@Brodehouse said:

@Mike76x

@Brodehouse said:

I think people need to keep that in mind when they say "the Catalyst isn't being reasonable!" well no fucking duh, that's why he made the Reapers. Because he's taking a complicated moral situation and applying soulless machine logic to it. Shepard straight up says "You don't understand organics, we don't want to be 'saved', not like this". It's actually a great counterpoint to Legion's loyalty mission, where Shepard applies common human (and organic) morality to the geth, who rejects it as being inapplicable. The Catalyst has done the same to all organic life, never understanding that being turned into Reapers is the opposite of 'saving' them. He sees creativity as a purely destructive force, and so has cut technology and every civilization off at the Mass Effect Age for millions and millions of years (that's the genius of the title, it refers to every cycle that has come before it). If you think he's wrong, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT.

If Reaper-kid was completely logical answer this.

Which do you think is more logical? :

A: Create an armada of living spaceships and have them hide in the dark space on the edge of the galaxy waiting thousands of years for the day an advanced civilization will create artificial lifeforms.

Then when those lifeforms are created have your armada terrorize all the advanced civilizations of the galaxy by sending wave after wave of indoctrinated creature, and corrupted artificial lifeforms to kill them for no apparent reason. While the advanced civilizations are still reeling from the earlier attacks, the armada arrives and spends a few hundred years wiping out all advanced lifeforms throughout the galaxy.

Killing billions, torturing, terrorizing twisting living creatures into mindless slaves, destroying knowledge, history and culture and turn those civilizations into cream-filling.

Organic goop preserved in Reaper tupperware for all of history for exactly no one to care about or share with.

or

B: Show up and say: "Don't build any robots or we'll fucking kill you!"

(which is essentially what the reject ending is)

Keeping with the point; if you felt like the Catalyst had the right idea all along, there really wouldn't be much of a game. You have to disagree with the Reapers methods otherwise you wouldn't bother to stop them. Consider Sovereign, he basically stated "we're gonna kill you because that's the way it is" and no one got mad about his 'logic'. The core conceit to any villain is a twisted logic that hurts more than it saves. No villain thinks they're the villain. Your example, the Catalyst warning civilization about himself and threatening them to creative sterility.. I guarantee you it would fail, people would either a) immediately rise against him out of fear, or b) end up creating new technology anyway, because that's kind of how civilization works. We can't help but solve the problems of our day, we're naturally creative, and he is not. That's his problem. He cannot allow technology to surpass the Mass Effect era for fear that the singularity will end all life (compare a scientist in 40s sabotaging atomic research out of fear of its destructive potential). His concern (the chaotic nature of advancing technology is potentially dangerous) is valid, but his solution is horrific for the organics who suffer it ("They disapproved."). But he doesn't see it that way, he thinks that by melting them into goo and making them into space shellfish, he's saving the galaxy. He's WRONG, but that's the POINT.

The Catalyst is the Citadel not Reaper-kid. The "catalyst" was the missing piece the crucible connected to...which was the Citadel. The ghost of indoctrinations past can say he is the catalyst, but that's just bad writing.

No one questioned Sovereign because he was the games main villain, and we didn't know his motivations. It was clear that he didn't consider humans worthy to spend time giving thoughtful answers.

The reject ending contradicts your belief that warning future civilizations not to build AI wouldn't work, because that's exactly what happens. Liara's time capsule warns the next cycle, and they're Reaper free because of it.

@Mike76x said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Mike76x

@Brodehouse said:

I think people need to keep that in mind when they say "the Catalyst isn't being reasonable!" well no fucking duh, that's why he made the Reapers. Because he's taking a complicated moral situation and applying soulless machine logic to it. Shepard straight up says "You don't understand organics, we don't want to be 'saved', not like this". It's actually a great counterpoint to Legion's loyalty mission, where Shepard applies common human (and organic) morality to the geth, who rejects it as being inapplicable. The Catalyst has done the same to all organic life, never understanding that being turned into Reapers is the opposite of 'saving' them. He sees creativity as a purely destructive force, and so has cut technology and every civilization off at the Mass Effect Age for millions and millions of years (that's the genius of the title, it refers to every cycle that has come before it). If you think he's wrong, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT.

If Reaper-kid was completely logical answer this.

Which do you think is more logical? :

A: Create an armada of living spaceships and have them hide in the dark space on the edge of the galaxy waiting thousands of years for the day an advanced civilization will create artificial lifeforms.

Then when those lifeforms are created have your armada terrorize all the advanced civilizations of the galaxy by sending wave after wave of indoctrinated creature, and corrupted artificial lifeforms to kill them for no apparent reason. While the advanced civilizations are still reeling from the earlier attacks, the armada arrives and spends a few hundred years wiping out all advanced lifeforms throughout the galaxy.

Killing billions, torturing, terrorizing twisting living creatures into mindless slaves, destroying knowledge, history and culture and turn those civilizations into cream-filling.

Organic goop preserved in Reaper tupperware for all of history for exactly no one to care about or share with.

or

B: Show up and say: "Don't build any robots or we'll fucking kill you!"

(which is essentially what the reject ending is)

Keeping with the point; if you felt like the Catalyst had the right idea all along, there really wouldn't be much of a game. You have to disagree with the Reapers methods otherwise you wouldn't bother to stop them. Consider Sovereign, he basically stated "we're gonna kill you because that's the way it is" and no one got mad about his 'logic'. The core conceit to any villain is a twisted logic that hurts more than it saves. No villain thinks they're the villain. Your example, the Catalyst warning civilization about himself and threatening them to creative sterility.. I guarantee you it would fail, people would either a) immediately rise against him out of fear, or b) end up creating new technology anyway, because that's kind of how civilization works. We can't help but solve the problems of our day, we're naturally creative, and he is not. That's his problem. He cannot allow technology to surpass the Mass Effect era for fear that the singularity will end all life (compare a scientist in 40s sabotaging atomic research out of fear of its destructive potential). His concern (the chaotic nature of advancing technology is potentially dangerous) is valid, but his solution is horrific for the organics who suffer it ("They disapproved."). But he doesn't see it that way, he thinks that by melting them into goo and making them into space shellfish, he's saving the galaxy. He's WRONG, but that's the POINT.

The Catalyst is the Citadel not Reaper-kid. The "catalyst" was the missing piece the crucible connected to...which was the Citadel. The ghost of indoctrinations past can say he is the catalyst, but that's just bad writing.

No one questioned Sovereign because he was the games main villain, and we didn't know his motivations. It was clear that he didn't consider humans worthy to spend time giving thoughtful answers.

The reject ending contradicts your belief that warning future civilizations not to build AI wouldn't work, because that's exactly what happens. Liara's time capsule warns the next cycle, and they're Reaper free because of it.

He straight up says he's the Catalyst. Either he's lying or that's what he is. The Crucible needs the Catalyst to fire; and you can't use it without him.

The reject ending doesn't contradict anything, it proved exactly what I said. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Warning them about the Reapers made them prepare to fight the Reapers; exactly what I said it would do. If the Catalyst popped in and said "hey don't build robots or we'll come Reap ya" it wouldn't stop the civilizations from building AI or synthetic beings, it would just provoke them into preparing for a Reaper war.

What I'm finding mind-boggling is people go "synthesis, that sounds weird and dumb, all I want to do is destroy the Reapers... I better pick synthesis. Oh this is weird and dumb!" If all you wanted to do was destroy the reapers and win, why didn't you pick destroy?

Reject seems banging.

I have little more to say than what I've already state on the issue but after kicking around the topic last night, someone pointed out another RPG that had a story about malevolent force, a seemingly unbreakable cycle of destruction, a world where their best option was to lose to that malevolent force. That game was Final Fantasy X and it is kind of weird to point out as weird as the jargon gets and as esoteric the details can be and how hookey specific details can became, it made more sense than Mass Effect 3. When the turn happened in FF10, it wasn't in the last moments of the game nor did it really come out of left field because they were discussing the situation on the entire journey. The goal shifted due to the twist in the story but it made sense along with the consequences. While the background pieces might have people scratching their head the actual story beats of FF10 are pretty logical which I had to admit was something I wanted from Mass Effect 3.

I'm not saying FF10 is better but there is a game and a story with a similar theme and somehow does not resort to a DEM or other weirdness for an "emotional punch".

@Brodehouse said:

@Mike76x said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Mike76x

@Brodehouse said:

I think people need to keep that in mind when they say "the Catalyst isn't being reasonable!" well no fucking duh, that's why he made the Reapers. Because he's taking a complicated moral situation and applying soulless machine logic to it. Shepard straight up says "You don't understand organics, we don't want to be 'saved', not like this". It's actually a great counterpoint to Legion's loyalty mission, where Shepard applies common human (and organic) morality to the geth, who rejects it as being inapplicable. The Catalyst has done the same to all organic life, never understanding that being turned into Reapers is the opposite of 'saving' them. He sees creativity as a purely destructive force, and so has cut technology and every civilization off at the Mass Effect Age for millions and millions of years (that's the genius of the title, it refers to every cycle that has come before it). If you think he's wrong, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT.

If Reaper-kid was completely logical answer this.

Which do you think is more logical? :

A: Create an armada of living spaceships and have them hide in the dark space on the edge of the galaxy waiting thousands of years for the day an advanced civilization will create artificial lifeforms.

Then when those lifeforms are created have your armada terrorize all the advanced civilizations of the galaxy by sending wave after wave of indoctrinated creature, and corrupted artificial lifeforms to kill them for no apparent reason. While the advanced civilizations are still reeling from the earlier attacks, the armada arrives and spends a few hundred years wiping out all advanced lifeforms throughout the galaxy.

Killing billions, torturing, terrorizing twisting living creatures into mindless slaves, destroying knowledge, history and culture and turn those civilizations into cream-filling.

Organic goop preserved in Reaper tupperware for all of history for exactly no one to care about or share with.

or

B: Show up and say: "Don't build any robots or we'll fucking kill you!"

(which is essentially what the reject ending is)

Keeping with the point; if you felt like the Catalyst had the right idea all along, there really wouldn't be much of a game. You have to disagree with the Reapers methods otherwise you wouldn't bother to stop them. Consider Sovereign, he basically stated "we're gonna kill you because that's the way it is" and no one got mad about his 'logic'. The core conceit to any villain is a twisted logic that hurts more than it saves. No villain thinks they're the villain. Your example, the Catalyst warning civilization about himself and threatening them to creative sterility.. I guarantee you it would fail, people would either a) immediately rise against him out of fear, or b) end up creating new technology anyway, because that's kind of how civilization works. We can't help but solve the problems of our day, we're naturally creative, and he is not. That's his problem. He cannot allow technology to surpass the Mass Effect era for fear that the singularity will end all life (compare a scientist in 40s sabotaging atomic research out of fear of its destructive potential). His concern (the chaotic nature of advancing technology is potentially dangerous) is valid, but his solution is horrific for the organics who suffer it ("They disapproved."). But he doesn't see it that way, he thinks that by melting them into goo and making them into space shellfish, he's saving the galaxy. He's WRONG, but that's the POINT.

The Catalyst is the Citadel not Reaper-kid. The "catalyst" was the missing piece the crucible connected to...which was the Citadel. The ghost of indoctrinations past can say he is the catalyst, but that's just bad writing.

No one questioned Sovereign because he was the games main villain, and we didn't know his motivations. It was clear that he didn't consider humans worthy to spend time giving thoughtful answers.

The reject ending contradicts your belief that warning future civilizations not to build AI wouldn't work, because that's exactly what happens. Liara's time capsule warns the next cycle, and they're Reaper free because of it.

He straight up says he's the Catalyst. Either he's lying or that's what he is. The Crucible needs the Catalyst to fire; and you can't use it without him.

The reject ending doesn't contradict anything, it proved exactly what I said. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Warning them about the Reapers made them prepare to fight the Reapers; exactly what I said it would do. If the Catalyst popped in and said "hey don't build robots or we'll come Reap ya" it wouldn't stop the civilizations from building AI or synthetic beings, it would just provoke them into preparing for a Reaper war.

What I'm finding mind-boggling is people go "synthesis, that sounds weird and dumb, all I want to do is destroy the Reapers... I better pick synthesis. Oh this is weird and dumb!" If all you wanted to do was destroy the reapers and win, why didn't you pick destroy?

He says he's the Catalyst because of bad writing.

Shepard is the first organic to find Reaper-kid, how could he be referenced by someone with no knowledge of him?

Were there "Starchild.wav " files on the Citadel? Did the Protheans find some .txt files for Reaper DLC?

The Crucible needed the Citadel to fire, Reapy Jr. just told you how to use it and contradict everything he just told you.

He's just there and can't actually do anything, he can't activate the Crucible, he couldn't open the arms to help Sovereign. All he does is spout gibberish and use his scary voice if you refuse his B.S.

He states that as absolute fact "No you can't (keep your own forms) without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."

But you can shoot that thing over there and kill all of us, or grab that glowy thing and make us your puppets.

He says in no uncertain terms, ALL ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS NEED TO BE HARVESTED!!!

or not...whatever.

I enjoyed the new endings. I played all of them and found the two best endings to be the synthesis choice and the rejection option.

Minor Spoiler --->

However, the best slide was in my destroy ending, and it was Zaeed kicking back with a couple of space drinks. That was pretty awesome.

People are convoluting the conversation by making it about the writing instead of the DLC. The ending is a Deus Ex Machina, whether we like it or not. That was established the first time around. Being upset that it's still that isn't relevant to the conversation. That they added a new ending at all is a nice touch they didn't need to make but decided to do, and it's my canonical ending because I think it makes the most sense. I've seen a few people insinuating that somehow Destroy isn't genocide anymore, and I'm not sure how they're getting to that conclusion, beyond simply not playing the game and watching the ending. They're what they were before except not nearly so cryptic, and they carry more weight now that you don't have to select any of them.

They said all throughout 3, and hinted all throughout 1 and 2, that the reapers couldn't be destroyed by conventional means. I'm quite happy with a bittersweet ending where we all die but the next cycle lives in peace as a result of our shared experiences. Liara can be the hero for my game; I think she earned it.

I played through Mass Effect 2 and 3 as mostly a Paragon with the occasional Renegade option where I felt it was right. I watched the videos and am still happy with my "Destroy" option that I chose at the end of Mass Effect 3.

These new "endings" definitely didn't do what I expected them to do. Although, to be honest I'm not sure what I expected.

You can only polish a turd. That's how I feel about the extended cut. I'm done with BioWare for now.

I liked the way my ending turned out (I went with Destroy) and I thought that was fitting for the way my Shepard dealed with stuff in order to win the war you need to make sacrifices like BIG ones , that's why Syntesis didn't seem right like it was too convinient , The Geth died , the Quarians died , EDI died and possibly another Krogan Rebellion was in progress since Wreav was at the helm of the Krogan without EVE to interfere, I didn't hate the endings before I thought they needed closure and more context wich they provided so I'm more eager to play the game again .

But I just want to know something, doesn't this new "reject" ending undermines everything you did (consturcting the Crucible, assembling a galatic army) to those who think is the best? what do you gain? other than being stubborn "yeah we don't want your help , no lalala can't hear you I'm gonna fight I don't want to talk and I don't care about you solutions" , a great piece of dialog where the Catalyst says the Reapers aren't "bad" like they aren't looking for war they are just fulfilling their porpuse the war is just a consecuence to that, now you human that have reach this far can finally chose another way to deal with them but I guess people just don't want to have the cards layed out for them. Anyways now all the choices seem to be more independent rather than convering in the same point wich I think is better and there's a 4th one for those who think the conflict shouldn't be resolve that way.

@CrossTheAtlantic said:

@Hailinel:Mass Effect always stumbled on the big story moments; it was the little ones that made it enjoyable to me.

exactly..and i wish they had focused more on the little moments in 3, rather than trying to make it the hugest thing ever...

I finished the game today with the dlc. Wasn't good but was not the world ending crisis that people screamed all over the internet. I stumbled upon the indocrination theory right before writing this post and there is something that no one explains in it. If you choose the destroy synths option and "break" the indocrination process, you supposedly wake up on Earth after getting hit by harbinger right? (as is seen in the breath cutscene). So who destroyed the reapers? Sheppard was unconscious the whole time, battling the indocrination, so he couldn't destroy them. Was it Anderson? The Alliance fleet? If there's any defender of this theory who could explain it to me, I would appreciate it.

The extended scenes kind of systematically dismantle a bunch of the indoctrination theory. Like they threw in a scene where your party members get injured and evaced by the Normandy to explain why you don't have anyone with you and they added another scene with Hackett receiving a report that you made it to the Citadel to explain why he knows your still alive despite the whole "Everyone was wiped out" radio chatter you hear when you regain consciousness. I was expecting them to explain why Anderson ends up in-front of you despite following you up but I guess that is just inconsistent transportation technology.

The additional dialog you get with the Catalyst despite maybe being a bit excessive does do a better job of framing why you would go with anything but the destroy ending. Especially the line about Shepard basically becoming the new Catalyst if you go with the control ending. I think the original Deus Ex did this ending better, since it was kind of the same thing (Destroy the network, Merge with the AI, Take control with the Illuminate) but the process of achieving each ending was less contrived.