kadayi

@Hizang said:

Mass Effect 3 will be on my GOTY list, but it won't be 1st.

You don't win silver, you lose gold.

@Veektarius said:

@Kadayi: I think you might be taking it a little too far... the Reapers' actions in ME1 were perfectly coherent with their explained motives in ME3, because ME1 revolved entirely around their intention to sneak attack the Citadel. There were a few things that weren't coherent about ME2, including that throwaway remark that the collector ship had enough pods to 'harvest earth'. Did they have more ships to take out the entire alliance fleet, or were they planning on using just the one...? At any rate, the 'terminator baby' was stupid, especially given that they did not incorporate this concept of using multiple races as reapers even as early as the final cinematic of ME2, when you see them flying in from the edge of the galaxy.

Oh, but here's another question about the reapers. Why did the Citadel go unharmed throughout ME3? It's not as if the reapers didn't know about it. They apparently don't have any trouble taking it over when they decide they need to keep the catalyst out of human hands.

In truth I don't think it was ever necessary to try and explain the reapers motives, and in attempting to do so in ME3 kind of undermined them Vs the unfathomable nature speech given by Sovereign in ME1: -

It would of been perfectly acceptable to continue to paint the reapers out like the Lovecraftian horrors that that speech implies, and concentrated the games simply on the outline of stopping them from repeating the cycle. Much like we didn't need midichlorians, we didn't need the BS that passed for motive in ME3 either.

@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.

@Veektarius said:

@ThunderSlash: Thanks. Seems inefficient though, like building a robot to pilot a mech.

Let's face it the worst part of ME2 was the stupid big robot terminator fight at the end. There really didn't seem a great deal of logic to it given all the reapers we'd seen up to then looked exactly alike, and the notion that they're then encased in the cuttlefish bodies makes even less sense as an idea.

I don't think Bioware did a particularly good job in fleshing out the Reapers in terms of what they are, and who they are when they came up with ME1 (because they didn't need to) and they never really addressed the question in ME2 Vs creating a motive for Shepard to go after them (Humanity is under attack Shepard..do something!!). They left it ME3 to get their minds around the Reapers motives, but really didn't come up with anything bullet proof to justify their previous actions.

@RetroMetal said:

My take,

It's just a video game, as much as I love them, I'd never let this kind of thing bother me.

I guess the most I can offer is, the fact that all the promises about how you will ultimately shape the outcome of the trilogy didn't matter at all in the end is a shitty thing to do to the players.

But it's a fucking game.

Last time I checked this was the Mass Effect 3 sub forum, so I'm pretty sure we're all aware that 'it's a fucking game'. However some people (myself included) like to discuss it because consider it an interesting topic. In the same way that some people like to discuss politics, or TV shows, or Ballet. As far as I'm aware we're not running out of internet space anytime so I'm not really seeing why it's seemingly a crime to talk about it in truth.

@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.

@MikeGosot said:

Hey, bro. I bet you have heard about the fan reaction to Mass Effect 3. Do you think after that the industry is going to treat us like adults? I mean, we still have some games like Catherine and The Walking Dead but holy shit, we're certainly not helping our image.

Stoner much?

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). DA2 didn't go across well, TOR turned into a money pit for EA and ME3 got lambasted by the fans all on their watch. You think EA upper management have much confidence in them to continue to steer the Bioware ship? Maybe they did elect to leave, however I'm skeptical about it. As regards the 'lots of money thing' one things that's generally noticable about rich people, is they like making more money.

@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.

@feliciano182 said:

There is no inherent rule carved on a stone that says you can't introduce a new character at the final moments of a story.

First, you're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to dislike such a thing, but to firmly argue, to pretend that this is somehow basic "101 story-telling" is nothing short of delusional; it is even worse when you're wrong, there's preamble to The Catalyst, the writers simply meant for it to be a twist that this particular "thing" The Crucible required was a highly advanced artificial intelligence (a crucial element of the ending that many people have yet to understand).

etc, etc

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'.