@N7: I was thinking the exact same thing!

@isomeri: No, I mainly didn't like it because the last "act" of the film felt so weird and illogical. I love the part where they're on the ship and HAL is slowly falling apart and starts killing all of them. But then how the hell does Dave wind up in that fancy room? What even is that fancy room? It makes no sense, and feels completely disjointed from the earlier part of the film which is about the stresses of flying through space.

@SeriouslyNow: I already answered that criticism

@SeriouslyNow: I already answered that criticism

@Tennmuerti said:

@Brendan said:

@Tennmuerti: Synthetics vs organics isn`t the main conflict.

And what is then prey tell? What is the main conflict that everyone is ignoring? Synthetics vs. Organics is the core of the main confilct, as far as I can tell or at least that is what the game tells us.It the reason for the Reapers to do what they do in the first place. It is also in effect still synthetic life cleansing organic life so that both get a chance to flourish. They are part of this core conflict. Both its solution and ironically embodiment. If you are going to say something isn't the thing you are talking about, then state the actual conflict. Otherwise it's just trolling.

The problem is that you are looking for the source of the fiction through what the game is actually telling you, and that is not the case with most fiction.

The main conflict is: The universe vs. the reapers. It's actually the most obvious one.

Why did this conflict happen? The easy test is: Would the reapers have arrived, or not arrived, because of it? And is it attributable to the species involved in this specific conflict?

So it it a diversity issue? No, because even if all species were hunky dory with no problems, the reapers still would have come and the main conflict would still exist, even if it may have been easier to deal with. Is it the ageless and infinite, multi-civilization spanning synthetics v. organics issue? That is beyond the scope of the players involved in the conflict, (the current species) and is out of their control, so is not the direct cause and source of the conflict.

What is the source of the main conflict in the Mass Effect trilogy, the universe vs. the reapers? Hint: It's in the title.

If the galaxies species had understood their technology completely, plumbed it's secrets and learned how to take apart, build, and even improve upon all of the stuff they relied upon that bases this universe would the reapers have come? This includes the Mass Effect relays, the Citadel, and even the crucible (which is the most important part). No. If the galaxy understood exactly what the Mass Effect relays and citadel and all that other tech were capable of, in every way, they would not have been slaves to it, and subject to the possible consequences of using it i.e. the reapers. Thus, we come to the main theme, the source of the conflict, the universe vs. the reapers.

People used technology they did not fully understand, therefore unintended consequences followed.

People used, and relied upon, the Mass Effect technology (including the Citadel) without fully understanding what it did. They were subject to it, and suffered the consequences for it, those consequences being the main conflict. There are numerous examples of this throughout the trilogy, but I'm going to focus on the one in the third game that is banged over our heads throughout the course of the game leading up to the conclusion.

The crucible. Do you remember what we are constantly reminded of the entire game? That we don't fully know what the crucible will do once it's done. That we are relying upon it, and that we hope it will do what we think it will do. There's a specific reason this is brought up dozens of times throughout the game, and that is because it connects to the main source of conflict for the entire trilogy.

What happens at the end?

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

You use the large piece of technology that is out of your depth that you didn't fully understand, as you did with all of the technology leading to prior unintended consequences, expecting it to reach a natural conclusion. It didn't. Unintended consequences happened. What the machine did wasn't what you expected it to do, which is exactly what the entire trilogy had been leading up to. You thought it was simply going to kill the reapers? Why? What did you really know? You didn't, and now you have to make a choice that you didn't expect to make because you made the same mistake that has always been made, that has started the entire conflict.

So how do they close this out, thematically? Do you know why all of the Mass Effect relays were depicted as being destroyed? It's the exact thematic closure for the entire conflict. To "win" the conflict that has underpinned the entire trilogy the galaxy must free themselves from technollogy they did not understand, that resulted in the reapers controlling their fate. The technology of the Mass Effect Relays had to be destroyed. So it was, and in that poorly done finale the galaxy vs. the reapers, due to people using technology they did not understand leading to unintended consequence is finished.

Some people seem to think that the ending should have been about the characters. I think that is a valid point, that what people wanted was an ending to their personal experience. That isn't, however, what Bioware chose to do. They chose to focus on the underlying conflict rather than a players personal experience. I'm not sure which side I'm on, but they spend so much time wrapping up relationships before the end that I don't think the path they chose to go down is a heinous crime.

Some people think the endings were poorly done. I agree. More clarification is needed, and the disparate endings are not visually realized enough to be effective. They look lazy, in short.

However, to the specific complaint that people have, that the ending does not represent the main conflict underpinning the Mass Effect trilogy, that is false.

@isomeri said:

2001: A Space Odyssey. There are a lot of parallels between the ending of 2001 and ME3.

Except 2001 ending made sense, of sorts, within the context of the movie. As I've said before, ME3 looks like it was written by someone who thought they were being Stanley Kubrick only to end up looking like M. Night Shyamalan.

@Tennmuerti: What I have explained is what mass Effect is based on. Everything that happens is directly in front of your eyes and necessary for everything to play out exactly as it happens. It requires no jumps in logic. It simply is what the game is, you just haven't noticed because you've never noticed what the main conflict is. The indoctrination theory, or fan fiction have nothing to do with the narrative core of Mass Effect. They are interpretations of events during the games, over top of the basic conflict that is not in question that require leaps in logic to "assume" they are correct.

You are free to not like the ending, but the ending is not incorrect.

Edit: You should read my post again. There is a difference between "The conflict" and "The source of the conflict." That is, what the conflict is and where it comes from.

@Tennmuerti said:

@Brendan said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Brendan said:

@Tennmuerti: Synthetics vs organics isn`t the main conflict.

And what is then prey tell? What is the main conflict that everyone is ignoring? Synthetics vs. Organics is the core of the main confilct, as far as I can tell or at least that is what the game tells us.It the reason for the Reapers to do what they do in the first place. It is also in effect still synthetic life cleansing organic life so that both get a chance to flourish. They are part of this core conflict. Both its solution and ironically embodiment. If you are going to say something isn't the thing you are talking about, then state the actual conflict. Otherwise it's just trolling.

The problem is that you are looking for the source of the fiction through what the game is actually telling you, and that is not the case with most fiction.

The main conflict is: The universe vs. the reapers. It's actually the most obvious one.

Why did this conflict happen? The easy test is: Would the reapers have arrived, or not arrived, because of it? And is it attributable to the species involved in this specific conflict?

So it it a diversity issue? No, because even if all species were hunky dory with no problems, the reapers still would have come and the main conflict would still exist, even if it may have been easier to deal with. Is it the ageless and infinite, multi-civilization spanning synthetics v. organics issue? That is beyond the scope of the players involved in the conflict, (the current species) and is out of their control, so is not the direct cause and source of the conflict.

What is the source of the main conflict in the Mass Effect trilogy, the universe vs. the reapers? Hint: It's in the title.

If the galaxies species had understood their technology completely, plumbed it's secrets and learned how to take apart, build, and even improve upon all of the stuff they relied upon that bases this universe would the reapers have come? This includes the Mass Effect relays, the Citadel, and even the crucible (which is the most important part). No. If the galaxy understood exactly what the Mass Effect relays and citadel and all that other tech were capable of, in every way, they would not have been slaves to it, and subject to the possible consequences of using it i.e. the reapers. Thus, we come to the main theme, the source of the conflict, the universe vs. the reapers.

People used technology they did not fully understand, therefore unintended consequences followed.

People used, and relied upon, the Mass Effect technology (including the Citadel) without fully understanding what it did. They were subject to it, and suffered the consequences for it, those consequences being the main conflict. There are numerous examples of this throughout the trilogy, but I'm going to focus on the one in the third game that is banged over our heads throughout the course of the game leading up to the conclusion.

The crucible. Do you remember what we are constantly reminded of the entire game? That we don't fully know what the crucible will do once it's done. That we are relying upon it, and that we hope it will do what we think it will do. There's a specific reason this is brought up dozens of times throughout the game, and that is because it connects to the main source of conflict for the entire trilogy.

What happens at the end?

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

You use the large piece of technology that is out of your depth that you didn't fully understand, as you did with all of the technology leading to prior unintended consequences, expecting it to reach a natural conclusion. It didn't. Unintended consequences happened. What the machine did wasn't what you expected it to do, which is exactly what the entire trilogy had been leading up to. You thought it was simply going to kill the reapers? Why? What did you really know? You didn't, and now you have to make a choice that you didn't expect to make because you made the same mistake that has always been made, that has started the entire conflict.

So how do they close this out, thematically? Do you know why all of the Mass Effect relays were depicted as being destroyed? It's the exact thematic closure for the entire conflict. To "win" the conflict that has underpinned the entire trilogy the galaxy must free themselves from technollogy they did not understand, that resulted in the reapers controlling their fate. The technology of the Mass Effect Relays had to be destroyed. So it was, and in that poorly done finale the galaxy vs. the reapers, due to people using technology they did not understand leading to unintended consequence is finished.

Some people seem to think that the ending should have been about the characters. I think that is a valid point, that what people wanted was an ending to their personal experience. That isn't, however, what Bioware chose to do. They chose to focus on the underlying conflict rather than a players personal experience. I'm not sure which side I'm on, but they spend so much time wrapping up relationships before the end that I don't think the path they chose to go down is a heinous crime.

Some people think the endings were poorly done. I agree. More clarification is needed, and the disparate endings are not visually realized enough to be effective. They look lazy, in short.

However, to the specific complaint that people have, that the ending does not represent the main conflict underpinning the Mass Effect trilogy, that is false.

The lead writer of the series came out and said that dark matter and mass effect were one of the planned possbilities for why the reapers did what they did.
But the new writers ultimately did not choose to follow that route and took it in a different direction.
Just to repeat: the lead writer of the series in ME1-2 came out and said that they had no actual clear goal for the Reapers and what the conflict is about and that synthetic vs. organics being at the core of the conflict is not how he would have concluded ME3.

That's why it's extremely important to have a single vision, and have a clear goal of where you want to go with the series, when trying to pull off a massive story such as this. Bioware made the mistake of changing that direction for the last part which is why the series ended the way it did. Not to mention that the dark matter theme was hinted at throughout ME2 and in fact one mission deals directly with it.

You can compare it to the Legacy of Kain series or the MGS series where the story is being written by single person. I'm sure Amy Henning and Kojima had help and had poher people brining in their input but at the end of the day they were the ones to say where the series is gonna go.

I really believe the biggest mistake Bioware could have made was to change the main writer for the last game.

@Tennmuerti: What I have explained is what mass Effect is based on. Everything that happens is directly in front of your eyes and necessary for everything to play out exactly as it happens. It requires no jumps in logic. It simply is what the game is, you just haven't noticed because you've never noticed what the main conflict is. The indoctrination theory, or fan fiction have nothing to do with the narrative core of Mass Effect. They are interpretations of events during the games, over top of the basic conflict that is not in question that require leaps in logic to "assume" they are correct.

You are free to not like the ending, but the ending is not incorrect.

Edit: You should read my post again. There is a difference between "The conflict" and "The source of the conflict." That is, what the conflict is and where it comes from.

@Tennmuerti said:

@Brendan said:

@Tennmuerti: Synthetics vs organics isn`t the main conflict.

And what is then prey tell? What is the main conflict that everyone is ignoring? Synthetics vs. Organics is the core of the main confilct, as far as I can tell or at least that is what the game tells us.It the reason for the Reapers to do what they do in the first place. It is also in effect still synthetic life cleansing organic life so that both get a chance to flourish. They are part of this core conflict. Both its solution and ironically embodiment. If you are going to say something isn't the thing you are talking about, then state the actual conflict. Otherwise it's just trolling.

The problem is that you are looking for the source of the fiction through what the game is actually telling you, and that is not the case with most fiction.

The main conflict is: The universe vs. the reapers. It's actually the most obvious one.

Why did this conflict happen? The easy test is: Would the reapers have arrived, or not arrived, because of it? And is it attributable to the species involved in this specific conflict?

So it it a diversity issue? No, because even if all species were hunky dory with no problems, the reapers still would have come and the main conflict would still exist, even if it may have been easier to deal with. Is it the ageless and infinite, multi-civilization spanning synthetics v. organics issue? That is beyond the scope of the players involved in the conflict, (the current species) and is out of their control, so is not the direct cause and source of the conflict.

What is the source of the main conflict in the Mass Effect trilogy, the universe vs. the reapers? Hint: It's in the title.

If the galaxies species had understood their technology completely, plumbed it's secrets and learned how to take apart, build, and even improve upon all of the stuff they relied upon that bases this universe would the reapers have come? This includes the Mass Effect relays, the Citadel, and even the crucible (which is the most important part). No. If the galaxy understood exactly what the Mass Effect relays and citadel and all that other tech were capable of, in every way, they would not have been slaves to it, and subject to the possible consequences of using it i.e. the reapers. Thus, we come to the main theme, the source of the conflict, the universe vs. the reapers.

People used technology they did not fully understand, therefore unintended consequences followed.

People used, and relied upon, the Mass Effect technology (including the Citadel) without fully understanding what it did. They were subject to it, and suffered the consequences for it, those consequences being the main conflict. There are numerous examples of this throughout the trilogy, but I'm going to focus on the one in the third game that is banged over our heads throughout the course of the game leading up to the conclusion.

The crucible. Do you remember what we are constantly reminded of the entire game? That we don't fully know what the crucible will do once it's done. That we are relying upon it, and that we hope it will do what we think it will do. There's a specific reason this is brought up dozens of times throughout the game, and that is because it connects to the main source of conflict for the entire trilogy.

What happens at the end?

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

You use the large piece of technology that is out of your depth that you didn't fully understand, as you did with all of the technology leading to prior unintended consequences, expecting it to reach a natural conclusion. It didn't. Unintended consequences happened. What the machine did wasn't what you expected it to do, which is exactly what the entire trilogy had been leading up to. You thought it was simply going to kill the reapers? Why? What did you really know? You didn't, and now you have to make a choice that you didn't expect to make because you made the same mistake that has always been made, that has started the entire conflict.

So how do they close this out, thematically? Do you know why all of the Mass Effect relays were depicted as being destroyed? It's the exact thematic closure for the entire conflict. To "win" the conflict that has underpinned the entire trilogy the galaxy must free themselves from technollogy they did not understand, that resulted in the reapers controlling their fate. The technology of the Mass Effect Relays had to be destroyed. So it was, and in that poorly done finale the galaxy vs. the reapers, due to people using technology they did not understand leading to unintended consequence is finished.

Some people seem to think that the ending should have been about the characters. I think that is a valid point, that what people wanted was an ending to their personal experience. That isn't, however, what Bioware chose to do. They chose to focus on the underlying conflict rather than a players personal experience. I'm not sure which side I'm on, but they spend so much time wrapping up relationships before the end that I don't think the path they chose to go down is a heinous crime.

Some people think the endings were poorly done. I agree. More clarification is needed, and the disparate endings are not visually realized enough to be effective. They look lazy, in short.

However, to the specific complaint that people have, that the ending does not represent the main conflict underpinning the Mass Effect trilogy, that is false.

@Tennmuerti said:

@Brendan said:

@Tennmuerti: What I have explained is what mass Effect is based on. Everything that happens is directly in front of your eyes and necessary for everything to play out exactly as it happens. It requires no jumps in logic. It simply is what the game is, you just haven't noticed because you've never noticed what the main conflict is. The indoctrination theory, or fan fiction have nothing to do with the narrative core of Mass Effect. They are interpretations of events during the games, over top of the basic conflict that is not in question that require leaps in logic to "assume" they are correct.

You are free to not like the ending, but the ending is not incorrect.

Edit: You should read my post again. There is a difference between "The conflict" and "The source of the conflict." That is, what the conflict is and where it comes from.

Good on ya for not actually handling any of the several main criticisms I have brought forward to your theory.
You have made several jumps in logic that you have not bothered to explain and i pointed out.
As well as your entire premise being falsely based on the fact that everyone somehow gets free of mass effect technology which is fundamentally false.

I have also pointed out to you that there never was a single narrative core to Mass Effect series. As confirmed by the lead writer of the series himself.Also confirming that what narrative was there was taken in a completely different direction in 3 anyway. Indoctrination theory has everything to do with it. It is just as much speculation and interpreting of things that are as you put it "in front of your eyes". Those crackpots aren't making any logic leaps either or so it is claimed. lol Both are flawed and easy to break down. Both are easily shown to not be the correct interpretetions based on information that came out of sources working on the games.

Look, there's no point to trading essays back and forth, because I don't have the time. You're free to have the last word on this because beyond this point it gets infinitely semantic.

I'm not trying to tie up everything because the game isn't well written enough to tie up everything. We will know what the lead writers really wanted when they bring out new content in the summer.

Regardless of what anyone says, there is no such thing as a piece of fiction without a narrative centre, because without it there is no plot. It's called conflict, and it's what fiction is based on. My point is that the main theme (source of conflict) is based around the main conflict. Everyone (that's what I meant by universe) vs. the reapers. That would be all current races against the reapers. That's just what the main conflict of Mass Effect is, and if you somehow don't agree with that I can't help you. The source of this conflict is obvious because without it the conflict wouldn't have happened. You don't even need me to explain it, you can work it out for yourself. Why were the reapers allowed to come, or how were they given the chance to start this conflict that began in the first game and reached it's finale in the 3rd? You can answer the question for yourself, and the answer to that is the source of the conflict, the narrative problem that must be "resolved". The source of the conflict is what the player is presented with in the conclusion of the game. Everyone was up in the air about the crucible's function in detail. Does that make sense? No, because if everyone was building it they probably should have known how it would work, but they didn't. We know this because they say this repeatedly. It's not great writing in the context of what's happening at the time, but it is what the writer's wrote throughout the entire game. The crucible is a mystery and so on and so forth.

Does everything get wrapped up in a bow? No, the ending is vague and a testament to the quality of writing for the entire series, which is about on the level of a sci-fi novel written for the 12-14 segment, minus the sex and stuff. There's plenty of the literal stuff in the games that you detailed that is never given its proper due. The ending goes for only the most basic conclusion of the main conflict, and that is it. It doesn't really conclude satisfactorily. The climax of the source of the conflict is presented fairly obviously but apart from mostly useless ending sequences there isn't a lot of closure. They done fucked up there, and we'll see what they give us in the future.

@Brendan said:

Look, there's no point to trading essays back and forth, because I don't have the time.

a mile of text later...

@Napalm: It's been a loong roooad.mp3

Regardless of what anyone says, there is no such thing as a piece of fiction without a narrative centre, because without it there is no plot.

@Brendan

@Tennmuerti said:

@Brendan said:

@Tennmuerti: What I have explained is what mass Effect is based on. Everything that happens is directly in front of your eyes and necessary for everything to play out exactly as it happens. It requires no jumps in logic. It simply is what the game is, you just haven't noticed because you've never noticed what the main conflict is. The indoctrination theory, or fan fiction have nothing to do with the narrative core of Mass Effect. They are interpretations of events during the games, over top of the basic conflict that is not in question that require leaps in logic to "assume" they are correct.

You are free to not like the ending, but the ending is not incorrect.

Edit: You should read my post again. There is a difference between "The conflict" and "The source of the conflict." That is, what the conflict is and where it comes from.

Good on ya for not actually handling any of the several main criticisms I have brought forward to your theory.
You have made several jumps in logic that you have not bothered to explain and i pointed out.
As well as your entire premise being falsely based on the fact that everyone somehow gets free of mass effect technology which is fundamentally false.

I have also pointed out to you that there never was a single narrative core to Mass Effect series. As confirmed by the lead writer of the series himself.Also confirming that what narrative was there was taken in a completely different direction in 3 anyway. Indoctrination theory has everything to do with it. It is just as much speculation and interpreting of things that are as you put it "in front of your eyes". Those crackpots aren't making any logic leaps either or so it is claimed. lol Both are flawed and easy to break down. Both are easily shown to not be the correct interpretetions based on information that came out of sources working on the games.

Look, there's no point to trading essays back and forth, because I don't have the time. You're free to have the last word on this because beyond this point it gets infinitely semantic.

I'm not trying to tie up everything because the game isn't well written enough to tie up everything. We will know what the lead writers really wanted when they bring out new content in the summer.

Regardless of what anyone says, there is no such thing as a piece of fiction without a narrative centre, because without it there is no plot. It's called conflict, and it's what fiction is based on.
 
My point is that the main theme (source of conflict) is based around the main conflict. Everyone (that's what I meant by universe) vs. the reapers. That would be all current races against the reapers. That's just what the main conflict of Mass Effect is, and if you somehow don't agree with that I can't help you.

The source of this conflict is obvious because without it the conflict wouldn't have happened. You don't even need me to explain it, you can work it out for yourself. 

Why were the reapers allowed to come, or how were they given the chance to start this conflict that began in the first game and reached it's finale in the 3rd? You can answer the question for yourself, and the answer to that is the source of the conflict, the narrative problem that must be "resolved". The source of the conflict is what the player is presented with in the conclusion of the game.

The ``all powerful character`` wasn`t the point of Mass Effect 3`s ending, only the representation of it. The ending did not present anything new, only things which players have seemingly ignored i.e. the entire conflict that caused the trilogy in the first place.

However, to the specific complaint that people have, that the ending does not represent the main conflict underpinning the Mass Effect trilogy, that is false.

@SeriouslyNow: Well specifically in response to that in ME3 there are allusions to the the identity of the main bad guy throughout. Also just like in Ghost in the Shell the true power of the bad guy isn't revealed until near the end of the movie.

@SeriouslyNow: Well specifically in response to that in ME3 there are allusions to the the identity of the main bad guy throughout. Also just like in Ghost in the Shell the true power of the bad guy isn't revealed until near the end of the movie.