homeworlds), and the smaller ones will have problems with genetic diversity. They may not be able to get back into space for generations, but they're in good shape to do it eventually

Conventional victory against the entirety of the Reapers is highly unlikely. Hackett himself says they can't do it. So unless you think the man doesn't know the capabilities of the forces at his side and under his command,

Right, just like how the Suicide Mission in 2 can be completed with literally 0 casualties, even though almost every single character throughout repeatedly says its impossible or that there will be casualties..

that's canonically highly unlikely.

It really isn't. The codex and the planet descriptions describe several battles with the reapers were they lose ground and makes a point to describe that they're not indestructible.

Nah. Throughout the course of ME3 you destory several reapers, the codex and the world description speak of several battles were the reapers were forced to retreat and lost ground. Its really not much of a stretch. I wouldn't crying foul over that one bit.
If you refuse all of the options presented to you because they don't fit nicely into your desired outcome, then guess what, turn off the system and take a breather because you're far to invested in the series that you're trying to mold it all to fit you. Maybe go back to it when you've realized things don't always work out well for everything in the galaxy.

I refuse the options because the terms are set excusively by the Reapers. Since the beginning of this trilogy my Shepard's goal has been to safeguard the galaxy from them.

"overcoming" them means freeing the Galaxy from their influence and making the sacrifices that will cost you on your own terms. Enforcing their solutions, allowing them to set the terms as to what course the galaxy is going to take(No Mass Relays, no organic/synthetic conflict etc.) is not "overcoming them", its "carrying out their will".

Self-determinism, y'know. Maybe you've noticed, but its a pretty big theme in Mass Effect. With the way my Shepard has been characterized, she'd never let the Reapers decide the future.

It's like you took one look at the Catalyst and then just stopped playing.

I should've. When Bioware shoved a literal Deus Ex Machina in my face, I should have known these guys have no idea what they're doing.

1. Protesting or whimpering, now you're just arguing over semantics. Questioning is questioning, and if it wasn't good enough for you, perhaps you should search for answers as opposed to writing off the ending.

2. I've already responded to that as well as the question that you say started this conversation:

The Catalyst says that the harvest cycles are the solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out organics. We can tell by the way it expresses its existence as well as its appearance and the way it speaks and what it says that it's an AI. Coupling those two, the Catalyst was either tasked with solving that problem or designed to solve that problem. I suppose its possible that it came to that problem on its own through observations. However, that it speaks with such absolution (contrary to an AI speaking with more probabilistic verbiage), so it's far more likely that the Catalyst has that hard-wired into its being.

In any case, you can see the potential threat of synthetics if you only consider one aspect of the nature of organics. They're violent. Whether synthetics are created violent or not, as we've seen in the geth they're still just as capable of violence, whether their intent be malicious or justified. Ignoring the geth would be to ignore evidence of the possibility of being wiped out by synthetics.

But that peace the geth can have with organics doesn't remove the possibility of synthetics destroying all organics. Whether through violence or through integration doesn't matter, and whether or not this ever actually happens at all, the Catalyst cannot ignore the possibility of it happening.

3. That we're considering the Catalysts claim that synthetics will eventually wipe out organics has nothing to do with the reasons for the geth rebellion.

The geth didn't listen to the Catalyst and go "well shit, I guess we'd better get started".

And claiming that 'denfending themselves' isn't rising up is another semantic mistake. Rising up is rising up whether the reasons for doing so be malicious or justified. Whether you're on the offensive or defensive, if you rise up against your oppressors or peers, guess what? You're rising up. It's in defense of their life, absolutely. They rose up to defend themselves. You're oversimplying and misrepresenting the Catalysts worry.

4. No one makes mention of an eternal metaphysical struggle.

5. No, we find out in the second game that some geth wanted to help the Reapers and were made able to do so when the Reapers gave them the ability to separate from the collective. I've never said that "organics vs. synthetics" is the same thing as the Catalysts fear. Organics vs. synthetics is a theme present through the entire series, in ways I've already mentioned. The Catalysts worry is perfectly in line with it.

6. I'm beginning to worry about you duder. Really. From the quote you provided:

Mass relays are not the only means of FTL, as others have pointed out. They're merely the most efficient way of moving long distances. When you're moving from system to system in a cluster, you're using Normandy's own mass effect FTL drive.

And:

What you'd realistically see post-relay is a massive die-off back to sustainable levels.

So the official word is: there's alternative means of FTL and a massive amount of people will die until sustainable levels for the particular area are reached.

That's not at all everyone in the galaxy dying.

7. A full on engagement with the bulk of Reaper forces is not at all comparable to the suicide mission from Mass Effect 2. Like, at all. If you'd like to harp on this, we can follow up on this.

8. Losing ground is very different from "we're going to kill all the Reapers on all the planets and free the galaxy with our guns".

You defeat destroyers, not to be confused with Sovereign class ships, with a varying degree of help. If there's actual plot holes to be found in ME3, that it takes something like 5 shots from the entire quarian flotilla to take down a destroyer or just one portable nuke, is one of them.

9. The terms are conveyed by the Catalyst, and are all from the Crucible, created by organics of an undisclosed amount of cycles.

No, that's not overcoming them. Overcoming them is ending the Reaper threat. What you've described is the particular requirements for an ending that you would be absolutely content. Trying to mold the series to fit your whim.

Destroying the Mass Relays is inescapable if you activate the Crucible. If you don't activate the Crucible the cycle is lost. Did you really think the ending would be so easy? That everyone would come out unscathled? You're complaint here seems to be that you didn't get the particularly happy and easy ending you dreamed of.

10. I never understand why people choose to emphasize an example of a deus ex machina plot device being literal. How would something literrally not be a deus ex machina? At that point it isn't a deus ex machina.

Is it really a deus ex machina? The Catalyst was spoken of before the ending. We knew it would somehow end the Reaper threat and we also knew that we didn't know what exactly it was. Hmmm, it starts off more like a macguffin, but obviously isn't. I suppose what seems like a macguffin can become a deus ex machina, but by virtue of explanation alone? It's a possibility. Arguing over that would get complicated without a clear and agreed upon definition.

Well even if we did it would be inconsequetional to our discussion, so we'd best not get into it at this juncture.

I'm not going to have an opinion on this until I've heard what Jeff's opinion is so I can follow it.