So to sum up the Bomb Crew's feelings on the ME 3 ending

@Kadayi said:

@haggis said:

How is the existence of the AI hard to understand? The AI existed in the Citadel the entire time and was the guiding force behind the Reapers through all three games. That it only revealed its true nature at the end makes perfect sense from a storytelling point of view. I understood this even before Leviathan came out. One of my problems with the writing at the end was how damned heavy handed it got spelling all this out.

There were no new characters introduced at the end of ME3. We were merely being shown what the Citadel actually is--a respository for the Catalyst.

If the Catalyst was on the Citadel all the time (and has been since time immemorial). How is it that Sovereign needed to attack the the Citadel in order to bring the reapers out of Dark space in Mass Effect 1? Couldn't the Catalyst just of pulled them out itself? Or are we to presume that an AI that's capable of changing the very fabric of the universe was somehow incapable of doing this?

It's all very well to introduce new concepts to an ongoing story, but the have to be consistent with what's come before.

I thought the game explained that in the end: for the same reason it couldn't make the final choice that it left with Shepard. That is, the AI only ever worked through its Reaper intermediaries like Harbinger and Sovereign. It could only direct, not take action itself--presumably because the AI didn't have direct control over the Citadel's systems.

And, of course, Sovereign only needed to attack the Citadel because there were people defending it. On that score, the game seems consistent with itself throughout. It would have only been inconsistent if, in the final moments, the AI didn't need to use an intermediary like Shepard to actually pull the trigger.

It's also worth noting that the AI and the Citadel were not capable of changing the fabric of the universe. That ability was given to it by the Crucible, which the game points out had never actually been completed before. Everything in the game points to the AI on the Citadel being limited in scope to coordinating the cycle, not actually doing anything itself. Now, we could argue as to why, but the game answers these other questions.

Big post comin' up:

@IliyaMoroumetz:

Very well, tell me of a well done, enjoyable, and a memorable story where a vital character appeared at the end of a story? Because I sure can't think of any. You know why? It's sloppy. It says, "I can't think of any other way to fill the plot holes I made myself with the established characters, so, I have to bring in another character out of nowhere."

This is ludicrous, by this bizarre logic of "burden of proof", every new idea ever introduced in fiction would be shit, since it doesn't have any precedent, I'm sorry friend, but even if I did have an example, I wouldn't need to present it, since it's absurd to even conceive that unusual or new ideas (introducing a character at the end) are inappropiate.

As for the rest, same thing as before, you have no proof, nor an argument for how it's bad for a story to have a character introduced at the final stages of the game, understand for once and for all, that while you may like something, it doesn't mean it's inherently bad, and that your opinions do not hold any sort of ground under any criteria other than what you like/dislike.

You say the Catalyst is not a DEM, when you go on to list EXACTLY what it does! It provides the solution! It brings forth the answers! I can cannot conceive how anyone would not be able to make the connection. Or are you rewriting the definitions of things as we speak just so you can be right?

I am doing an exercise in patience unlike any other I've ever done.

The Catalyst is not the solution, The Crucible is, The Catalyst does not provide a direct, abrupt manner to resolve the conflict, it merely speaks and presents the manner in which a decision is going to work and what considerations are involved in the process of such a decision, it is an exposition device, clearly different than a Deus Ex Machina.

I don't think it's possible make that any more clearer.

This has nothing to do with what I consider to be or not to be immoral, again another point that you came to by yourself.

Why do I feel like I have to repeat myself endlessly ? When you say something is offensive, it's because you believe such a thing is immoral, period, either counter this point with a solid argument, or let it go.

The fact that it just so happens that every one of those choices comes with a caveat seems like they were, again, trying to hard to be 'profound' or other such nonsense. It took everything you worked for and condensed it down into something that instead of providing you with a sense of accomplishment, if leaves you feeling sick to your stomach and disgusted with the writers.

Your opinion is valid, in the sense that the experience was unsatisfying to you, I can't change that, and nobody can, and if you thought it was bad, then maybe we can address that, both as fans, and with the developers as well.

However, that is not possible if you, and many many many other people, decide to tear apart the game with nothing more than void pressumptions about what makes or breaks a story, we should open our minds to both the good or bad about the endings, rather than eating away at it with personal opinions, Mass Effect has been a franchise worthy of our joy and intellect, and we should be able to measure up to that, which we did not do with our reaction to the ending.

Oh yes, and the Refusal Ending, which can be compared to Casey Hudson, stomping his feet, giving you the bird because you can't appreciate his 'artistic vision' and pretty much says "Rocks Fall, everybody dies'. Yeah, that's quality story telling right there.

An analogy:

Mother: "Son, if you do not study for your finals, you are going to flunk your senior year at High School !"

Son: "Why should I allow simple grades to define me ? Why should I allow this system to judge me simply for what grades I get in school ? This shouldn't be !"

Mother: "Well, maybe it shouldn't, but the reality is this, if you fail those finals, you will not be able to graduate High School, you will have to do it all over again, that is the only choice you have"

Son: "I refuse to study for my finals !"

*Son gets flunked, has to repeat senior year all over again*

Studying for the finals = Activating The Crucible.

Just so happens that what makes Synthesis so egregious is the fact that you are FORCING this state on the rest of the galaxy. I could name another action of forcing one's self upon another, but that's a dicey subject enough as it is, but that's how it seems and what I've seen it compared to. I mean, seriously, I think you're giving the writers far too much credit.

You forced the galactic community as well to endure the consequences of a possible rachni war, you forced them as well when you killed The Council or when you cured The Genophage, or when you destroyed the Cerberus Base.

As I said, apart from the fact that you have to make a choice, or otherwise everyone in the galaxy is dead, the question about "forcing" anyone is completely irrelevant, since back in ME1 and all the way to ME3, you were making choices and asking no one for their opinion.

Also, consider what "transhumanism" means, ponder for a while, and ask yourself if synthesis is really that bad with that in context.

And since when did I ever claim that I wanted overused tropes? Score another for 'you came to that on your own'. Might want to remember that most stories nowadays are comprised of overused tropes. It's the execution of the story that matters. And before you say anything, this minor point is about tropes, not stories themselves.

Since you, as well as several other fans, argued that it was unconceivable that "the villain" (a clear misconception of The Catalyst) could appear at the end, you are making it quite clear that you had a limited frame about how to approach the story, now obviously, it's your problem if you're too close-minded to see how The Cycle of Extinction is much larger than Shepard VS The Reapers, but it doesn't mean it makes for a valid argument.

I distinctly recall you speaking against ME4, but you've since edited your first post and now I can't prove it.

I did not edit the part about ME4 friend, you just misread and responded in a way that didn't make any sense with what I wrote, it's alright, I forgive you.

@Kadayi:

How about maybe presenting a convincing argument (cite some famous popular stories that eschew the traditional narrative structure), rather than labeling anyone who disagrees with you as 'delusional' and 'wrong'.

I won't indulge this line of thinking, even if I have thought about two stories that do play around with the notions of what constitutes heroes and villains, I won't give merit to a void argument that basically says "If it hasn't been tried before, it's not worth attempting", if you feel that any of what I said is incorrect or illogical, then properly address it, otherwise, any criticism about how it's inherently wrong that The Catalyst should appear at the end is complete nonsense.

If the Catalyst was on the Citadel all the time (and has been since time immemorial). How is it that Sovereign needed to attack the the Citadel in order to bring the reapers out of Dark space in Mass Effect 1? Couldn't the Catalyst just of pulled them out itself? Or are we to presume that an AI that's capable of changing the very fabric of the universe was somehow incapable of doing this?

You're assuming The Catalyst posseses the power to activate The Citadel Relay, when no proof of that has ever been shown, I'm not arguing that The Catalyst was undoubtedly conceived in the writing process of ME1, but his appearence and his role in ME3 do not contradict the events of ME1; and no, The Catalyst did not change the very fabric of the universe, that was achieved by Shepard "firing" The Crucible.

If you've worked in industry for any amount of time you'll understand that when high ranking people suddenly out of the blue elect to step away from a job to 'pursue other interests' or 'spend more time with their family' etc, etc it's rarely a case that it's because they actually choose to, it's more a case of being encouraged to leave Vs being let go (go out with your pride & reputation intact Vs in tatters).

I don't like EA either friend, but this is quite the bold statement to be grounded on nothing but your word.

@haggis said:

I thought the game explained that in the end: for the same reason it couldn't make the final choice that it left with Shepard. That is, the AI only ever worked through its Reaper intermediaries like Harbinger and Sovereign. It could only direct, not take action itself--presumably because the AI didn't have direct control over the Citadel's systems.

And, of course, Sovereign only needed to attack the Citadel because there were people defending it. On that score, the game seems consistent with itself throughout. It would have only been inconsistent if, in the final moments, the AI didn't need to use an intermediary like Shepard to actually pull the trigger.

It's also worth noting that the AI and the Citadel were not capable of changing the fabric of the universe. That ability was given to it by the Crucible, which the game points out had never actually been completed before. Everything in the game points to the AI on the Citadel being limited in scope to coordinating the cycle, not actually doing anything itself. Now, we could argue as to why, but the game answers these other questions.

1) The AI does act. If you do nothing it destroys the Citadel.

2) Pretty sure it can control the keepers (and therefore the Citadel) as well. The idea that the Catalyst is essentially left entirely helpless through every cycle until the Reapers are summoned given the importance of its responsibilities beggars belief as a proposal I'm afraid. What happens when a cycle decides to cut the Citadel up for scrap metal, or drive it into a sun to cause a supernova in an intergalactic war? You think the Catalyst is going to just sit by and hope stuff like that doesn't happen, Vs having the agency to do something about it when push comes to shove? The only way your proposition makes sense is is the creators of the catalyst were fortunetellers and knew exactly how everything in the universe was going to play out.. and that just throws up innumerable issues. The whole idea is too much of a contrivance.

@CaptainCody said:

If you had been playing video games for the past few years rather than trying to be smug you'd realize such is not the case. Technically, all games end, no shit. How many of them actually provide RESOLUTION is a different story. insert every game bent on making endless sequels here (Assassins Creed for an example).

I dare say most do offer up resolution. That a game (or film or book for that matter) features a character again doesn't necessarily automatically equate to it being a continuation of a larger story arc as you purport, vs simply being the further adventures of 'X'. Plenty of games this year resolved themselves in terms of their narrative (Max Payne 3, Dishonored, Sleeping Dogs, Spec Ops:The Line, Borderlands 2, etc etc,). Some left themselves open to the opportunity of sequels (Borderlands 2, TWD). and some franchise sequels had absolutely zero to do with previous titles in the series (Farcry 3).

@feliciano182 said:

I won't indulge this line of thinking, even if I have thought about two stories that do play around with the notions of what constitutes heroes and villains, I won't give merit to a void argument that basically says "If it hasn't been tried before, it's not worth attempting", if you feel that any of what I said is incorrect or illogical, then properly address it, otherwise, any criticism about how it's inherently wrong that The Catalyst should appear at the end is complete nonsense.

I honestly don't care about you in truth (the thread is about the Mass Effect 3 ending). I care about the answer to the question posed. If you're unable to answer it directly and honestly, how about instead just retracting your assertion rather than bore us with the pantomime of why you're can't/won't/couldn't possibly answer it. It all amounts to the same thing, the absence of an answer.

@feliciano182 said:

I don't like EA either friend, but this is quite the bold statement to be grounded on nothing but your word.

EA has nothing to do with it, it's how businesses work. We've let several directors go over the years because of lackluster results and it's always been a case of letting them opt to exit gracefully rather than having security escort them from the building Infinity ward style (which never looks good for anyone). Fact of the matter is they were charged with building the Bioware brand up and they failed to do that. They didn't make TOR a viable competitor to WoW and the money spinner it was supposed to be, because albeit the story stuff was good, the game play didn't offer up anything new and therefore there was no hook for people to leave WoW permanently Vs burn through the story stuff and wait for Guild Wars 2 to arrive (which is the real competitor they needed to focus on). They also managed to lose the confidence of their hardcore evangelist player base with two publicly reviled titles. All the good reviews in the world mean nothing versus the opinion of the gamer guy (or girl) who will sing a games praises or burn it into the ground to everyone else they know. Turning those people against you is extremely damaging.

Who cares.

@Kadayi said:

@haggis said:

I thought the game explained that in the end: for the same reason it couldn't make the final choice that it left with Shepard. That is, the AI only ever worked through its Reaper intermediaries like Harbinger and Sovereign. It could only direct, not take action itself--presumably because the AI didn't have direct control over the Citadel's systems.

And, of course, Sovereign only needed to attack the Citadel because there were people defending it. On that score, the game seems consistent with itself throughout. It would have only been inconsistent if, in the final moments, the AI didn't need to use an intermediary like Shepard to actually pull the trigger.

It's also worth noting that the AI and the Citadel were not capable of changing the fabric of the universe. That ability was given to it by the Crucible, which the game points out had never actually been completed before. Everything in the game points to the AI on the Citadel being limited in scope to coordinating the cycle, not actually doing anything itself. Now, we could argue as to why, but the game answers these other questions.

1) The AI does act. If you do nothing it destroys the Citadel.

2) Pretty sure it can control the keepers (and therefore the Citadel) as well. The idea that the Catalyst is essentially left entirely helpless through every cycle until the Reapers are summoned given the importance of its responsibilities beggars belief as a proposal I'm afraid. What happens when a cycle decides to cut the Citadel up for scrap metal, or drive it into a sun to cause a supernova in an intergalactic war? You think the Catalyst is going to just sit by and hope stuff like that doesn't happen, Vs having the agency to do something about it when push comes to shove? The only way your proposition makes sense is is the creators of the catalyst were fortunetellers and knew exactly how everything in the universe was going to play out.. and that just throws up innumerable issues. The whole idea is too much of a contrivance.

Uh ... I don't remember the Citadel being destroyed in the do nothing ending. Some endings have explosions going off at the Citadel, but like the relays there is nothing that I remember that shows it destroyed.

What evidence is there that the Catalyst controls the keepers? Everything the game says about them seems to indicate that they pretty much run on autopilot, keeping the Citadel running and doing nothing else. You say you're "pretty sure" about this, but I see no reason to believe it. Show me an example of the Keepers being controlled or the Citadel being controlled by the Catalyst, and then I'll believe the game is inconsistent. But short of any examples, you're just assuming inconsistency.

I didn't say the Catalyst was helpless--it communicates with Sovereign and Harbinger which, as we've seen, are powerful allies. We don't really know what would happen if the Catalyst/Citadel thought it was in some sort of danger. The question is whether the Catalyst could do anything but communicate its plans to its agents (Harbinger and Sovereign). The game suggests that it can't (ie., it can't call the Reapers on its own, can't make the final choice of the game). That is, it's limited to monitoring sentient species to decide when the time is right for the Reapers to return, relying on agents to do its work for it. As it is, the AI doesn't have the power of indoctrination, though Harbinger and Sovereign do.

As to carving up the Citadel, we got an answer to that back in the first game. The Keepers prevent any significant changes from occurring to the Citadel. Presumably any attempts to carve it up would be thwarted by them in some way. The first game also gives a reason why no culture has bothered trying: the Citadel is too valuable as it is for new races just emerging. Presumably, this is also part of the Catalyst's plan to survive.

There's no need to be fortunetellers. The creators of the Catalyst didn't intend it to take on the role it eventually did (according to Leviathan). They assumed it would be a tool under their control. After innumerable cycles of harvesting intelligent life, it doesn't seem crazy to think that the Catalyst has worked out what is likely to happen and how best to manage most attempts at thwarting the cycle. What we see as the pattern now, and the necessary defenses could more easily be understood as the result of trial and error. No need to resort to predicting the future. It's all just experience and statistics.

@Grimace said:

If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.

Well...another reason I can got back to ignoring Arthur Gies' work.

@Rasmoss said:

4) In view of the fan reaction, Bioware decides to amend the ending. Again, rather than seeing this as an acknowledgement of the fans' issues, the gaming press is outraged, waxes lyrical about the sanctity of authorship, and feeds the narrative of the poor nerds at Bioware being strong armed by internet bullies (a ridiculous notion if I ever heard one).

...

But GB were more calm in their response to the issue than most, so perhaps this was the wrong place to bring it up. But kudos to them to at least have the discussion now, it does feel like a bit of a vindication.

Exactly, thank you for posting this. The media, including GB, chose to magnify the "entitled whiner" component of the issue, and refused to acknowledge the possibility that the ending really was shockingly bad.

From what I recall, part of the problem was that Jeff was one of the only GB crew to finish the game during its "new release window", and Jeff surprisingly wasn't bothered by the ending at the time (or chose to downplay his reaction so as not to be seen as "joining the bandwagon"). As a result, the GB crew could only really discuss the outrage on the internet, and not the core issues with the game.

@Pr1mus said:

Jeff never made it a secret from the start that he didn't think the ending was great.

Like others have said, i'm sure they were referring to the crazies signing online petitions and demanding a new ending as whiners, not people who just disliked the ending.

As for this week's bombcast there's also a strong case of Bioware and EA continuing to shit all over the game when you start to consider the original ending and what was in the game at launch. Depending on who you ask the extended cut wasn't the the solution and now the addition of Leviathan being a paid DLC just seems to continue making things worst in retrospect. The game may be overall a better experience today for someone who has never played it before and has managed to avoid any significant spoilers, but for everyone else it just keeps getting worst it seems.

He thought it wasn't great, he also stated it wasn't that bad/didn't have a problem with it. I think he states that even during the latest Bombcast. This might simply be a supply creates demand thing where once someone takes a position, inevitably someone else will take another especially when conflated by misguided passion by the more crazy fandom making a dissenting position that much more desirable and he DID have problems with it but let them slide because of the obvious insanity of the other side, but it looks like the rest of the Bombcrew have largely assimilated Jeff's issues (things like terrible side missions and characters just waiting around) and also tacked on a more measured example of the internet rage about the ending.

@mikey87144 said:

@Rasmoss said:

@nohthink said:

@Rasmoss: The difference is that they are willing to respect BioWare's authorship and take it as what it is. Yes they will criticize it and yes they did not like it(and with reasons). Unlike the internet who demanded BioWare to change the endings, which is dumb even now.

People on the internet demand a lot of things. It was Bioware's decision to change the endings. They were under no real pressure.

Bioware, by changing the ending, destroyed the only redeeming quality of the ending. How the universe was left after the Reaper invasion set up a great next trilogy for Mass Effect but by changing it they essentially put the universe back were it was before the whole Reaper invasion started.

Well other than all synthetics (Geth, cyborgs, Reapers, EDI and her ilk) being dead and so widespread destruction remains an issue even if rebuilding efforts are ongoing, or Reapers are at least a neutral force still in the universe, or everyone is a cyborg.

I'd be hardpressed to figure out how they would make a universe go on regardless of extended vs original ending. One of the key issues with the original ending was the very real possibility even with the Reapers dead, so was everyone else, either through supernovas throughout the galaxy from exploding Mass Relays, or through worlds suddenly without any advanced tech or food/medicine transport.

@haggis said:

you're "pretty sure" about this, but I see no reason to believe it. Show me an example of the Keepers being controlled or the Citadel being controlled by the Catalyst, and then I'll believe the game is inconsistent. But short of any examples, you're just assuming inconsistency.

I didn't say the Catalyst was helpless--it communicates with Sovereign and Harbinger which, as we've seen, are powerful allies. We don't really know what would happen if the Catalyst/Citadel thought it was in some sort of danger. The question is whether the Catalyst could do anything but communicate its plans to its agents (Harbinger and Sovereign). The game suggests that it can't (ie., it can't call the Reapers on its own, can't make the final choice of the game). That is, it's limited to monitoring sentient species to decide when the time is right for the Reapers to return, relying on agents to do its work for it. As it is, the AI doesn't have the power of indoctrination, though Harbinger and Sovereign do.

As to carving up the Citadel, we got an answer to that back in the first game. The Keepers prevent any significant changes from occurring to the Citadel. Presumably any attempts to carve it up would be thwarted by them in some way. The first game also gives a reason why no culture has bothered trying: the Citadel is too valuable as it is for new races just emerging. Presumably, this is also part of the Catalyst's plan to survive.

Logic and reason are grounds enough. There's simply no accounting for future circumstance, so the idea of abandoning a powerless AI on a space station that is effectively a galactic trap with no means to prevent it's own destruction if it is discovered, but surround it with innumerable units that are there to preserve the very vessel it is on makes no sense. Why wouldn't it have access to them? There's no logical reason for it not to given its prime purpose is to maintain the cycle (the most important task in the universe). This idea that it's completely powerless and therefore its very presence on the Citadel doesn't invalidate the entire plot of ME1 is farcical. It was bad writing at the end of the day, why is that so hard to accept exactly?

There's no need to be fortunetellers. The creators of the Catalyst didn't intend it to take on the role it eventually did (according to Leviathan). They assumed it would be a tool under their control. After innumerable cycles of harvesting intelligent life, it doesn't seem crazy to think that the Catalyst has worked out what is likely to happen and how best to manage most attempts at thwarting the cycle. What we see as the pattern now, and the necessary defenses could more easily be understood as the result of trial and error. No need to resort to predicting the future. It's all just experience and statistics.

See you start off saying there's no need for fortune tellers and then you fall back right into it. There's no room for trial and error when you're wiping out all sentient life in the Galaxy, you either succeed, or you get destroyed yourself.

@Superkenon said:

Who cares.

Haha, ditto!

I did care, but it's been long enough now where all you're doing is repeating yourself and people don't give a shit.

Get over it. Yes, it did suck, like A LOT. But it's over and everything has been discussed.

@Kadayi said:

Logic and reason are grounds enough. There's simply no accounting for future circumstance, so the idea of abandoning a powerless AI on a space station that is effectively a galactic trap with no means to prevent it's own destruction if it is discovered, but surround it with innumerable units that are there to preserve the very vessel it is on makes no sense. Why wouldn't it have access to them? There's no logical reason for it not to given its prime purpose is to maintain the cycle (the most important task in the universe). This idea that it's completely powerless and therefore its very presence on the Citadel doesn't invalidate the entire plot of ME1 is farcical. It was bad writing at the end of the day, why is that so hard to accept exactly?

There's no need to be fortunetellers. The creators of the Catalyst didn't intend it to take on the role it eventually did (according to Leviathan). They assumed it would be a tool under their control. After innumerable cycles of harvesting intelligent life, it doesn't seem crazy to think that the Catalyst has worked out what is likely to happen and how best to manage most attempts at thwarting the cycle. What we see as the pattern now, and the necessary defenses could more easily be understood as the result of trial and error. No need to resort to predicting the future. It's all just experience and statistics.

See you start off saying there's no need for fortune tellers and then you fall back right into it. There's no room for trial and error when you're wiping out all sentient life in the Galaxy, you either succeed, or you get destroyed yourself.

Like I said, the AI isn't helpless or powerless, and until you can at least offer even a tacit suggestion as to how Harbinger and Sovereign aren't capable of defending the Citadel, I'm not sure it's worth trying to get your point. You say it's farcical, but you haven't actually answered my arguments, let alone convinced me that my perspective doesn't make sense.

As for the keepers, you assert it's logical that the Catalyst would have access to them. But I think it's logical that it wouldn't. They have a limited skill set, and by all accounts do their job well without interference. So, why would the Catalyst have access to them, when such access would probably make it easier for intelligent races to trace such control back to the Catalyst itself? What your suggesting doesn't make sense to me.

You say I "fall back into" fortune telling, but you seem to forget that the Catalyst actually failed in the very first cycle to defeat the Leviathans. And so clearly there isn't just this binary "win or lose" scenario that you suggest. The game suggests that the Catalyst failed at least partially with the Protheans as well. So the game itself contradicts your assertion.

So, why is it so hard to accept? Because you're not actually being convincing.

@golguin said:

I'm just glad Brad was able to play the DLC during the game and inform the rest of the bomb crew how lacking the ending was in hindsight. The EC and Leviathan should have been part of the game. Had they waited however many months they needed to implement that content in the final game then we wouldn't have had the situation that we're in now.

The series as a whole was damaged because of EA (let's accept that it was rushed) so lets just hope that developers everywhere took this sad tale as an example.

I'd like to think that it's true that waiting to add the extra content would have helped, but I have my doubts. There's no doubt in my mind, though, that Bioware has been learning some tough lessons over the last year. The problem is that I don't know if gamers are sending the right messages, or that Bioware is learning the right lessons. I have a feeling we might not like the result of this last year of arguing over these things. It might have wound up being counterproductive. But I'm a pessimist on these things. I love Bioware's games, flaws and all, but I don't see this as a fight anyone comes out better on the other end. I think the writers have been beaten to a pulp, and it's going to be more difficult to get good work out of them when they basically got trashed for things beyond their control.

@haggis said:

Like I said, the AI isn't helpless or powerless, and until you can at least offer even a tacit suggestion as to how Harbinger and Sovereign aren't capable of defending the Citadel, I'm not sure it's worth trying to get your point. You say it's farcical, but you haven't actually answered my arguments, let alone convinced me that my perspective doesn't make sense.

As for the keepers, you assert it's logical that the Catalyst would have access to them. But I think it's logical that it wouldn't. They have a limited skill set, and by all accounts do their job well without interference. So, why would the Catalyst have access to them, when such access would probably make it easier for intelligent races to trace such control back to the Catalyst itself? What your suggesting doesn't make sense to me.

You say I "fall back into" fortune telling, but you seem to forget that the Catalyst actually failed in the very first cycle to defeat the Leviathans. And so clearly there isn't just this binary "win or lose" scenario that you suggest. The game suggests that the Catalyst failed at least partially with the Protheans as well. So the game itself contradicts your assertion.

So, why is it so hard to accept? Because you're not actually being convincing.

Because your arguments are based around 'prove it or it's not true' Vs cold logic. That you're reduced to 'But why would the catalyst have control of the keepers?' and then stretching it to this notion that the keepers themselves might act as some kind of backdoor that it needed to safeguard itself from is frankly kind of......desperate. The central AI that's 'in charge' of running the entire cycle operation doesn't have any control over it's own creations? Really?

As regards the comment about the Leviathans, as they said themselves..it isn't a war, it's a harvest. The vast bulk of them were obliterated, that a few survived and hid in the depths of space to persist is hardly a victory. Same deal with the Protheans.

I mean what's been stopping the Leviathans from turning up and obliterating the catalyst to end the cycle and simply take control of the galaxy themselves in between harvests? No trigger, no reapers...and they're kings of the galaxy again.

@Kadayi said:

Because your arguments are based around 'prove it or it's not true' Vs cold logic. That you're reduced to 'But why would the catalyst have control of the keepers?' and then stretching it to this notion that the keepers themselves might act as some kind of backdoor that it needed to safeguard itself from is frankly kind of......desperate. The central AI that's 'in charge' of running the entire cycle operation doesn't have any control over it's own creations? Really?

As regards the comment about the Leviathans, as they said themselves..it isn't a war, it's a harvest. The vast bulk of them were obliterated, that a few survived and hid in the depths of space to persist is hardly a victory. Same deal with the Protheans.

I mean what's been stopping the Leviathans from turning up and obliterating the catalyst to end the cycle and simply take control of the galaxy themselves in between harvests? No trigger, no reapers...and they're kings of the galaxy again.

I think you're missing something here. First, the Leviathans set up the Catalyst to do a job, and then they left it to its own devices. They didn't interfere with it. That was what the Leviathans did. At some level, this is the same pattern that the Catalyst takes with everything. It sets up the keepers with a defined job, and the keepers do it without need for supervision. And it works. The Catalyst sets up Harbinger and Sovereign to do their jobs without micromanagement. They do their jobs. And it works. See the pattern? That's the Catalyst's logic. You're suggesting behavior that doesn't fit the pattern, and so that is why I'd like some evidence that your "cold logic" is actually logical. Because it doesn't seem logical to me at all.

You suggest that I'm speculating, but it seems you're speculating just as much. I'm saying "why would they?" and you're saying "why wouldn't they?" The problem is that my suggestions line up with past behavior, and yours don't. Or, at least, you've given me no reason to think so. Basically your position is that you don't need to offer evidence, but I do. I've offered my reasons for thinking the way I do, but you haven't. The game is perfectly consistent on these points. You may not like it, or find it satisfying, but they aren't inconsistent and they make sense from the perspective of the AI and its past behavior.

You also seem to misunderstand the harvest, at least from what the game tells us. You seem to think that the harvest is a scheduled thing, and that the Leviathans returning wouldn't trigger another harvest. There's no clock ticking down 50,000 years, after which the Catalyst says, "Time for another harvest!" That's not how the cycle works. Given what we're told about the Catalyst's purpose in monitoring the galaxy, the game seems to have already answered your question.

@haggis said:

I think you're missing something here. First, the Leviathans set up the Catalyst to do a job, and then they left it to its own devices. They didn't interfere with it. That was what the Leviathans did. At some level, this is the same pattern that the Catalyst takes with everything. It sets up the keepers with a defined job, and the keepers do it without need for supervision. And it works. The Catalyst sets up Harbinger and Sovereign to do their jobs without micromanagement. They do their jobs. And it works. See the pattern? That's the Catalyst's logic. You're suggesting behavior that doesn't fit the pattern, and so that is why I'd like some evidence that your "cold logic" is actually logical. Because it doesn't seem logical to me at all.

You suggest that I'm speculating, but it seems you're speculating just as much. I'm saying "why would they?" and you're saying "why wouldn't they?" The problem is that my suggestions line up with past behavior, and yours don't. Or, at least, you've given me no reason to think so. Basically your position is that you don't need to offer evidence, but I do. I've offered my reasons for thinking the way I do, but you haven't. The game is perfectly consistent on these points. You may not like it, or find it satisfying, but they aren't inconsistent and they make sense from the perspective of the AI and its past behavior.

You also seem to misunderstand the harvest, at least from what the game tells us. You seem to think that the harvest is a scheduled thing, and that the Leviathans returning wouldn't trigger another harvest. There's no clock ticking down 50,000 years, after which the Catalyst says, "Time for another harvest!" That's not how the cycle works. Given what we're told about the Catalyst's purpose in monitoring the galaxy, the game seems to have already answered your question.

The Leviathans didn't 'leave the catalyst to do its job' it pulled a Skynet and harvested them first. Harbinger being the outcome and the design model for all future Reapers (thus why they all look like the Leviathans) .

Also going 'is this logical?' isn't quite the same thing as speculating. You're speculating that there's no relationship between the keepers and the AI because it suits your purposes to defend the catalysts existence on the Citadel during ME1 (a major plot flaw by any standard). I'm looking at it from a logical perspective and questioning whether that assumption holds up to scrutiny in a broader context, and it simply doesn't and so far all your weedling hasn't convinced yet either. The catalyst is the overseer of the entire cycle, it's the originator, it conceived of the whole plan of the harvest. Who do you think came up with the idea of the Citadel and the mass relays in the first place? The fucking werewolf?

Also the plot of ME1 is pretty explicit about how the cycle occurs. I'm not sure why you're attempting to refute that.

The ending has been beaten farther anything else I've come across here. If someone wants to know my thoughts just jump around the sub-forum and see what I think. I do think what Brad has done is highlighted an important coda: Story should never be sectioned off or cut away for DLC like this. I don't want to say it is impossible to pull off this scheme but the core writers for Mass Effect 3 did not do it correctly and ended up making an ending that confused and offended players then offended more players by retconning the problems away in DLC.

@Kadayi said:

The Leviathans didn't 'leave the catalyst to do its job' it pulled a Skynet and harvested them first. Harbinger being the outcome and the design model for all future Reapers (thus why they all look like the Leviathans) .

Also going 'is this logical?' isn't quite the same thing as speculating. You're speculating that there's no relationship between the keepers and the AI because it suits your purposes to defend the catalysts existence on the Citadel during ME1 (a major plot flaw by any standard). I'm looking at it from a logical perspective and questioning whether that assumption holds up to scrutiny in a broader context, and it simply doesn't and so far all your weedling hasn't convinced yet either. The catalyst is the overseer of the entire cycle, it's the originator, it conceived of the whole plan of the harvest. Who do you think came up with the idea of the Citadel and the mass relays in the first place? The fucking werewolf?

Also the plot of ME1 is pretty explicit about how the cycle occurs. I'm not sure why you're attempting to refute that.

The Catalyst was basically left to do its job, and because the Leviathans had such confidence in their tool, they were unprepared when their creation decided to do its job too well. That's exactly my point.

I'm not speculating that the Keepers have no relationship with the AI. I've said exactly the opposite. What I've suggested is, like the Leviathans that created it and like its relationship with Harbinger and Sovereign and (at the end of the game) the Crucible, the AI demonstrates a tendency toward allowing its creations to fulfill their jobs without intervention on its part. That's all. Of course the Catalyst created the Citadel, the cycle, and the harvest. But I'm struggling to see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.

The plot of ME1 is pretty explicit about how the cycle occurs. I don't see any contradiction between what I'm saying and what the game says in ME1. Want to tell me exactly what parts conflict?

goddamn this fucking thread and its stupid fucking circular arguments

This pretty much is going nowhere, despite my hopes. Any ending can get picked apart like this. I think people either liked it or hated it, and there's no arguing back and forth that's going to convince anyone of anything. Probably best to just let it go.

@haggis said:

The Catalyst was basically left to do its job, and because the Leviathans had such confidence in their tool, they were unprepared when their creation decided to do its job too well. That's exactly my point.

I'm sorry but repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. The Catalyst harvested them. It was the first thing it did when it had the means and opportunity.

I'm not speculating that the Keepers have no relationship with the AI. I've said exactly the opposite. What I've suggested is, like the Leviathans that created it and like its relationship with Harbinger and Sovereign and (at the end of the game) the Crucible, the AI demonstrates a tendency toward allowing its creations to fulfill their jobs without intervention on its part. That's all. Of course the Catalyst created the Citadel, the cycle, and the harvest. But I'm struggling to see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.

The only thing your struggling with is losing an argument on the internet. If the catalyst created the Citadel, then it beggars belief on any level that as its creator it would leave itself unable to control in any way the very servants it assigned to maintain it (even more so given it betrayed its own creators) and that the Citadel is the very place where its effectively resided all this time. Feel to post more long winded explanations as to why that's not the case, and conjure up elaborate reasons as to why 'that ain't so' but at this point in time whom are you attempting to fool here but yourself?

@Kadayi said:

@haggis said:

The Catalyst was basically left to do its job, and because the Leviathans had such confidence in their tool, they were unprepared when their creation decided to do its job too well. That's exactly my point.

I'm sorry but repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. The Catalyst harvested them. It was the first thing it did when it had the means and opportunity.

I'm not speculating that the Keepers have no relationship with the AI. I've said exactly the opposite. What I've suggested is, like the Leviathans that created it and like its relationship with Harbinger and Sovereign and (at the end of the game) the Crucible, the AI demonstrates a tendency toward allowing its creations to fulfill their jobs without intervention on its part. That's all. Of course the Catalyst created the Citadel, the cycle, and the harvest. But I'm struggling to see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.

The only thing your struggling with is losing an argument on the internet. If the catalyst created the Citadel, then it beggars belief on any level that as its creator it would leave itself unable to control in any way the very servants it assigned to maintain it (even more so given it betrayed its own creators) and that the Citadel is the very place where its effectively resided all this time. Feel to post more long winded explanations as to why that's not the case, and conjure up elaborate reasons as to why 'that ain't so' but at this point in time whom are you attempting to fool here but yourself?

There's nothing that I said that was a lie, and suggesting that it is tells me that you're not being serious. It's basically what the Leviathans said to Shepard--so, did the game lie, then? The Leviathans did not intend for the Catalyst to harvest them, but to harvest everyone else. The fact that both the Leviathans and the Catalyst share the same blind spot is a thematic element that you don't seem to have seen, and which I think helps us understand why the Catalyst does things the way it does. One of the themes of the game's story is how learned lessons don't always get passed on, something addressed by the very existence of the Crucible (ie., knowledge that actually was passed on).

I've already explained why I think the Catalyst did things the way it did, and why I think its behavior is consistent. You seem to be making a different argument, that what the Catalyst didn't somehow wasn't optimal. That's a different argument. All I'm saying is that the game offers reasons why the Catalyst did things as it did. Perhaps you would have done something differently if you were the Catalyst. That's fine--but that doesn't mean that what the Catalyst does is illogical. You say it's illogical that the Catalyst would have left itself unable to control the Keepers--but I've argued that it wouldn't need to, so why bother? We can keep going around and around, but since the Catalyst goes out of its way not to directly control anything (it leaves that to Harbinger and Sovereign) I don't see why the Catalyst would suddenly behave differently there. But I've said this over and over again.

I still find my understanding of this to be less elaborate than the alternatives. The AI compartmentalizes tasks. That's the sum total of my understanding. It's not complicated.

Unless you've got something new to say, or some response to this (and not insults), I'll just let it go. Seems like neither of us is budging.

@Marokai said:

I understand and agree with exactly where you're coming from, OP. I felt the same way as soon as I listened to the bombcast discussion. I feel simultaneously vindicated, and also a little angry that people who were making perfectly legitimate and intelligent criticism of the game were left out in the cold, only to see places like Giant Bomb ride up on their horse 9 months later wondering how they missed all the action.

I think the whiners can complain about the ending--it's sounds pretty crappy to me. But the press talk when the game released about the end of the game revolves around a small group of people that feel like Bioware should change the ending which sets a poor precedent. The fact the this "newer" ending may be better does, in no way, validate some people demanding the ending be changed. It's one thing to dislike the ending to say, "The Matrix Trilogy". That's your opinion and your right not to like it a vocalize it. It's an entirely different thing to think that you could have come up with a better ending and demand the creators to change it to suit your preferences and that is what the argument was all about 8 months ago.

@haggis said:

There's nothing that I said that was a lie, and suggesting that it is tells me that you're not being serious. It's basically what the Leviathans said to Shepard--so, did the game lie, then? The Leviathans did not intend for the Catalyst to harvest them, but to harvest everyone else. The fact that both the Leviathans and the Catalyst share the same blind spot is a thematic element that you don't seem to have seen, and which I think helps us understand why the Catalyst does things the way it does. One of the themes of the game's story is how learned lessons don't always get passed on, something addressed by the very existence of the Crucible (ie., knowledge that actually was passed on).

No the leviathans set up the catalyst to 'preserve life' and stop the thrall races from ending up getting wiped out by their own synthetics. The Leviathan Shepard speaks to says 'Dead races offer no tribute (to us)' (or words to that effect). They didn't want those races harvested, they wanted them kept down technologically so that they could continue to be exploited by the Leviathans. The catalyst had radically different views as to what 'Preserve life' meant as a mandate and how to achieve it. Effectively it waits till any civilization is about to reach the tipping point of technological advancement with AI and then traps them in a butterfly jar. Rinse repeat ad infinitum.

I've already explained why I think the Catalyst did things the way it did, and why I think its behavior is consistent. You seem to be making a different argument, that what the Catalyst didn't somehow wasn't optimal. That's a different argument. All I'm saying is that the game offers reasons why the Catalyst did things as it did. Perhaps you would have done something differently if you were the Catalyst. That's fine--but that doesn't mean that what the Catalyst does is illogical. You say it's illogical that the Catalyst would have left itself unable to control the Keepers--but I've argued that it wouldn't need to, so why bother? We can keep going around and around, but since the Catalyst goes out of its way not to directly control anything (it leaves that to Harbinger and Sovereign) I don't see why the Catalyst would suddenly behave differently there. But I've said this over and over again.

It's not the catalysts behaviour I'm worried about (it's your atypical crazy computer AI). What concerns we is the weakness of the overarching plot to the series with regard to it being on the Citadel all the time. You haven't provided one good response so far so to the simple question as to why wouldn't the very creator of the Citadel and the architect of the entire cycle have any control over the very creatures it tasked to maintain the structure it calls home? If it doesn't have any control of them, then who does? The werewolf again? The idea that this all powerful AI is going to leave itself completely vulnerable in its very nerve centre is farcical as a proposition.

@JCGamer said:

@Marokai said:

I understand and agree with exactly where you're coming from, OP. I felt the same way as soon as I listened to the bombcast discussion. I feel simultaneously vindicated, and also a little angry that people who were making perfectly legitimate and intelligent criticism of the game were left out in the cold, only to see places like Giant Bomb ride up on their horse 9 months later wondering how they missed all the action.

I think the whiners can complain about the ending--it's sounds pretty crappy to me. But the press talk when the game released about the end of the game revolves around a small group of people that feel like Bioware should change the ending which sets a poor precedent. The fact the this "newer" ending may be better does, in no way, validate some people demanding the ending be changed. It's one thing to dislike the ending to say, "The Matrix Trilogy". That's your opinion and your right not to like it a vocalize it. It's an entirely different thing to think that you could have come up with a better ending and demand the creators to change it to suit your preferences and that is what the argument was all about 8 months ago.

The ending was an undercooked mess, it was a blight on the series. It called for strong reactions. So much more so because the critical body of the gaming press had failed in their task to point it out. To just point at the most extreme of those reactions and say that the argument is about that, when there was never as serious discussion on the game's problems in the first place, is BS.

@JCGamer said:

@Marokai said:

I understand and agree with exactly where you're coming from, OP. I felt the same way as soon as I listened to the bombcast discussion. I feel simultaneously vindicated, and also a little angry that people who were making perfectly legitimate and intelligent criticism of the game were left out in the cold, only to see places like Giant Bomb ride up on their horse 9 months later wondering how they missed all the action.

I think the whiners can complain about the ending--it's sounds pretty crappy to me. But the press talk when the game released about the end of the game revolves around a small group of people that feel like Bioware should change the ending which sets a poor precedent. The fact the this "newer" ending may be better does, in no way, validate some people demanding the ending be changed. It's one thing to dislike the ending to say, "The Matrix Trilogy". That's your opinion and your right not to like it a vocalize it. It's an entirely different thing to think that you could have come up with a better ending and demand the creators to change it to suit your preferences and that is what the argument was all about 8 months ago.

Say you watched a movie about a person that was driving a car from New York to Hollywood.

The whole movie they passed signs telling you, they were on their way to Hollywood.

Then at the end, making no changes to their course, and with no explanation they arrive in China.

It would make no sense.

The indoctrination story beats were left in place because of laziness and/or stupidity.

Once they decided to end the game at the height of their plot twist, to satisfy EA's (yet again) timetable they absolutely deserved the criticisms of their horrible storytelling.

The Matrix was planned out, Mass Effect was not really and the ending ignored all of it's own established fact.

@Kadayi said:

@haggis said:

There's nothing that I said that was a lie, and suggesting that it is tells me that you're not being serious. It's basically what the Leviathans said to Shepard--so, did the game lie, then? The Leviathans did not intend for the Catalyst to harvest them, but to harvest everyone else. The fact that both the Leviathans and the Catalyst share the same blind spot is a thematic element that you don't seem to have seen, and which I think helps us understand why the Catalyst does things the way it does. One of the themes of the game's story is how learned lessons don't always get passed on, something addressed by the very existence of the Crucible (ie., knowledge that actually was passed on).

No the leviathans set up the catalyst to 'preserve life' and stop the thrall races from ending up getting wiped out by their own synthetics. The Leviathan Shepard speaks to says 'Dead races offer no tribute (to us)' (or words to that effect). They didn't want those races harvested, they wanted them kept down technologically so that they could continue to be exploited by the Leviathans. The catalyst had radically different views as to what 'Preserve life' meant as a mandate and how to achieve it. Effectively it waits till any civilization is about to reach the tipping point of technological advancement with AI and then traps them in a butterfly jar. Rinse repeat ad infinitum.

I've already explained why I think the Catalyst did things the way it did, and why I think its behavior is consistent. You seem to be making a different argument, that what the Catalyst didn't somehow wasn't optimal. That's a different argument. All I'm saying is that the game offers reasons why the Catalyst did things as it did. Perhaps you would have done something differently if you were the Catalyst. That's fine--but that doesn't mean that what the Catalyst does is illogical. You say it's illogical that the Catalyst would have left itself unable to control the Keepers--but I've argued that it wouldn't need to, so why bother? We can keep going around and around, but since the Catalyst goes out of its way not to directly control anything (it leaves that to Harbinger and Sovereign) I don't see why the Catalyst would suddenly behave differently there. But I've said this over and over again.

It's not the catalysts behaviour I'm worried about (it's your atypical crazy computer AI). What concerns we is the weakness of the overarching plot to the series with regard to it being on the Citadel all the time. You haven't provided one good response so far so to the simple question as to why wouldn't the very creator of the Citadel and the architect of the entire cycle have any control over the very creatures it tasked to maintain the structure it calls home? If it doesn't have any control of them, then who does? The werewolf again? The idea that this all powerful AI is going to leave itself completely vulnerable in its very nerve centre is farcical as a proposition.

The Leviathans did intend the other races to be harvested, just not completely--but that contradicts your earlier assertion that there was no part way, that it was either complete or not.

And as I said, the question of the keepers isn't all that important, but I have offered an answer (which you still haven't responded to): that the AI basically sees the Keepers as unimportant custodians of the Citadel. They do their job, do it well, and don't need interference. No one controls them, they just do the job they were programmed to do. And what is this werewolf you keep talking about?

And again, you assert that the AI is "completely vulnerable" but you haven't responded to my argument about that, either (and I've asked a few times now). Sovereign could show up with an army of indoctrinated or allied soldiers if there were trouble. We have precedent in Saren, the Geth, the Collectors, etc. Why would it need the Keepers to do this, when they're designed to be mechanics and it already has a defense mechanism in the Reapers? So ... do you have something to say about either argument? I really do want to hear a response.

@haggis said:

The Leviathans did intend the other races to be harvested, just not completely--but that contradicts your earlier assertion that there was no part way, that it was either complete or not.

No they didn't.

Skip to the around the 6.30 mark for the conversational stuff. There's nothing in there about the Leviathans wanting to harvest other species whatsoever (they wanted tribute in the same way that the Romans wanted tribute from its conquered subjects). They didn't want their thralls to keep annihilating themselves as always seemed to happen whenever any of them developed advanced AI. The Catalysts job was to come up with a solution to preserve life (keep the galactic peace) at whatever cost and it came up with the idea of the cycle and the Leviathans were it's first harvest. Please do continue to spout complete nonsense that fly in the face of the actual games footage though....

And as I said, the question of the keepers isn't all that important, but I have offered an answer (which you still haven't responded to): that the AI basically sees the Keepers as unimportant custodians of the Citadel. They do their job, do it well, and don't need interference. No one controls them, they just do the job they were programmed to do. And what is this werewolf you keep talking about?

That's not an adequate answer, it's a poor excuse. The citadel is the integral part of the catalysts trap. Cycle after cycle galactic civilizations have been lured into using it as their central point of governance and countless times they've fallen victim to it as the first point of attack by the reapers and the swift annihilation of their leadership, making the harvesting that much easier for the reaper fleet. There is absolutely no justification for the Catalyst relinquishing control of any of the systems it has built around the trap and placing it's fate solely in the hands of remote agents like Sovereign. Give it up already.

And again, you assert that the AI is "completely vulnerable" but you haven't responded to my argument about that, either (and I've asked a few times now). Sovereign could show up with an army of indoctrinated or allied soldiers if there were trouble. We have precedent in Saren, the Geth, the Collectors, etc. Why would it need the Keepers to do this, when they're designed to be mechanics and it already has a defense mechanism in the Reapers? So ... do you have something to say about either argument? I really do want to hear a response.

Based on what happens around the 14 minute mark in the video I'd say Sovereign wouldn't be much of a defense against a few leviathans in truth. Also space is kind of big and takes time to cross, it's not like Sovereign could be at the Citadel instantly if the catalyst was in trouble. I suppose you're next explanation is that 'we'll there's probably more than one reaper protecting the catalyst' so where were they in the climatic battle in ME1? Out of frame, doing the shopping, had a cold? I'm all ears for your response on this one.

*popcorn*

"The Catalysts job was to come up with a solution to preserve life (keep the galactic peace) at whatever cost..."

That's the problem, then, isn't it? I think we're reading this differently. Tribute, harvest. I see these things being different sides of the same coin.

"That's not an adequate answer, it's a poor excuse...There is absolutely no justification for the Catalyst relinquishing control of any of the systems it has built around the trap and placing it's fate solely in the hands of remote agents like Sovereign. Give it up already."

You haven't offered any reason to. You're not actually making an argument as to why this is inadequate. You just keep stomping your feet. Give me a reason to change my mind, and I will. The trap works. So far as we know, it has never not worked. And as I've said, the Catalyst's habit is to not exercise direct control. Let's say, I'm in a house. I know I might be attacked. On the other side of the room, I have a gun. Right next to me, I have a wrench. I hear someone banging on the door. I'll just go over and get my gun. But you keep saying, "You've got that wrench right there! Why didn't you pick it up and use that!" That's basically how I'm seeing this argument. I know you don't agree, and that's fine, but you're not offering a reason for me to think of it differently.

"Based on what happens around the 14 minute mark in the video I'd say Sovereign wouldn't be much of a defense against a few leviathans in truth."

Then how did the Catalyst destroy the Leviathans the first time, without any Reapers at all? And one Reaper nearly took out the combined fleets of several of the largest intelligent races. Truth is, we have no idea how the Catalyst destroyed the Leviathans--but we know that it did actually do it, which makes your doubt about its abilities unconvincing. If the Leviathans are as powerful as you suggest, they would never have lost the first time. But they did--badly.

And with that, I'm done. Partly because I don't think you have an answer (which is fine, really, since this was always going to be an endless debate), but mostly because you're being a prick. I'm really trying to understand what other people didn't like about the ending, and all I'm really getting is this stuff about Keepers, and stuff that really doesn't seem to matter. It was interesting at first, but now it's tedious. Thanks for the chat--I actually did enjoy a good bit of it.

@MildMolasses said:

Uncharted 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock, Halo 2 All reviewed very well. All had really shitty endings. I understand the disappointment, but for the love of god, give it a rest

Just my opinion but I think Uncharted 2 was the best video game ending I've ever seen.

On a side note, didn't the people who disliked the ending make a $80,000 donation to the Child's Play charity? I remember the people on the forum from that page were saying they didn't like the way game journalists portrayed ending haters so they tried to make as high of a charity number as possible to show that they were going to complain in at least a mature way.

Just to say, i hate the attitude some of you guys have where you are willing to talk down to people who were unhappy and wanted a change in something that everyone agreed was badly conceived. It feels insulting to think that people feel better then others, just because you disliked something but didn't want to open your mouth and say "This is kinda crappy, Guys". I agreed that it was done poorly by the fans who wanted the change and it was also spineless of Bioware to change in the first place but the idea behind the complaints and requests are not unfair to ask and thinking so low of the people that did isn't cool. Be grown up and just understand you didn't agree with going that far. Its more fair. I didn't complain. I played ME3 with the attitude of "if i do not like it, my Shep died on the last mission of ME2" ME3 wasn't going to take away from Mass Effect for me because i had invested too much time into it. It didn't feel like it was ever going to live up to the hype so i didn't set myself as "YEA, GOTTA RUSH THIS". :)

I think the Bombcast though summed up my feelings kinda well. If Bioware feel the constant need to make their ending better by making us PAY for plothole fixes and retconing then i no longer feel the need to buy or play their game. The respect given to the player to enjoy the story should not cost money. That causes it to be less about fulfilling a players wants and becomes money.

@haggis said:

"The Catalysts job was to come up with a solution to preserve life (keep the galactic peace) at whatever cost..."

That's the problem, then, isn't it? I think we're reading this differently. Tribute, harvest. I see these things being different sides of the same coin.

Whom exactly do you think your kidding at this point in time Haggis? Interpretation of tribute? Lets see: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tribute?s=t

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tribute?showCookiePolicy=true

Tribute has a very specific meaning. The Harvest is not collecting tribute. The harvest is the catalysts 'solution' to stopping organics from wiping themselves out when they reach a certain technological level by preserving them in reaper form.

"That's not an adequate answer, it's a poor excuse...There is absolutely no justification for the Catalyst relinquishing control of any of the systems it has built around the trap and placing it's fate solely in the hands of remote agents like Sovereign. Give it up already."

You haven't offered any reason to. You're not actually making an argument as to why this is inadequate. You just keep stomping your feet. Give me a reason to change my mind, and I will. The trap works. So far as we know, it has never not worked. And as I've said, the Catalyst's habit is to not exercise direct control. Let's say, I'm in a house. I know I might be attacked. On the other side of the room, I have a gun. Right next to me, I have a wrench. I hear someone banging on the door. I'll just go over and get my gun. But you keep saying, "You've got that wrench right there! Why didn't you pick it up and use that!" That's basically how I'm seeing this argument. I know you don't agree, and that's fine, but you're not offering a reason for me to think of it differently.

But it's not a case that you need to go get the gun is it? The gun in the form of a body guard (Sovereign) has to come to you (distance/time), and given it's entirely possible that said gun man might get waylaid or even taken out by the attackers before getting to you in time, it makes perfect sense that you'd have a second line of defense on hand.

Then how did the Catalyst destroy the Leviathans the first time, without any Reapers at all? And one Reaper nearly took out the combined fleets of several of the largest intelligent races. Truth is, we have no idea how the Catalyst destroyed the Leviathans--but we know that it did actually do it, which makes your doubt about its abilities unconvincing. If the Leviathans are as powerful as you suggest, they would never have lost the first time. But they did--badly.

I'd mark that particular conundrum (chicken Vs egg) down to Biowares ill considered retcon writing tbh. However there's no doubting the fact that in the DLC the leviathans quite clearly take out the reaper at the end and took out the one at Dis as well . At a guess I'd say given the enormity of time between the first harvest and the events of ME3 the Leviathans have evolved and become much much stronger than their ancestors, and are now more than a match for them. Certainly not enough to overwhelm the current reaper force given the weight of numbers they'd face, but clearly more than capable of taking them one on one.

And with that, I'm done. Partly because I don't think you have an answer (which is fine, really, since this was always going to be an endless debate), but mostly because you're being a prick. I'm really trying to understand what other people didn't like about the ending, and all I'm really getting is this stuff about Keepers, and stuff that really doesn't seem to matter. It was interesting at first, but now it's tedious. Thanks for the chat--I actually did enjoy a good bit of it.

I'm many things, but I'm certainly not a blind apologist for piss poor writing, but yes no run along now.