Brad Thinks He Knows the Ending to Mass Effect 3

Why is Shaq on the wall behind Brad?

@Icaria said:

@courage_wolf: I'm not sure how you resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict but that was one of the most poignant moments in any medium for me. Likewise losing Mordin. It was because ME3 included moments like those that it's impossible to hate it all just because of the ill-conceived ending. In the end, the greater tragedy is that I'll probably never get to have any new adventures with those characters. Real-life elevator rides just don't compare.

I completely agree with this. ME3 had some of the best moments I've ever experienced in gaming, Mordin's end being perhaps the best. And so the disappointing wrap up never had the effect on me that it did on others. I love the game. It's one of the best of this gen, even with the lackluster final moment. I refuse to judge ME3 based on the last fifteen minutes of the game while ignoring how many fantastic storytelling moments passed in the hours before. It was an ambitious project, and eventually they ran out of steam. But they took us to some fantastic moments along the way. I give them full credit for it.

@Zuldim said:

I don't think it's possible to "guess" the ending to ME3, since the things which made everyone so upset come right out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing.

That said, I haven't played Leviathan, so maybe that has something in it that foreshadows the ending. I dunno.

I know two people who predicted the ending pretty much as it was, that is, that the Citadel was in some sense the operating intelligence behind the cycle of exterminations. They argued that because it was the only thing that persisted between cycles and because it was the means by which the Reapers were to enter the galaxy, that it was the only thing that made sense. I argued that they already did that in game one, with having the Citadel be the endgame. As it turned out, I was wrong and they were right.

Maybe their prediction is why I didn't take the ending as being out of left field like some people did. Once we were back on the Citadel at the end, I knew both of my friends had gotten it right. It wasn't a huge surprise to me.

@haggis said:

@Icaria said:

@courage_wolf: I'm not sure how you resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict but that was one of the most poignant moments in any medium for me. Likewise losing Mordin. It was because ME3 included moments like those that it's impossible to hate it all just because of the ill-conceived ending. In the end, the greater tragedy is that I'll probably never get to have any new adventures with those characters. Real-life elevator rides just don't compare.

I completely agree with this. ME3 had some of the best moments I've ever experienced in gaming, Mordin's end being perhaps the best. And so the disappointing wrap up never had the effect on me that it did on others. I love the game. It's one of the best of this gen, even with the lackluster final moment. I refuse to judge ME3 based on the last fifteen minutes of the game while ignoring how many fantastic storytelling moments passed in the hours before. It was an ambitious project, and eventually they ran out of steam. But they took us to some fantastic moments along the way. I give them full credit for it.

Absolutely correct. But, I really liked the endings. I'm probably one of the few :) It all seemed to make total sense to me.

@Saltank said:

@haggis said:

@Icaria said:

@courage_wolf: I'm not sure how you resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict but that was one of the most poignant moments in any medium for me. Likewise losing Mordin. It was because ME3 included moments like those that it's impossible to hate it all just because of the ill-conceived ending. In the end, the greater tragedy is that I'll probably never get to have any new adventures with those characters. Real-life elevator rides just don't compare.

I completely agree with this. ME3 had some of the best moments I've ever experienced in gaming, Mordin's end being perhaps the best. And so the disappointing wrap up never had the effect on me that it did on others. I love the game. It's one of the best of this gen, even with the lackluster final moment. I refuse to judge ME3 based on the last fifteen minutes of the game while ignoring how many fantastic storytelling moments passed in the hours before. It was an ambitious project, and eventually they ran out of steam. But they took us to some fantastic moments along the way. I give them full credit for it.

Absolutely correct. But, I really liked the endings. I'm probably one of the few :) It all seemed to make total sense to me.

My problem with the conclusion was with the neatly wrapped up endings for characters, not the actual plot points--which, despite the criticisms leveled at it, make complete sense. Thematically, I loved the ending. But it did feel like it was missing a final punch.

People keep complaining about a deus ex machina at the end, but aside from the literal "god in the machine" (which was what the series was about, in part), there was nothing out-of-left-field about the ending. I mean, seriously--it's called the Citadel. It's very name tells us its purpose is to defend. A twisted manner of defending life, of course, but one can hardly argue that it didn't work. And some still seem to not understand that the star child was just a form the Citadel AI took to communicate with (and manipulate?) Shepard.

But this is a losing argument. People didn't feel emotional resonance with the ending, however appropriate the thematic elements were. That alone says the ending could have been more effective. But I still think people are complaining about the wrong things when it comes to ME3's ending. I thought it was brilliant, but flawed in execution.

@haggis: I mean, seriously--it's called the Citadel. It's very name tells us its purpose is to defend. A twisted manner of defending life, of course

And you were doing so well! Why did you have to go and ruin it by bringing liberal literary analysis in to the discussion? ;_;

@Icaria said:

@haggis: I mean, seriously--it's called the Citadel. It's very name tells us its purpose is to defend. A twisted manner of defending life, of course

And you were doing so well! Why did you have to go and ruin it by bringing liberal literary analysis in to the discussion? ;_;

Liberal literary analysis? It's like going to Death of a Salesman and being surprised when the salesman ... dies. Clearly some things were so obvious that no one (or, at least, not many) actually saw what was coming. The two guys I know who somewhat predicted the ending of the game are both PhDs in English Lit, though, so maybe ...

@haggis said:

@Icaria said:

@haggis: I mean, seriously--it's called the Citadel. It's very name tells us its purpose is to defend. A twisted manner of defending life, of course

And you were doing so well! Why did you have to go and ruin it by bringing liberal literary analysis in to the discussion? ;_;

Liberal literary analysis? It's like going to Death of a Salesman and being surprised when the salesman ... dies. Clearly some things were so obvious that no one (or, at least, not many) actually saw what was coming. The two guys I know who somewhat predicted the ending of the game are both PhDs in English Lit, though, so maybe ...

I'm going to be a pedant here but you've hit upon something I've loathed since high school. The fact that it's called 'the citadel' can be interpreted in any number of ways. It could simply be the result of the writers needing a name and thinking it sounded cool. It could be the various races of the ME universe, in this cycle or one previous, purposing it as such (it is the seat of power in the ME universe, after all).

If it were actually called 'a twisted manner of defending life', you might have a point but, as it stands, that's a huge stretch. There's nothing obvious or exclusive about your interpretation.

@Icaria said:

If it were actually called 'a twisted manner of defending life', you might have a point but, as it stands, that's a huge stretch. There's nothing obvious or exclusive about your interpretation.

That doesn't make sense, though. It might make sense if we were naming it "a twisted manner of defending life" (sounds like something out of an Iain Banks novel, to be honest), but if the AI were naming itself (which it likely did) it wouldn't think of its goal as twisted, would it? It would see its goal as authentic, hence, "Citadel." And as such, I think the interpretation is obvious--but it's a minor point.

The name choice could have been any of the things you mentioned (chance, etc.) but the fact that it parallels the purpose of the Catalyst so perfectly in the endgame suggests that it was something the writers had in mind from the beginning. Now, did they know exsctly what it was when they named it? No, but names shape things. I think the name was probably chosen because it sounded cool, but then later the chosen name suggested a future path for the story which the later writers capitalized on. That's how writing works, by the way--it's iterative. You write. You find niches of meaning and you develop them. Ideas are rarely fully formed when they're put down in their first forms.

It's something that high school students find faintly ludicrous when they read literature (I did as well), but the more you study literature (one of my undergraduate degrees is in literature) and the more you write, the more likely (even certain) you become that these things aren't incidental, but planned.

End lecture. :)

Going way off topic, here but...

@haggis said:

It's something that high school students find faintly ludicrous when they read literature (I did as well), but the more you study literature (one of my undergraduate degrees is in literature) and the more you write, the more likely (even certain) you become that these things aren't incidental, but planned.

Except it's not even faintly ludicrous. Apply exactly your logic, as above, to any other subject matter (the broad presumption, the entirely unfounded 'certainty') and you'd be called out for talking out of your arse. Hell, if I were to apply your argumentation to anything the least bit less frivolous than writing, I'd be quite rightly ignored, dismissed, even ridiculed. You're taking ambiguous data and you're constructing a narrative from it by means of projection, cherry picking and implied premises.

Anyway, OT; I'm done.

@Icaria said:

Going way off topic, here but...

@haggis said:

It's something that high school students find faintly ludicrous when they read literature (I did as well), but the more you study literature (one of my undergraduate degrees is in literature) and the more you write, the more likely (even certain) you become that these things aren't incidental, but planned.

Except it's not even faintly ludicrous. Apply exactly your logic, as above, to any other subject matter (the broad presumption, the entirely unfounded 'certainty') and you'd be called out for talking out of your arse. Hell, if I were to apply your argumentation to anything the least bit less frivolous than writing, I'd be quite rightly ignored, dismissed, even ridiculed. You're taking ambiguous data and you're constructing a narrative from it by means of projection, cherry picking and implied premises.

Anyway, OT; I'm done.

I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over this. All I did was point out that the name of the Citadel lines up with the AI's self-understanding of its purpose. Writers do that sort of thing all the time, you know. It's called foreshadowing. Sometimes its actively planned, sometimes it's merely serendipitous--a detail chosen for no particular reason becomes the germ of an idea that grows over time. That's how writing fiction works.

The name of the Citadel isn't ambiguous data, after all, and it's hardly cherry picked. And I'm not constructing a narrative--this is all straight from the end of the game. I honestly have no idea why you've suddenly decided to rage quit. This is all hardly worth getting worked up about.

@haggis: And with that piece of misdirection and framing, coupled with your earlier sophistry, I dare say you lose the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not you're engaging in good faith. Internet debates: serious business.

@Icaria said:

@haggis: And with that piece of misdirection and framing, coupled with your earlier sophistry, I dare say you lose the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not you're engaging in good faith. Internet debates: serious business.

I'm arguing in good faith. What misdirection are you talking about? What sophistry? Again, all I did was point out that the name of the Citadel lines up with the AI's self-understanding of its purpose, and you've gone off the deep end. If anything, this comment of yours shows far less good faith than my arguments. I'm a writer by trade--I'm merely commenting on how these sorts of ideas come about. There's no lie, no misdirection. I really have no clue why you're pissed off. If you would tell me, maybe I could clear up the miscommunication.

@haggis: Okay, pedantry time... again. I'm not terribly familiar with GB's CMS and this WYSIWYG editor hates me so I'm going to forego a lot of formatting headaches and just plain text quote.

"What misdirection are you talking about?"

To begin:

"The name of the Citadel isn't ambiguous data, after all, and it's hardly cherry picked."

That's nothing less than begging the question and a strawman argument, respectively. The name of the citadel IS ambiguous, that's a major fucking contention! You're replying with little more than bare assertion. You know damn well that you picked one possible interpretation to the exclusion of the others, as I pointed out to you in my first reply; that is the cherry picking, not the choice of subject.

As for earlier misdirection, I direct you to your reply to this statement:

"If it were actually called 'a twisted manner of defending life', you might have a point but, as it stands, that's a huge stretch. There's nothing obvious or exclusive about your interpretation."

That first sentence is about the most blatant sarcasm I could muster, yet you devote the first paragraph of your reply to addressing it as a literal suggestion:

"That doesn't make sense, though. It might make sense if we were naming it "a twisted manner of defending life" (sounds like something out of an Iain Banks novel, to be honest), but if the AI were naming itself (which it likely did) it wouldn't think of its goal as twisted, would it? It would see its goal as authentic, hence, "Citadel." And as such, I think the interpretation is obvious--but it's a minor point."

Again, a strawman argument.

Never mind your attempts to institute a bias and possibly provoke me:

"you've gone off the deep end"

"If anything, this comment of yours shows far less good faith than my arguments."

"I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over this."

"I honestly have no idea why you've suddenly decided to rage quit. This is all hardly worth getting worked up about."

QED, engaging in bad faith. I've been stressing since we ended up on this tangent that it is pedantic and a minor point. Hell, I've even tried to drop the issue, yet you responses grow seedier. How many replies are we from dropping the pretence and direct accusations of 'u mad, bro'? Hell, I think we're already there (sans the illiteracy du jour).

P.S. NOW I'm pissed off. If you think these dissections of a debate are tedious to read, try writing one.

P.P.S. In case it isn't clear, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, just how you've arrived at it. Professions of certainty ill-befitting such wild leaps of logic aren't helping, either. This is the fundamental problem with this convention in English education: encouraging fanciful thinking, motivated reasoning, 'self-confidence' (generally indistinguishable from arrogance), and generally discouraging critical thinking. Again, way off topic.

@Icaria said:

@haggis: Okay, pedantry time... again. I'm not terribly familiar with GB's CMS and this WYSIWYG editor hates me so I'm going to forego a lot of formatting headaches and just plain text quote.

"What misdirection are you talking about?"

To begin:

"The name of the Citadel isn't ambiguous data, after all, and it's hardly cherry picked."

That's nothing less than begging the question and a strawman argument, respectively. The name of the citadel IS ambiguous, that's a major fucking contention! You're replying with little more than bare assertion. You know damn well that you picked one possible interpretation to the exclusion of the others, as I pointed out to you in my first reply; that is the cherry picking, not the choice of subject.

As for earlier misdirection, I direct you to your reply to this statement:

"If it were actually called 'a twisted manner of defending life', you might have a point but, as it stands, that's a huge stretch. There's nothing obvious or exclusive about your interpretation."

That first sentence is about the most blatant sarcasm I could muster, yet you devote the first paragraph of your reply to addressing it as a literal suggestion:

"That doesn't make sense, though. It might make sense if we were naming it "a twisted manner of defending life" (sounds like something out of an Iain Banks novel, to be honest), but if the AI were naming itself (which it likely did) it wouldn't think of its goal as twisted, would it? It would see its goal as authentic, hence, "Citadel." And as such, I think the interpretation is obvious--but it's a minor point."

Again, a strawman argument.

Never mind your attempts to institute a bias and possibly provoke me:

"you've gone off the deep end"

"If anything, this comment of yours shows far less good faith than my arguments."

"I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over this."

"I honestly have no idea why you've suddenly decided to rage quit. This is all hardly worth getting worked up about."

QED, engaging in bad faith. I've been stressing since we ended up on this tangent that it is pedantic and a minor point. Hell, I've even tried to drop the issue, yet you responses grow seedier. How many replies are we from dropping the pretence and direct accusations of 'u mad, bro'? Hell, I think we're already there (sans the illiteracy du jour).

P.S. NOW I'm pissed off. If you think these dissections of a debate are tedious to read, try writing one.

P.P.S. In case it isn't clear, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, just how you've arrived at it. Professions of certainty ill-befitting such wild leaps of logic aren't helping, either. This is the fundamental problem with this convention in English education: encouraging fanciful thinking, motivated reasoning, 'self-confidence' (generally indistinguishable from arrogance), and generally discouraging critical thinking. Again, way off topic.

Unless the name of the station isn't "the Citadel" it's not ambiguous. As to the meaning, I admitted right at the beginning that my interpretation wasn't exclusive, and that other interpretations applied. I stand by the argument I made about the AI being authentic in its naming. Your sarcasm must have been lost on me--on principle, I take people's words at face value. Should I apologize for taking you seriously?

As for bias and provocation: you were the first to suggest arguing in bad faith, not me. Neither do I remember saying you've "gone off the deep end" (I can't even find that comment in the thread, and I looked). As to being bent out of shape, you clearly are, and you did threaten to quit the conversation over this. It was sudden enough (I thought the conversation was tense but interesting) that it surprised me. Obviously we were arguing from different perspectives on the conversation and I didn't read you right. For that, I apologize. But it wasn't me that was initially provocative.

I see no point where you tried to drop the matter, either. Which is why I thought the argument was fine. You kept responding, which I read as an attempt to make progress. But I'll disengage now, because clearly this argument isn't going anywhere.

@haggis: Going to make this one really brief.

"Unless the name of the station isn't "the Citadel" it's not ambiguous. As to the meaning..."

"Should I apologize for taking you seriously?"

"As for bias and provocation: you were the first to suggest arguing in bad faith, not me."

Cute. Ever considered running for office? Such facile and disingenuous responses seem to come easily to you. NOW you can accuse me of acting in bad faith.

"Neither do I remember saying you've "gone off the deep end" (I can't even find that comment in the thread, and I looked)."

ctrl+f. Your very last reply.

" As to being bent out of shape, you clearly are, and you did threaten to quit the conversation over this."

"I see no point where you tried to drop the matter, either."

Do you two want to be left alone? I can come back once you've figured out what you're arguing. Note: this is also sarcasm.

@Icaria said:

@haggis: Going to make this one really brief.

"Unless the name of the station isn't "the Citadel" it's not ambiguous. As to the meaning..."

"Should I apologize for taking you seriously?"

"As for bias and provocation: you were the first to suggest arguing in bad faith, not me."

Cute. Ever considered running for office? Such facile and disingenuous responses seem to come easily to you. NOW you can accuse me of acting in bad faith.

"Neither do I remember saying you've "gone off the deep end" (I can't even find that comment in the thread, and I looked)."

ctrl+f. Your very last reply.

" As to being bent out of shape, you clearly are, and you did threaten to quit the conversation over this."

"I see no point where you tried to drop the matter, either."

Do you two want to be left alone? I can come back once you've figured out what you're arguing. Note: this is also sarcasm.

Yeah ... I'm not being disingenuous. You did make the accusation of bad faith first.

You while you said you tried to drop the matter you came backand kept arguing. So, who's being crazy here? If you're going to leave the conversation, go ahead. I'm not holding a gun to your head. I take you seriously, you get pissed. I don't, you get pissed. I've been honest the whole time, despite all the things you're reading into my comments.

EDIT: You know what, I'm done. Accusations of bad faith aside, I was being serious in my arguments. It's too bad we had this miscommunication, even though I still have no idea what it was all about.

@haggis: You keep repeating that same argument, perhaps you do actually believe it. Sorry but 'he who smelled it dealt it' doesn't work past third grade.

And you're right, I'm an idiot. You successfully provoked me and I let this tedious bullshit go on and on. I usually know better than to waste my breath on dishonest people. Still, that attempt to deflect the contradiction is even clumsier than your previous attempts to divert the issue. For someone who relies so heavily on rhetoric, you're not very good as it.

@Icaria said:

@haggis: You keep repeating that same argument, perhaps you do actually believe it. Sorry but 'he who smelled it dealt it' doesn't work past third grade.

And you're right, I'm an idiot. You successfully provoked me and I let this tedious bullshit go on and on. I usually know better than to waste my breath on dishonest people. Still, that attempt to deflect the contradiction is even clumsier than your previous attempts to divert the issue. For someone who relies so heavily on rhetoric, you're not very good as it.

I do believe it. And most of the rest of this comment makes no sense. I still have no idea what provoked you. And the real contradiction was you saying you were going to leave, and then coming back. If you wanted to end the conversation, you would have. Later.

So what did Brad write?

@Minion101: If you are still wondering, the answer is in this video: http://www.giantbomb.com/i-love-mondays-12102012/17-6880/

@icaria: Well, you certainly have issues.

@legion_: Tell me about it. Between having to share the planet with pissants that use motivated reasoning to justify motivated reasoning and people necroing 18 month old threads with youtube-quality, single-sentence replies, I count at least two issues right there.

@icaria: So much anger. Are you alright?

http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/i-love-mondays-12102012/2300-6880/

Followup video.

Brad was mostly right, and it was still his GOTY.