That being said, you still have time to do a trilogy run. Which you should do, because it's a super awesome trilogy of games.
I don't have time to finish much of anything these days. Working on finishing the Last of Us . . . still waiting for it to stop being a movie and turn into a game.
That being said, you still have time to do a trilogy run. Which you should do, because it's a super awesome trilogy of games.
I don't have time to finish much of anything these days. Working on finishing the Last of Us . . . still waiting for it to stop being a movie and turn into a game.
It never stops being entirely story focused and story driven. Playing on Hard or Grounded does make it more game like, though.
The Andromeda crew leaves the Milky Way like between ME2 and ME3 timeframe and they arrive in Andromeda like 600 years later, so you'll probably see some shoutouts to ME1 stuff here and there to make the diehard fans feel good, but this is basically supposed to be a clean slate story-wise.
Are you sure? One of those previews made it look like things went horribly wrong with a decent idea, and just has cerberus written all over it.
0
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
I was wondering if there might be a chance of bumping into Liara or Grunt in Andromeda, since Krogan and Asari as supposedly so long-lived. I think Wrex was probably too old when you meet him in ME1 to have lived for another 600 years.
But I guess if they left for a distant galaxy before the events of the third game even took place the chances are nil.
I was wondering if there might be a chance of bumping into Liara or Grunt in Andromeda, since Krogan and Asari as supposedly so long-lived. I think Wrex was probably too old when you meet him in ME1 to have lived for another 600 years.
But I guess if they left for a distant galaxy before the events of the third game even took place the chances are nil.
I doubt it. I could see some little background/Easter Egg stuff. References in documents, snippets of conversations, but likely leaning towards the subtle rather than the overt.
They explicitly said that Shepard's story was over, I'm guessing they probably aren't going to rub our noses in it with too many blatant ties to the original trilogy, as much as I might want them to. I figure that likely includes the supporting cast.
As least we have the setting (races, gear, vehicles, etc) for primary ties back to the familiar.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
After seeing the discussion turn back to the ending of ME3 for a while there, I realized that as much as I thought about the strengths and weaknesses as the original ending (extended cut included,) I never really considered what would have been a better alternative, let alone my ideal ending. Well, after a couple of dull days at work, I think I worked out an answer! Will you be willing to endure one more ending rant? Because, you know, I'm going to post it anyway. Spoiled for length (and well, actual spoilers, not that they matter at this point.)
Let's start by addressing the motivation for the Reapers. The problem with the organic/artificial justification isn’t that it’s cliché. As they say, nothing original is in the world, all that matters is how the story’s told. And the problem isn’t that the Reapers’ argument makes no sense in the context of the EDI or following a Quarian/Geth truce. After all, the Reapers’ are creatures of programming, so they don’t really have to make sense. An AI warping it programming to act against its creator’s intentions is a classic science fiction trope. No, the problem is that the o/a conflict isn't central to the theme of Mass Effect, so making it as the basis for the main adversary just doesn't work narratively.
Now, before we move on, I understand why they gave us some sort of motivation for the Reapers. I've heard people say they would have preferred the “happy” ending of the trilogy, meaning basically the “Destroy” ending without the Star Child and his exposition and the consequences of Destroy, like the destruction EDI and the Geth and Sheppard’s apparent death. Sure, I can see the appeal in contrast to the ending we got, but if we got that ending in a vacuum, I think people would be up in arms about it as well. No answers, no resolution to the character arcs, no difference based on all the choices the player made? That would be awful.
Granted, there was always a predicament built into the Mass Effect story because of the Reapers. They’re a Cthonic threat, scary because they are unknowable, but they’re presented in a space-opera science fiction story, which comes with the expectation that mysteries will be explained and problems will be solved. So something was going to have to give sooner or later in the series. But Bioware played their hand early here. Any chance of the Reapers staying a mystery came to an end with the first game’s ending and the destruction of Sovereign. Now it’s demonstrated that Reapers are not invincible forces of nature. The threat has changed, and the problem is no longer “how do we stop the unstoppable?” It became a problem of logistics. In light of this, leaving the Reapers a mystery would have been unsatisfying. You spend three games turning your enemies from gods to very much mortal instruments, and mortal enemies require explanation.
So if we accept that a resolution is needed beyond a Bay-esque explosion, the problem with the Reaper’s motivation as written is that it doesn’t relate to the central premise of the series. Which leads to the obvious question: what is the central premise of the series? What makes it special as a setting, an RPG, and a game in general? In my opinion, the main theme is this: choice.
Now, one can argue that choice is a theme of every Western RPG, and that’s probably true. But think back to when Mass Effect came out, before Skyrim, the new Fallouts, or Dragon Age. Western RPGs were still a niche, supported by existing franchises like Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons and enjoyed more by computer hobbyists who remember the original Fallouts. There was Oblivion and the Fables, but nothing that was intended for mainstream consumption the way Mass Effect was, and certainly not in its sub-genre. In Mass Effect, you make three meaningful choices before your character says a word of dialogue. The game doesn’t start you right in the action, it starts with you talking to a ship full of crewmembers and potential allies. This is a series that has always defined itself by Sheppard’s story and the choices they make, so it makes sense that the Reapers would be the antithesis of that.
Here’s how I see it playing out. The Reapers were once a benevolent AI, a general “improve lives” system. But as it and society advanced, it became increasingly stymied in their attempts to improve the lot of their people because the people kept on choosing poorly. War instead of peace, selfishness instead of altruism, recklessness instead of care. In the end, either society was on the brink of destroying itself, or the first Reaper rose up to take action before that could happen. It went to war with organic life, not to destroy it but to save it from itself. In the end, the Reaper proved itself victorious, and so it followed its programming to the logical end. It took the remains of its people and merged them into the Reaper itself. To the Reaper, it was an ideal being. The best traits of a machine and the biology of its creators, a unified mind of its civilization (with itself in charge, of course,) a preserver of all of its culture, and most importantly, no more choice. Choice was the enemy, after all. If there was only one right answer to any decision, choice merely got in the way.
Reaper One (Harbinger from now one,) was content in its nature, until it noticed something curious: more civilizations had evolved and made the leap to space. Harbinger observed them, unsure if its programming extended to other species beyond its creators. But as it saw new civilizations inevitably make the same mistake its creators did, it realized it had no choice but to continue the reaping, making a new one of its kind for every failed society it came across. Over the eons, it simplified the process, having accepting the end fate of any civilization as inevitable. They would flock to the Citadel, fall apart in the Reapers’ eyes, and be consumed. Repeat. The Reapers see their actions as the ultimate in kindness; helping those who can’t help themselves make the final step to perfection before they commit mass suicide. That’s why they don’t exterminate all biological life or wipe out primitive civilizations; because they’re not ready to be preserved in eternity. And maybe, just maybe, the Reapers want to be proven wrong.
In this context, “indoctrination” is something so much simpler to understand. To the Reapers, it is acceptance. In the presence of a Reaper, all argument fails. Any choice is irrelevant, not when the final ending is both a definite and positive thing. Those little, increasingly frantic voices in the head are extinguished by the gentle surety of the wiser being in their presence.
Given all this, the role of the Crucible and the game’s ending changes. It’s not a super-weapon, nor a mere McGuffin to fix the universe. It is instead a way to bypass the Reaper’s programming and communicate with them directly. In this scenario, two possible endings (Destroy and Control) are presented by Anderson and TiM directly, with no confusing color co-ordination. But when confronting Harbinger, which takes several different forms over the encounter, multiple options come into play. Instead of a boss fight, it’s a final boss ARGUMENT. You see some of this in the extended cut ending, when you can sometimes refute the Star Child’s claims, prompting it to get angry and insist it’s right. Your arguments are based on the actions you took: a Shepard that spares the Rachni or reached a truce between the Quarians and Geth will have different options than one who focused on violence. Paragon and Renegade levels won’t be part of this argument, but they do contribute to interrupts you can make at points to extend the argument, giving you more time to convince Harbinger. And if you fail the argument, or if at any time you say “fuck it” and stop arguing, you can attempt the Destroy or Control endings, but you have to fight Harbinger’s attempts to stop you, and the consequences are the same or worse as the original endings. In Control in particular, Harbinger will imply that Shepard-Reaper will eventually reach the same decision that Harbinger once did, extending the cycle with a new owner.
If you can win the argument, though, you get multiple other endings based on Shepard’s actions and the arguments you made. A violent Shepard might be able to convince the Reapers to destroy themselves, while a more merciful one can get the Reapers to resurrect the races they once assimilated. Other options include ordering the Reapers to leave the galaxy forever (the Babylon Five option if you will,) or a less invasive version of the original Combine ending. Refuse is still an option but should be limited to a Shepard who fails the Destroy or Control endings or who utterly rejects any attempt to speak with Harbinger.
How does that work for an ending? Is it better than the game’s? Worse? Just a bunch of rambly bullshit?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
+19
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
While it'd probably be really difficult to do, given the various ways ME3 could have ended, I'd really like the franchise to return to the Milky Way one day.
Especially since certain races aren't going to be returning in Andromeda.
Well, we did get a final conversation. It was just colored coded with 3 choices instead of the much more extensive/expensive option presented by EmperorSeth. His is of course better (probably), but also probably not very feasible in time/budget.
But maybe they'll surprise us this time!
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
Well, we did get a final conversation. It was just colored coded with 3 choices instead of the much more extensive/expensive option presented by EmperorSeth. His is of course better (probably), but also probably not very feasible in time/budget.
But maybe they'll surprise us this time!
We didn't get a final conversation.
We got a final nonsensical exposition
0
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
edited February 2017
I don't think a budget would have hindered EmperorSeth's scenario from happening if Bioware had actually planned that as the game's ending.
At worst if it didn't fit in the budget they could have easily cut unnecessary content before it was finished. Stuff like the shitty dream sequences would not have been missed, although since I think the kid was shown before the leak, they might have already finished those.
Unfortunately, the original ending got leaked and they decided to just redo it, so that probably hurt their budget.
Personally I would have preferred for Bioware to have just stuck to their guns and kept their original ending. People don't just skip a movie because they read the Wikipedia page, they usually want to experience it for themselves.
After seeing the discussion turn back to the ending of ME3 for a while there, I realized that as much as I thought about the strengths and weaknesses as the original ending (extended cut included,) I never really considered what would have been a better alternative, let alone my ideal ending. Well, after a couple of dull days at work, I think I worked out an answer! Will you be willing to endure one more ending rant? Because, you know, I'm going to post it anyway. Spoiled for length (and well, actual spoilers, not that they matter at this point.)
Let's start by addressing the motivation for the Reapers. The problem with the organic/artificial justification isn’t that it’s cliché. As they say, nothing original is in the world, all that matters is how the story’s told. And the problem isn’t that the Reapers’ argument makes no sense in the context of the EDI or following a Quarian/Geth truce. After all, the Reapers’ are creatures of programming, so they don’t really have to make sense. An AI warping it programming to act against its creator’s intentions is a classic science fiction trope. No, the problem is that the o/a conflict isn't central to the theme of Mass Effect, so making it as the basis for the main adversary just doesn't work narratively.
Now, before we move on, I understand why they gave us some sort of motivation for the Reapers. I've heard people say they would have preferred the “happy” ending of the trilogy, meaning basically the “Destroy” ending without the Star Child and his exposition and the consequences of Destroy, like the destruction EDI and the Geth and Sheppard’s apparent death. Sure, I can see the appeal in contrast to the ending we got, but if we got that ending in a vacuum, I think people would be up in arms about it as well. No answers, no resolution to the character arcs, no difference based on all the choices the player made? That would be awful.
Granted, there was always a predicament built into the Mass Effect story because of the Reapers. They’re a Cthonic threat, scary because they are unknowable, but they’re presented in a space-opera science fiction story, which comes with the expectation that mysteries will be explained and problems will be solved. So something was going to have to give sooner or later in the series. But Bioware played their hand early here. Any chance of the Reapers staying a mystery came to an end with the first game’s ending and the destruction of Sovereign. Now it’s demonstrated that Reapers are not invincible forces of nature. The threat has changed, and the problem is no longer “how do we stop the unstoppable?” It became a problem of logistics. In light of this, leaving the Reapers a mystery would have been unsatisfying. You spend three games turning your enemies from gods to very much mortal instruments, and mortal enemies require explanation.
So if we accept that a resolution is needed beyond a Bay-esque explosion, the problem with the Reaper’s motivation as written is that it doesn’t relate to the central premise of the series. Which leads to the obvious question: what is the central premise of the series? What makes it special as a setting, an RPG, and a game in general? In my opinion, the main theme is this: choice.
Now, one can argue that choice is a theme of every Western RPG, and that’s probably true. But think back to when Mass Effect came out, before Skyrim, the new Fallouts, or Dragon Age. Western RPGs were still a niche, supported by existing franchises like Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons and enjoyed more by computer hobbyists who remember the original Fallouts. There was Oblivion and the Fables, but nothing that was intended for mainstream consumption the way Mass Effect was, and certainly not in its sub-genre. In Mass Effect, you make three meaningful choices before your character says a word of dialogue. The game doesn’t start you right in the action, it starts with you talking to a ship full of crewmembers and potential allies. This is a series that has always defined itself by Sheppard’s story and the choices they make, so it makes sense that the Reapers would be the antithesis of that.
Here’s how I see it playing out. The Reapers were once a benevolent AI, a general “improve lives” system. But as it and society advanced, it became increasingly stymied in their attempts to improve the lot of their people because the people kept on choosing poorly. War instead of peace, selfishness instead of altruism, recklessness instead of care. In the end, either society was on the brink of destroying itself, or the first Reaper rose up to take action before that could happen. It went to war with organic life, not to destroy it but to save it from itself. In the end, the Reaper proved itself victorious, and so it followed its programming to the logical end. It took the remains of its people and merged them into the Reaper itself. To the Reaper, it was an ideal being. The best traits of a machine and the biology of its creators, a unified mind of its civilization (with itself in charge, of course,) a preserver of all of its culture, and most importantly, no more choice. Choice was the enemy, after all. If there was only one right answer to any decision, choice merely got in the way.
Reaper One (Harbinger from now one,) was content in its nature, until it noticed something curious: more civilizations had evolved and made the leap to space. Harbinger observed them, unsure if its programming extended to other species beyond its creators. But as it saw new civilizations inevitably make the same mistake its creators did, it realized it had no choice but to continue the reaping, making a new one of its kind for every failed society it came across. Over the eons, it simplified the process, having accepting the end fate of any civilization as inevitable. They would flock to the Citadel, fall apart in the Reapers’ eyes, and be consumed. Repeat. The Reapers see their actions as the ultimate in kindness; helping those who can’t help themselves make the final step to perfection before they commit mass suicide. That’s why they don’t exterminate all biological life or wipe out primitive civilizations; because they’re not ready to be preserved in eternity. And maybe, just maybe, the Reapers want to be proven wrong.
In this context, “indoctrination” is something so much simpler to understand. To the Reapers, it is acceptance. In the presence of a Reaper, all argument fails. Any choice is irrelevant, not when the final ending is both a definite and positive thing. Those little, increasingly frantic voices in the head are extinguished by the gentle surety of the wiser being in their presence.
Given all this, the role of the Crucible and the game’s ending changes. It’s not a super-weapon, nor a mere McGuffin to fix the universe. It is instead a way to bypass the Reaper’s programming and communicate with them directly. In this scenario, two possible endings (Destroy and Control) are presented by Anderson and TiM directly, with no confusing color co-ordination. But when confronting Harbinger, which takes several different forms over the encounter, multiple options come into play. Instead of a boss fight, it’s a final boss ARGUMENT. You see some of this in the extended cut ending, when you can sometimes refute the Star Child’s claims, prompting it to get angry and insist it’s right. Your arguments are based on the actions you took: a Shepard that spares the Rachni or reached a truce between the Quarians and Geth will have different options than one who focused on violence. Paragon and Renegade levels won’t be part of this argument, but they do contribute to interrupts you can make at points to extend the argument, giving you more time to convince Harbinger. And if you fail the argument, or if at any time you say “fuck it” and stop arguing, you can attempt the Destroy or Control endings, but you have to fight Harbinger’s attempts to stop you, and the consequences are the same or worse as the original endings. In Control in particular, Harbinger will imply that Shepard-Reaper will eventually reach the same decision that Harbinger once did, extending the cycle with a new owner.
If you can win the argument, though, you get multiple other endings based on Shepard’s actions and the arguments you made. A violent Shepard might be able to convince the Reapers to destroy themselves, while a more merciful one can get the Reapers to resurrect the races they once assimilated. Other options include ordering the Reapers to leave the galaxy forever (the Babylon Five option if you will,) or a less invasive version of the original Combine ending. Refuse is still an option but should be limited to a Shepard who fails the Destroy or Control endings or who utterly rejects any attempt to speak with Harbinger.
How does that work for an ending? Is it better than the game’s? Worse? Just a bunch of rambly bullshit?
I touched on this earlier; I like the change to "generic self destruction" rather than the narrow focus on AI vs. creator.
I'm not entirely onboard with your ending(s) or your proposed theme.
If it's truely about choice, then either all races choose poorly (in which case choice is irrelevant, and the true enemy is life itself) or there are some races that don't self-exterminate (in which case the AI, harvesting them anyway, is insane and per definition cannot be reasoned with).
The former could be framed as struggle vs stagnation (the reapers being an avatar of the latter, shepard representing the former).
The latter is silly, because trying to convincingly portray something that cannot be understood makes for a boring story.
As far as I can tell, it's just the steelbook, game not included. But since this was supposedly exclusive to the $100 and $200 editions of the physical goods swag, it's probably a good deal.
The central theme of Mass Effect is Paragon vs. Renegade. Multiculturalism vs. Tribalism. The Galaxy vs. Earth. The final choices needed to be saving the galaxy by sacrificing Earth, or saving Earth by sacrificing the galaxy. It's that simple. The setting specifics of the Reapers' damage were never that important, though I kinda liked the idea that they were trying to fix cosmic environmental damage by reaping mass effect-capable species.
The Dark Energy plotline gets some shit here, but it would have been perfectly serviceable in setting up that choice: The Reaper fleet is almost entirely in Sol. The Crucible, in this version, can manipulate Dark Energy. Do you keep the Reapers there and cause Sol to go supernova, destroying Earth and most of the Reaper fleet, or do you lure them away from Earth and use the Dark Energy to create black holes surrounding Sol, similar to how the Collector base was cut off from the rest of the galaxy in the galactic core, thus letting the Reapers have everyone else while Earth lives on, now free of the cycles?
It's actually a tough choice. Destroying Earth means that yoomanity is officially homeless, like the Quarians. Their power base is drastically reduced, and their spot on the Council largely dependent on how appreciative the other races are. But hey, Reapers are dead, the cycles are over. Hurray?
On the other hand, sacrificing the galaxy seems like a super shitty thing to do, but Shepard already brought the best and brightest of the alien races and the most advanced technology to Earth with the fleet for the final battle, so a thriving civilization could be founded. Who knows? Maybe in a few cycles a means to get past the black holes is developed, and they can take the fight back to the Reapers.
EDIT: There could also have been a Third Path, like going for a conventional win, but that would invariably lead to galactic ruin via attrition, and I'd say Shepard would probably die. If the Protheans couldn't do it over the course of decades, I'm not super confident that there's be much left of us after pulling it off.
EDIT EDIT: The real failing of ME3 is that the ending isn't a galactic-scale Suicide Mission, with all of your actions over the course of three games playing into your odds. "I send the genophage-cured Krogans under Wrex to secure the Crucible's command station." "I send the Rachni to suppress the Reaper ground forces in London." "I send Jacob to his death against Harbinger." That sort of thing. If the actual endgame were satisfying, I posit that most people would not have given a shit about color-coded endings.
The only thing that was wrong with ME3 was no peer review for the ending/dream sequences.
Well, and the quest journal was wonky as hell.
The only thing that was wrong with the series was that they hadn't figured out the ending (or the theme, or the major plot lines) for the trilogy in advance.
Making the whole thing up as you go along does not and cannot work.
"I send Jacob to his death against a single Rachni."
"I send Miranda to her death against a murderous clown."
"I send Ashley to her death as a hostage of Harbinger knowing she will annoy him into committing suicide."
"Garrus and I save the world and then we bro out."
The only thing that was wrong with ME3 was no peer review for the ending/dream sequences.
Well, and the quest journal was wonky as hell.
RNG in MP is annoying as heck as well. Finally got Lancer I last weekend after all these year but still missing one last boomstick.
I loved the core gameplay of the MP so much, but ultimately RNG is what stopped me from playing. I'm honestly more interested to see how Andro improves upon 3's MP rather than how it's SP campaign goes. Sadly, there hasn't been much said on that front. At least that I know of.
0
DeadfallI don't think you realize just how rich he is.In fact, I should put on a monocle.Registered Userregular
As far as I can tell, it's just the steelbook, game not included. But since this was supposedly exclusive to the $100 and $200 editions of the physical goods swag, it's probably a good deal.
The central theme of Mass Effect is Paragon vs. Renegade. Multiculturalism vs. Tribalism. The Galaxy vs. Earth.
The problem with this is that Paragon versus Renegade stopped being about The Galaxy versus Earth after the first game. In 2 and 3, it was just Nice Guy versus Mean Guy.
The central theme of Mass Effect is Paragon vs. Renegade. Multiculturalism vs. Tribalism. The Galaxy vs. Earth.
The problem with this is that Paragon versus Renegade stopped being about The Galaxy versus Earth after the first game. In 2 and 3, it was just Nice Guy versus Mean Guy.
Isn't the Renegade choice in 2 giving the Collector Base to TIM for the advancement of you, manitee?
The only thing that was wrong with ME3 was no peer review for the ending/dream sequences.
Well, and the quest journal was wonky as hell.
RNG in MP is annoying as heck as well. Finally got Lancer I last weekend after all these year but still missing one last boomstick.
I loved the core gameplay of the MP so much, but ultimately RNG is what stopped me from playing. I'm honestly more interested to see how Andro improves upon 3's MP rather than how it's SP campaign goes. Sadly, there hasn't been much said on that front. At least that I know of.
By and large base/uncommon kit is pretty darn good. Those last couple ultra rare guns were a bugger though and just became a point of pride.
Saw that shot of that new alien. Looks like they crossed an Avatar alien with Farscape's Pilot. I hope they don't give it a nasally voice because then I'll do nothing but picture it complaining about Moya.
Saw that shot of that new alien. Looks like they crossed an Avatar alien with Farscape's Pilot. I hope they don't give it a nasally voice because then I'll do nothing but picture it complaining about Moya.
Not gonna preorder this not gonna preorder this not gonna preorder this oh goddammit I just preordered this.
I guess I'll transfer my non existent willpower to not buying a Switch at launch...
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I don't care how many times I see that Wolverine meme used it makes me laugh every fucking time.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Posts
I don't have time to finish much of anything these days. Working on finishing the Last of Us . . . still waiting for it to stop being a movie and turn into a game.
This is Mass Effect you're talking about. Secretion related topics are inevitable.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
It never stops being entirely story focused and story driven. Playing on Hard or Grounded does make it more game like, though.
Are you sure? One of those previews made it look like things went horribly wrong with a decent idea, and just has cerberus written all over it.
Mass effect powered revolvers?????
original character do not steal
It looks like a laser aimer haphazardly added. Like flat out fibre optic cable hooked into the base of the gun.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Probably just bad lighting, but I can't help be unnerved seeing them
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
But I guess if they left for a distant galaxy before the events of the third game even took place the chances are nil.
I doubt it. I could see some little background/Easter Egg stuff. References in documents, snippets of conversations, but likely leaning towards the subtle rather than the overt.
They explicitly said that Shepard's story was over, I'm guessing they probably aren't going to rub our noses in it with too many blatant ties to the original trilogy, as much as I might want them to. I figure that likely includes the supporting cast.
As least we have the setting (races, gear, vehicles, etc) for primary ties back to the familiar.
Now, before we move on, I understand why they gave us some sort of motivation for the Reapers. I've heard people say they would have preferred the “happy” ending of the trilogy, meaning basically the “Destroy” ending without the Star Child and his exposition and the consequences of Destroy, like the destruction EDI and the Geth and Sheppard’s apparent death. Sure, I can see the appeal in contrast to the ending we got, but if we got that ending in a vacuum, I think people would be up in arms about it as well. No answers, no resolution to the character arcs, no difference based on all the choices the player made? That would be awful.
Granted, there was always a predicament built into the Mass Effect story because of the Reapers. They’re a Cthonic threat, scary because they are unknowable, but they’re presented in a space-opera science fiction story, which comes with the expectation that mysteries will be explained and problems will be solved. So something was going to have to give sooner or later in the series. But Bioware played their hand early here. Any chance of the Reapers staying a mystery came to an end with the first game’s ending and the destruction of Sovereign. Now it’s demonstrated that Reapers are not invincible forces of nature. The threat has changed, and the problem is no longer “how do we stop the unstoppable?” It became a problem of logistics. In light of this, leaving the Reapers a mystery would have been unsatisfying. You spend three games turning your enemies from gods to very much mortal instruments, and mortal enemies require explanation.
So if we accept that a resolution is needed beyond a Bay-esque explosion, the problem with the Reaper’s motivation as written is that it doesn’t relate to the central premise of the series. Which leads to the obvious question: what is the central premise of the series? What makes it special as a setting, an RPG, and a game in general? In my opinion, the main theme is this: choice.
Now, one can argue that choice is a theme of every Western RPG, and that’s probably true. But think back to when Mass Effect came out, before Skyrim, the new Fallouts, or Dragon Age. Western RPGs were still a niche, supported by existing franchises like Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons and enjoyed more by computer hobbyists who remember the original Fallouts. There was Oblivion and the Fables, but nothing that was intended for mainstream consumption the way Mass Effect was, and certainly not in its sub-genre. In Mass Effect, you make three meaningful choices before your character says a word of dialogue. The game doesn’t start you right in the action, it starts with you talking to a ship full of crewmembers and potential allies. This is a series that has always defined itself by Sheppard’s story and the choices they make, so it makes sense that the Reapers would be the antithesis of that.
Here’s how I see it playing out. The Reapers were once a benevolent AI, a general “improve lives” system. But as it and society advanced, it became increasingly stymied in their attempts to improve the lot of their people because the people kept on choosing poorly. War instead of peace, selfishness instead of altruism, recklessness instead of care. In the end, either society was on the brink of destroying itself, or the first Reaper rose up to take action before that could happen. It went to war with organic life, not to destroy it but to save it from itself. In the end, the Reaper proved itself victorious, and so it followed its programming to the logical end. It took the remains of its people and merged them into the Reaper itself. To the Reaper, it was an ideal being. The best traits of a machine and the biology of its creators, a unified mind of its civilization (with itself in charge, of course,) a preserver of all of its culture, and most importantly, no more choice. Choice was the enemy, after all. If there was only one right answer to any decision, choice merely got in the way.
Reaper One (Harbinger from now one,) was content in its nature, until it noticed something curious: more civilizations had evolved and made the leap to space. Harbinger observed them, unsure if its programming extended to other species beyond its creators. But as it saw new civilizations inevitably make the same mistake its creators did, it realized it had no choice but to continue the reaping, making a new one of its kind for every failed society it came across. Over the eons, it simplified the process, having accepting the end fate of any civilization as inevitable. They would flock to the Citadel, fall apart in the Reapers’ eyes, and be consumed. Repeat. The Reapers see their actions as the ultimate in kindness; helping those who can’t help themselves make the final step to perfection before they commit mass suicide. That’s why they don’t exterminate all biological life or wipe out primitive civilizations; because they’re not ready to be preserved in eternity. And maybe, just maybe, the Reapers want to be proven wrong.
In this context, “indoctrination” is something so much simpler to understand. To the Reapers, it is acceptance. In the presence of a Reaper, all argument fails. Any choice is irrelevant, not when the final ending is both a definite and positive thing. Those little, increasingly frantic voices in the head are extinguished by the gentle surety of the wiser being in their presence.
Given all this, the role of the Crucible and the game’s ending changes. It’s not a super-weapon, nor a mere McGuffin to fix the universe. It is instead a way to bypass the Reaper’s programming and communicate with them directly. In this scenario, two possible endings (Destroy and Control) are presented by Anderson and TiM directly, with no confusing color co-ordination. But when confronting Harbinger, which takes several different forms over the encounter, multiple options come into play. Instead of a boss fight, it’s a final boss ARGUMENT. You see some of this in the extended cut ending, when you can sometimes refute the Star Child’s claims, prompting it to get angry and insist it’s right. Your arguments are based on the actions you took: a Shepard that spares the Rachni or reached a truce between the Quarians and Geth will have different options than one who focused on violence. Paragon and Renegade levels won’t be part of this argument, but they do contribute to interrupts you can make at points to extend the argument, giving you more time to convince Harbinger. And if you fail the argument, or if at any time you say “fuck it” and stop arguing, you can attempt the Destroy or Control endings, but you have to fight Harbinger’s attempts to stop you, and the consequences are the same or worse as the original endings. In Control in particular, Harbinger will imply that Shepard-Reaper will eventually reach the same decision that Harbinger once did, extending the cycle with a new owner.
If you can win the argument, though, you get multiple other endings based on Shepard’s actions and the arguments you made. A violent Shepard might be able to convince the Reapers to destroy themselves, while a more merciful one can get the Reapers to resurrect the races they once assimilated. Other options include ordering the Reapers to leave the galaxy forever (the Babylon Five option if you will,) or a less invasive version of the original Combine ending. Refuse is still an option but should be limited to a Shepard who fails the Destroy or Control endings or who utterly rejects any attempt to speak with Harbinger.
How does that work for an ending? Is it better than the game’s? Worse? Just a bunch of rambly bullshit?
Especially since certain races aren't going to be returning in Andromeda.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
But maybe they'll surprise us this time!
We didn't get a final conversation.
We got a final nonsensical exposition
At worst if it didn't fit in the budget they could have easily cut unnecessary content before it was finished. Stuff like the shitty dream sequences would not have been missed, although since I think the kid was shown before the leak, they might have already finished those.
Unfortunately, the original ending got leaked and they decided to just redo it, so that probably hurt their budget.
Personally I would have preferred for Bioware to have just stuck to their guns and kept their original ending. People don't just skip a movie because they read the Wikipedia page, they usually want to experience it for themselves.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Well, and the quest journal was wonky as hell.
RNG in MP is annoying as heck as well. Finally got Lancer I last weekend after all these year but still missing one last boomstick.
I'm not entirely onboard with your ending(s) or your proposed theme.
If it's truely about choice, then either all races choose poorly (in which case choice is irrelevant, and the true enemy is life itself) or there are some races that don't self-exterminate (in which case the AI, harvesting them anyway, is insane and per definition cannot be reasoned with).
The former could be framed as struggle vs stagnation (the reapers being an avatar of the latter, shepard representing the former).
The latter is silly, because trying to convincingly portray something that cannot be understood makes for a boring story.
Mass Effect: Andromeda Steelbook for $9.99.
As far as I can tell, it's just the steelbook, game not included. But since this was supposedly exclusive to the $100 and $200 editions of the physical goods swag, it's probably a good deal.
The Dark Energy plotline gets some shit here, but it would have been perfectly serviceable in setting up that choice: The Reaper fleet is almost entirely in Sol. The Crucible, in this version, can manipulate Dark Energy. Do you keep the Reapers there and cause Sol to go supernova, destroying Earth and most of the Reaper fleet, or do you lure them away from Earth and use the Dark Energy to create black holes surrounding Sol, similar to how the Collector base was cut off from the rest of the galaxy in the galactic core, thus letting the Reapers have everyone else while Earth lives on, now free of the cycles?
It's actually a tough choice. Destroying Earth means that yoomanity is officially homeless, like the Quarians. Their power base is drastically reduced, and their spot on the Council largely dependent on how appreciative the other races are. But hey, Reapers are dead, the cycles are over. Hurray?
On the other hand, sacrificing the galaxy seems like a super shitty thing to do, but Shepard already brought the best and brightest of the alien races and the most advanced technology to Earth with the fleet for the final battle, so a thriving civilization could be founded. Who knows? Maybe in a few cycles a means to get past the black holes is developed, and they can take the fight back to the Reapers.
EDIT: There could also have been a Third Path, like going for a conventional win, but that would invariably lead to galactic ruin via attrition, and I'd say Shepard would probably die. If the Protheans couldn't do it over the course of decades, I'm not super confident that there's be much left of us after pulling it off.
EDIT EDIT: The real failing of ME3 is that the ending isn't a galactic-scale Suicide Mission, with all of your actions over the course of three games playing into your odds. "I send the genophage-cured Krogans under Wrex to secure the Crucible's command station." "I send the Rachni to suppress the Reaper ground forces in London." "I send Jacob to his death against Harbinger." That sort of thing. If the actual endgame were satisfying, I posit that most people would not have given a shit about color-coded endings.
The only thing that was wrong with the series was that they hadn't figured out the ending (or the theme, or the major plot lines) for the trilogy in advance.
Making the whole thing up as you go along does not and cannot work.
"I send Miranda to her death against a murderous clown."
"I send Ashley to her death as a hostage of Harbinger knowing she will annoy him into committing suicide."
"Garrus and I save the world and then we bro out."
I loved the core gameplay of the MP so much, but ultimately RNG is what stopped me from playing. I'm honestly more interested to see how Andro improves upon 3's MP rather than how it's SP campaign goes. Sadly, there hasn't been much said on that front. At least that I know of.
I love steel books. Bought.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
The problem with this is that Paragon versus Renegade stopped being about The Galaxy versus Earth after the first game. In 2 and 3, it was just Nice Guy versus Mean Guy.
Isn't the Renegade choice in 2 giving the Collector Base to TIM for the advancement of you, manitee?
I stand by my analysis.
By and large base/uncommon kit is pretty darn good. Those last couple ultra rare guns were a bugger though and just became a point of pride.
I'll not stand for any besmirching of Lani Tupu!
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
God, I love Bioware's fanbase.
EDIT: also, Cat 6 or whatever they were called were still pushovers.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I guess I'll transfer my non existent willpower to not buying a Switch at launch...