Um...why is everyone so mad about the ending?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

So I just finished Mass Effect 3 literally a few hours ago...and I have no idea why everyone is freaking out about this ending. My ending consisted of me choosing the "control" option and then the relays blow up and the Normandy crashes on a planet, maybe earth maybe not. I for one actually like that my personal Shepard died because I thought it was a good way to go. I am going to go back and replay the end and pick the destroy all synthetic life ending to see how that plays out as well (i was not able to choose synthesis), but I have no idea why everyone is freaking out. I will admit that the shit with Shepard chasing that kid throughout the whole game was kind of stupid, and the fact that the kid was "the thing that controlled everything" at the end was lame and there was maybe a more clever way to handle that whole thing. Although, the fact that perhaps the "being" was simply using an image from Shepard's mind to project itself in a way Shepard could easily understand in his diminished state is not all that far fetched and I will accept that. I also just read the whole "indoctrination theory" and that sounds pretty cool, but even if that is not the true meaning that Bioware put in the ending, I still see no reason why this ending is all that bad. And after watching the synthesis and destroy options on youtube, I see no reason for the uproar. I like the endings. There were probably some things that could have made the ending better, but I see no reason why this deserves an insane internet freak out.

In the end, the reapers were created by some other more powerful being (keep in mind that this whole story only takes place in one galaxy, so the possibility of a being of that power is definitely possible since we have no perspective on what lies beyond that specific galaxy) in order to keep organic life on a controlled level because if organics are let alone, their advancement will eventually lead to the extinction of organic life by synthetics. This is the same sort of story as something like the matrix or terminator movies where artificial intelligence eventually will conquer organic life. This being, perhaps from another galaxy, knows this to be true (presumably because it has witnessed this occur in it's galaxy or another) so it has put forth this cycle to let organic life keep on its track. Shepard has, like in the matrix, finally beaten the cycle by making it to the point that no other life in the cycle has. Like the prothean said a few times in the game, each cycle they get closer to the goal. The being sees that the cycle can continue no longer because even if it is to use the reapers to defeat organic life in this current cycle, it will not be long until organics advance to the point where the reapers will be defeated, and it will no longer have control over the outcome of the battle between synthetic and organic life. It then knows that crucible must finally be used to extinguish (or so it hopes), the struggle between synthetics and organics. It admits at the end that it cannot foresee the future of what will happen within each choice because this being is not a God. Therefore, the peace it is referring to in the synthesis option is the fact that the reapers will stop the fighting, and there will no longer be the struggle between synthetic and organic life that the cycle is there to protect because the two versions of life will be one in the same. This being has not implemented this option itself, though, because it does not know the outcome in the future which is why it wanted to keep the cycle with the reapers going as long as it saw possible.

Then, the player has these choices:

1. Merge synthetic and organic life making every living being one in the same which may have unforeseen consequences but solves the problem nevertheless

2. Destroy all technology hoping that with organics at the current evolved state they will not be as reckless and ignorant about the effects technological advancement can have, therefore, putting the organic life at such an advantage over synthetic life that synthetic life will either A. Never come to pass B. Never get to the point of domination over organics or C. Organics will use their knowledge of technology to achieve what would be synthesis on their own.

or (what is probably the most reckless choice) 3. Shepard becomes part of/takes control of the Reapers and uses their technology (as the illusive man foresaw) to make organics extremely powerful. They can use this technology to make sure the synthetics never overtake organics, or to eventually achieve synthesis.

This is basically my interpretation of the ending, and I find it kind of cool. I feel as though anyone who is truly up in arms about the ending of this game is either just being childish, has not tried to dissect the ending, or is completely mad about something different that I missed. I'd like to know why you think my theory about the end meaning is wrong/stupid, why you are actually mad about the ending and what you found so horrible, or if you agree with me and actually like the ending.

Edit: I guess just to clarify, I know this is a repetitive thread. But the reason I am making it is because I have been searching and searching for someone that actually has a well thought out criticism of the ending and I have not found it on this website, nor on any others. I have simply seen people just complaining with no real substance, and I want to see if (after reading my thoughts) someone can actually give me a detailed breakdown of why they disliked it.

#2 Posted by JasonR86 (9611 posts) -

@DoctorWelch:

Go to the Mass Effect 3 forums, search for 'ending' or any variant on that word, and add your thoughts to one of the 1,000 ending threads already in there.

#3 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

Ha, yeah, look around the forums. You'll find lots of arguments.

#4 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

#5 Posted by IBurningStar (2160 posts) -

If only someone had made a thread about the ending for you to post in...

#6 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@BrockNRolla: @JasonR86: I'v seen people complaining, but I have not seen one person lay out the exact reasons for why they disliked it other than something along the lines of "It sucked" or "It made no sense". I basically am giving my interpretation of it and I do not really see why people are mad. Are they mad because they don't understand it or what? Jeff was saying that people do not feel their choices throughout the game made a difference but the definitely did. The last choice you make means a lot, and what you do ultimately determines who lives, who dies, and where organic life goes from here. I guess it may be hard for people to accept that resolution since there is nothing to suggest what effect your actions exactly have on the outcome for the rest of existence, but that is hard to ask of any narrative.

#7 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@IBurningStar: @BraveToaster said:

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

Because the only comments I have seen in any of these ending threads on GB are short pointless comments like yours, whining and complaining about the ending with no explanation, or people explaining why they liked it. I'm only asking the question because no one has answered it yet.

#8 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@DoctorWelch said:

@BraveToaster said:

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

Because the only comments I have seen in any of these ending threads on GB are short pointless comments like yours, whining and complaining about the ending with no explanation, or people explaining why they liked it. I'm only asking the question because no one has answered it yet.

Question? I didn't see one question mark throughout your entire post. Besides, not having your question answered in any of the other threads doesn't mean it's okay to post a new thread.

#9 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

@DoctorWelch said:

@BraveToaster said:

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

Because the only comments I have seen in any of these ending threads on GB are short pointless comments like yours, whining and complaining about the ending with no explanation, or people explaining why they liked it. I'm only asking the question because no one has answered it yet.

Question? I didn't see one question mark throughout your entire post. Besides, not having your question answered in any of the other threads doesn't mean it's okay to post a new thread.

I'd like to know why you think my theory about the end meaning is wrong/stupid, why you are actually mad about the ending and what you found so horrible, or if you agree with me and actually like the ending.

This is exactly what I said. You do not need a question mark to provide a sentence that invokes conversation or topic discussion. Plus I have added the ending paragraph for those of you that want to contribute nothing but complaining about me making another thread.

Also, if you have a question that is unanswered in any thread but it is not okay to make a new thread, than what is the point of ever creating a thread ever. You literally just told me that I should not create a thread for one of its purposes.

#10 Posted by TheHT (10933 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

@DoctorWelch said:

@BraveToaster said:

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

Because the only comments I have seen in any of these ending threads on GB are short pointless comments like yours, whining and complaining about the ending with no explanation, or people explaining why they liked it. I'm only asking the question because no one has answered it yet.

Question? I didn't see one question mark throughout your entire post. Besides, not having your question answered in any of the other threads doesn't mean it's okay to post a new thread.

thread title.

#11 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@TheHT said:

@BraveToaster said:

@DoctorWelch said:

@BraveToaster said:

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

Because the only comments I have seen in any of these ending threads on GB are short pointless comments like yours, whining and complaining about the ending with no explanation, or people explaining why they liked it. I'm only asking the question because no one has answered it yet.

Question? I didn't see one question mark throughout your entire post. Besides, not having your question answered in any of the other threads doesn't mean it's okay to post a new thread.

thread title.

Dammit. I go die now.

#12 Posted by N7 (3574 posts) -
@DoctorWelch: Because it happens right after you bring peace to the Geth and Quarians. The middle of the game tells me synthetics and organics can live in peace. The end of the game says "NO THEY CAN NOT!" and literally explains nothing about that.
 
I actually think the form of a child fits the V.I very well because it's just like talking to a child. "So, what does any of this even mean?" "I DON'T KNOW BUT I KNOW I'M RIGHT SOMEHOW".
 
Also it never explains how it seems to know exactly what will happen without the Reapers. It just tells you "I control the Reapers, you can take my word on this". LIKE HELL I CAN.
 
It just ends on a note of "Take my word and don't ask any questions". Yep. Totally satisfying.
#13 Posted by Turambar (6677 posts) -

It seems like anything you would like to say would go in this thread just fine.  We really don't need another thread dedicated to the singular notion of the ending is "good/bad".

#14 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@Turambar said:

It seems like anything you would like to say would go in this thread just fine. We really don't need another thread dedicated to the singular notion of the ending is "good/bad".

I understand. I guess I just would like to get rid of all the complaining and 25 pages or more of chaos and simplistic arguments in that thread in order to just find one person that can give me a detailed dissection of the ending and why they find it terrible. I also noticed that no one has commented on that thread much in over a week. So since I am late to the game I would rather not have my questions go unanswered.

Edit: But thank you, I will read through that tomorrow probably. :P

#15 Posted by TheHT (10933 posts) -

@N7 said:

@DoctorWelch: Because it happens right after you bring peace to the Geth and Quarians. The middle of the game tells me synthetics and organics can live in peace. The end of the game says "NO THEY CAN NOT!" and literally explains nothing about that.

I actually think the form of a child fits the V.I very well because it's just like talking to a child. "So, what does any of this even mean?" "I DON'T KNOW BUT I KNOW I'M RIGHT SOMEHOW".

Also it never explains how it seems to know exactly what will happen without the Reapers. It just tells you "I control the Reapers, you can take my word on this". LIKE HELL I CAN. It just ends on a note of "Take my word and don't ask any questions". Yep. Totally satisfying.

It's not the game that says so, it's the Catalyst.

The Catalyst doesn't know. It was created with a very specific purpose in mind, and everything it does and says is centered around that purpose. It tells you synthetics and organics cannot live in peace because that was presupposed in its design, in its purpose; it believes they cannot.

Shepard acknowledges that the Catalyst may be wrong about synthetics and organics.

#16 Posted by artgarcrunkle (970 posts) -

It's a bad ending that doesn't satisfy most of the people who spent a lot of time and money on this series. If you want to rationalize and pretend it's a good ending that's fine too, better that you don't feel bad about that $60 bucks you spent than you hold EA accountable for making a product that isn't satisfying.

#17 Posted by N7 (3574 posts) -
@TheHT: At that point it doesn't really matter if Shepard acknowledges if the Catalyst might be(And totally is) wrong, you don't get to pursue that at all. I was, at any moment, waiting for him to go "No! Look! Just come over here and take a gander! We totally did it and we've proven you're wrong!" but nope, nothing happens.
 
You talk down The Illusive Man. But you cannot talk down this Godchild. The fact that he tells you, straight up, that he controls the Reapers should be more than enough to allow you to talk him down. He is an artificial intelligence after all, it's not like he doesn't know how to talk past a certain point. Whereas EDI was inside of the Normandy, Godchild is inside of the Reapers. But nothing happens.
 
The whole point of the Geth and bringing peace to them is how Legion sacrifices himself to remove the collective intelligence and give them their own independence. Not to mention the Reapers actually gave them whatever crazy code they gave them that created actual synthetic life. No longer are they just programs running on multiple platforms, they are their own people.
 
That changes the entire argument of Synthetics Vs Organics. The kid says that in time, maybe someone will create a synthetic so powerful that it decides to destroy all synthetic life, but that's exactly what the Reapers are doing. The fallacy in everything he said should have been enough for Shepard to get ghetto on his ass and point out the fact that synthetics are intelligent enough to value organic AND synthetic life(With them deciding to force the Quarians off of Rannoch so they wouldn't have to kill them, as a point), and that the likelihood of that omnipotent organic killer is almost zero, and that after the Reaper threat, it'll most likely go back to good ol' fashioned organics vs organics, after an extended period of rebuilding for all sides. But there is no back and forth. The only time that talking to something in a Mass Effect game matters, you get nothing. That's my beef.
#18 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@TheHT said:

It's not the game that says so, it's the Catalyst.

The Catalyst doesn't know. It was created with a very specific purpose in mind, and everything it does and says is centered around that purpose. It tells you synthetics and organics cannot live in peace because that was presupposed in its design, in its purpose; it believes they cannot.

Shepard acknowledges that the Catalyst may be wrong about synthetics and organics.

Well said. Though, I was saying that the Catalyst is itself a creature. But by the way of your thinking the Catalyst could just be a creation that represents the knowledge and understanding that the one who created it possessed. That is a better explanation, but essentially the same.

#19 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@N7: You are missing the point. The "child" was created by something with power enough to create the reapers. This life form assumes it knows that synthetic life will always conquer organic life. You are assuming that means they cannot or will not be at peace with each other, but there is a difference. Even though the Geth are now peaceful, it is not crazy to believe that they could survive more extreme conditions than organics, making them at a further evolutionary state, which gives them the potential to survive when no other organic can. This means that synthetics will essentially conquer or outlast any organic.

The choice to disregard what the Catalyst says is to control. You control the reapers and they are no longer at war with organics, and synthetics are still alive. This way everything is still as it should be if you think the Catalyst is wrong, the only difference is the Catalyst is counting on the power of the reapers being enough if it turns out it is actually correct about synthetic life.

#20 Posted by TheHT (10933 posts) -

@N7 said:

@TheHT: At that point it doesn't really matter if Shepard acknowledges if the Catalyst might be(And totally is) wrong, you don't get to pursue that at all. I was, at any moment, waiting for him to go "No! Look! Just come over here and take a gander! We totally did it and we've proven you're wrong!" but nope, nothing happens.

You talk down The Illusive Man. But you cannot talk down this Godchild. The fact that he tells you, straight up, that he controls the Reapers should be more than enough to allow you to talk him down. He is an artificial intelligence after all, it's not like he doesn't know how to talk past a certain point. Whereas EDI was inside of the Normandy, Godchild is inside of the Reapers. But nothing happens.

The whole point of the Geth and bringing peace to them is how Legion sacrifices himself to remove the collective intelligence and give them their own independence. Not to mention the Reapers actually gave them whatever crazy code they gave them that created actual synthetic life. No longer are they just programs running on multiple platforms, they are their own people.

That changes the entire argument of Synthetics Vs Organics. The kid says that in time, maybe someone will create a synthetic so powerful that it decides to destroy all synthetic life, but that's exactly what the Reapers are doing. The fallacy in everything he said should have been enough for Shepard to get ghetto on his ass and point out the fact that synthetics are intelligent enough to value organic AND synthetic life(With them deciding to force the Quarians off of Rannoch so they wouldn't have to kill them, as a point), and that the likelihood of that omnipotent organic killer is almost zero, and that after the Reaper threat, it'll most likely go back to good ol' fashioned organics vs organics, after an extended period of rebuilding for all sides. But there is no back and forth. The only time that talking to something in a Mass Effect game matters, you get nothing. That's my beef.

It matters in so far as it takes away from people thinking the Catalyst is infallible (though it evidently failed at that).

Anyways, there are dialogue choices at the end. Only a few, but I don't see how any more would result in Shepard talking down the Catalyst, or anything meaningful at all (beyond insight into the Catalyst and its creators, etc.), especially since we don't know what sort of AI it is. The reason it's so transfixed on the organic vs. synthetic problem could be that it's shackled like EDI was, and is unable to evolve itself, so to speak.

Legion uploaded the Reaper codes to the geth collective to share its upgrades. yes. The Reapers upgraded the geth when the came running from the quarians. The Reapers view the geth as tools, their usefullness to their cause limited.

The Reapers are harvesting all organic life capable of creating synthetics to prevent them from doing so, becase their creations could rise up and destroy all organics (and the Catalyst believes this will always be the case, eventually). That doesn't imply that the synthetic creations will go all red light on and massacre everything immediately. The geth rose up during the attempted purge, and rose up again when the quarians resumed hostilities. Both were defensive and the first was definitely a rebellion against organics.

While the synthetics may initially be capable of peace, the actions of their creators can easily twist that. And from that misstep by the organics could come the ultimate destruction of all organics. It's not difficult to imagine a galaxy without Shepard, where the quarians continued to fight and the geth, with the ire of all organic races against AIs, eventually having to defend themselves to the point that destroying all organic life is an ultimate solution.

The AI, by eliminating all organics that are capable of creating synthetics, and allowing for younger organics to evolve and flourish until they reach this arbitrary apex, is a fixed system that is designed to avoid the hypothetical (and I'm sure the Cataylse would say inevitable) ultimate solution. So the geth example likely wouldn't do any good in dissuading it.

#21 Posted by N7 (3574 posts) -
@TheHT: But the entire point is that these are synthetics, yes, but they are new synthetics. They are upgraded to think for themselves, they are networked still, of course, but their actions are their own. To compare the post-war Geth to the mid-war Geth is night and day. Even beforehand, they were able to comprehend what was going on, and didn't want to die, so they fought back. That's when they were all under the same mind. It is closed-minded and completely irrational to assume that one day they will rise up again, because they won't. That was the point, you took a chance on them and gave them independence, and the next time a war breaks out between the Geth and anyone else, it won't be an all-or-nothing type deal like it was before. That's like saying during Mass Effect 2, when you attack the Blue Suns, they should alllllll hate Shepard, no matter what. But wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense, why would they all hate Shepard? Certainly they aren't all going to attempt to kill him for attacking their base, right? That's completely correct. Attacking a singular Blue Sun will not enrage and send them all after you in total death squad formation.
 
That is the entire point of Legion sacrificing himself. He was proving a point that the Geth are individuals now, networked together like all robots will be, but given a unique identity to ensure that they are in fact individual. It makes no sense and is down right wrong to say that one day they will all rise up together and wage wars MAYBE, because look at Mass Effect 2. Legion said it himself, the heretics moved away from the rest of the group and then they changed. They thought differently and they wanted different things. So when you take into account the fact that now all Geth are out for themselves as an individual and not a collective, they will begin to form new opinions and different stances on literally anything and everything. Individual logic, reason, understanding, the Geth are all capable of this now. To say that war with them or any other intelligent synthetic life forms is inevitable, therefore killing one kills the other, is no different from saying "Look at organics. They have been at war with each other for as long as they've been intelligent. War with them is inevitable." Of course! But going to war with one faction is not the same as damning an entire race to death. There's no logic in that! There's no reason! It's just an ultimate doomsday theory that can never be proven, meanwhile what we do know is the Reapers are out there killing everyone they get their hands on, and turning them into abominations! If THAT is our salvation, then count me out. There is no logic in it. There is no reason or understanding, and they are so full of contradiction that me and THOUSANDS of other fans are beating their heads against a wall trying to understand it, and so far we can't. It ignores everything about the series in such a way that undermines everything not only that WE have done, but everything we've seen and read as well. It goes against it all, says it's wrong and expects us to eat it up.
#22 Posted by thatguyfosho (69 posts) -

Here you go.

#23 Posted by Gamer_152 (14058 posts) -

I agree with a lot of other people in this thread. We've been trying to crack down on duplicate Mass Effect 3 ending topics and there's already a ton of text on these boards talking about why the ending doesn't work. I'm locking this up.

Moderator
#24 Posted by PixelPrinny (1030 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

Um... why do we need another one of these threads?

Because no one wants to simply add their voice to the countless threads that already exist, apparently. Their opinions are so important that they must be heard!!1one

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.