[Megathread] Mass Effect 3

[Oerba Yun Fang]

People actually wanted it. They wanted an option for Shepard to stand by his ideals, to not compromise anything whatsoever, to refuse the choices given by the "enemy". Even though it had been established over and over again that the Reapers couldn't be defeated conventionally. And Bioware delivered.

I think it's pretty cool that the next cycle defeats the Reapers by using the information Liara seeded throughout the galaxy though. Which was something people asked for as well as an extension of the above.

Doesn't change the fact it was weird for him to just be like "Pshhh I tried." I did like the whole next cycle defeating the Reapers with Liara's data though.

[khalltusk]

I'm not sure why that's disappointing. o.o

Simply because he looked similar (most human grunts just wear helmets like red shirts :P) I felt like wow he survived the crash and hes holding off the reapers!

[Nerraw]

Doesn't change the fact it was weird for him to just be like "Pshhh I tried." I did like the whole next cycle defeating the Reapers with Liara's data though.

I'd probably be lost for words too after the sudden change in the Catalyst's voice. xD

[rhorle]

In my opinion, it's the worst one. Probably one of the worst one I've seen in any franchise. It feels so out of place for Shepard to go "Yeah ok, so everyone dies. Whatever. Who cares? I did my best."

Then you really haven't seen bad endings. There is nothing wrong with the ending and it doesn't compromise any of Shepard's ideals. It doesn't go against anything that Shepard has done over the 3 games to reject the reapers completely rather then going with 3 choices. Does it mean failure to stop the cycle? Most likely since everyone combined isn't enough to stop them.

People wanted an ending that wouldn't submit to the reapers and would reject the choices they were given. They were given that and there is nothing wrong with the ending. Just because it is an ending that is quick and simple doesn't mean it is bad. It still fits with everything you could have made your Shepard into through out the last 3 games.

[Deleted]

I'd probably be lost for words too after the sudden change in the Catalyst's voice. xD

Yeah, i was like "DAMN"
Its like he WANTED us to stop him. It.

@rhorle
Also they originally said that there would be an ending where you lose to the reapers.
And the rejection ending gave us that.

[Florena]

Those things are all hinted at in ME3. If you talk to EDI while on the ship she will mention that Liara gave her some things to compute. And those are dealing with if you have enough energy you could make 1+1=3 changing everything about the universe. There are things about mass effect fields that just aren't talked about much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJ0K...eature=related

The VI Vendetta also talks about the pattern of the cycle and hints at the reapers just being the servants of a master. If it seems like a coincidence it might just be that. There was always a puppet master in the Mass Effect universe that controlled each cycle to some degree. It isn't a lame idea that the reapers follow a pattern. Remember they are "order" to every one elses "chaos". It isn't clear that every cycle had the same issues, but the Reapers didn't exactly wait to see if one cycle was an exception. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqg2K...tailpage#t=90s

Certain things seem to happen but not the exact same things. The VI doesn't mention of the prothean Cerberus was indoctrinated by the reapers or non-reaper indoctrination like Cerberus was for most of me3. So much of ME's lore can't be told in a game unless you are playing Mass Effect: Library and the hero is a historian writing their doctorate on History of the Universe.

---------- Post added 2012-06-26 at 11:01 PM ----------



If they create any game that takes place after the events of ME 1-3 then they will need to provide a "cannon" choice for how the events in ME3 happened. Otherwise they can't provide a story for the new game. You can't just be vague about hybrids, control, destruction, or failure. Bioware has always done cannon for their games even in ME. They have just done a decent job of pre-planning so there are little conflicts and little "cannon defining" choices that can't be carried over to a sequel. Cannon defining choices are ones that would essentially require them to create two different games/stories to account for large differences. Like for example the different between the Reapers finishing the cull and the cycle starting over again and the reapers being defeated and the cycle being broken.

The only way to avoid creating a cannon path is to only create games in the past. Which ultimately can't have an option to defeat the Reapers if they are a threat in that game. Gone are the days where each game in that universe is its own separate universe. Games like ME combine all games into the same universe.

Maybe I should elaborate more because I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. I don't mind the fact that the reapers follow a pattern. I don't mind that the Reapers were made to prevent organic life from advancing too far and wiping everything out. The point that makes me raise my eyebrow and say 'really?' is that it hinges un a snythetic rebellion being part of EVERY cycle. I mean really? ME has handled AI so well up to this point with the Geth and EDI, and at the end, even if there was some build up to this reveal, the reapers are here because AIs will eventually, inevitably wipe out organics? Even after EDI has come to side with you? Even if you manage to get the Geth and Quarians to find peace? I just don't buy this specific point as believable.

Now if they'd gone with the dark energy angle instead, which was built up a little in ME 2, I could have bought that. It's not the cycles themselves or the way the reapers work, or even the fact that the reapers are puppets. It's the specific trigger of the whole thing I just don't buy.

[Nerraw]

Yeah, i was like "DAMN"
Its like he WANTED us to stop him. It.

He did say so himself that he realized that the Cycle wouldn't work any longer. So he presents new options that are probably amazing from his point of view. And then Shepard goes ahead and says "Screw you!" or shoots him. I'd be pissed too.

[Edgetroll]

People actually wanted it. They wanted an option for Shepard to stand by his ideals, to not compromise anything whatsoever, to refuse the choices given by the "enemy". Even though it had been established over and over again that the Reapers couldn't be defeated conventionally. And Bioware delivered.

I think it's pretty cool that the next cycle defeats the Reapers by using the information Liara seeded throughout the galaxy though. Which was something people asked for as well as an extension of the above.

Except the game showed us several instances where the Reapers WERE defeated "conventionally,"

-The Alliance fleet defeating both the Geth and Sovereign in ME1 (with your help).
-A derilict reaper in ME2 that seems to have been defeated conventionally and gets blown up.
-Shepard and two squadmates defeating a WIP Reaper in ME2 with small arms fire.
-A Thresher maw, a (admittedly larger) kind of creature you routinely defeated in the Mako, going toe to toe and winning against Reaper.
-Shepard defeating a Reaper himself with the help of the migrant fleet.
-Shepard using missles against one and destroying it in the final mission before Harbinger appears.

So if anything it shows that we should technically be able to defeat the reapers ourselves with enough combined military might, or guess what, EMS! The refusal ending would've been a perfect chance for them to give players who were unhappy with getting shoehorned into 3 choices they didn't agree with a chance to defeat the reapers by their own hand. At the very least it would've been a good move to appease everyone. You don't like our three original endings? Ok, here have a separate one. I mean, they could've kept the refusal ending as reapers win ONLY if you didn't have 100% EMS. Make it seem like that bar actually mattered, which was one of the many arguments players had, "Nothing I did mattered."


INSTEAD what they chose to do is penalize people for not agreeing to their choices. It came off as a bit pedantic especially in how it instant triggers if you shoot the star child. Adding a small trigger like that makes me feel like they KNEW people didn't like the character, and they STILL go out of their way to show you that if you don't like what they did, then fuck you everyone dies.

Shepard did die, but his memories, thoughts etc made the new being.
But its not Shepard anymore, its just a clone that thinks like him and remembers everything Shepard ever had in his mind.
Its just watching over the galaxy as a protector, but forever alone.
So exactly what the Starchild said.

Imagine what Harbringer must think after spending so much time and effort to subjucate Shepard, just to find itself subjucated to Shepards will.

Was anyone else creeped out by Reappard's final monologue? Almost kind of a brainwashed tone to it, as if he could easily lose control and start the cycle all over again in order to "protect" the people. Same issue I had with the synthesis, it was too creepy, like everyone was actually a husk but no one knew any better because they're all stuck in this weird blissful matrix reality.

[caveman295]

is it just me or is everyone discussing the explanation of the new cut scenes? the ending is still choose an ending A, B or C and everything leading up to it still meaningless. All they did is add green colored shit to the alrdy brown shit... not satisfied sry, still left with so many questions like "how did the reapers get created in the first place?', "who initially created them?" "why was the human reaper so special?". Another thing i would like to add is when you refuse to listen to the starchild and he growls and speaks like a reaper, doesnt tht in itself contradict everything leading up to tht moment? Becuz in tht case, reaper logic goes like this "yo guys we be here to kill you, have a nice day, and wait after us killing billions of ppl, all you had to do is talk to our leader and we are just going to help you kill us?!?" For a super advanced technological race of super beings, they seem kinda stupid

[Deleted]

Oni, rhorle, moontalon - we are gonna need to team up to deal with this guy.

[rhorle]

Maybe I should elaborate more because I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. I don't mind the fact that the reapers follow a pattern. I don't mind that the Reapers were made to prevent organic life from advancing too far and wiping everything out. The point that makes me raise my eyebrow and say 'really?' is that it hinges un a snythetic rebellion being part of EVERY cycle. I mean really? ME has handled AI so well up to this point with the Geth and EDI, and at the end, even if there was some build up to this reveal, the reapers are here because AIs will eventually, inevitably wipe out organics? Even after EDI has come to side with you? Even if you manage to get the Geth and Quarians to find peace? I just don't buy this specific point as believable.

Now if they'd gone with the dark energy angle instead, which was built up a little in ME 2, I could have bought that. It's not the cycles themselves or the way the reapers work, or even the fact that the reapers are puppets. It's the specific trigger of the whole thing I just don't buy.

Both EDI and the "peaceful" geth have reaper level upgrades. They also have "humanity" in them. If you talk to EDI aboard Normandy she will eventually tell you how she is changing her core directives. Shepard responds "looks like you've found some humanity". Legion also was the one that enabled all the geth to be peaceful. But even then people are still leary of the geth and Joker has to call EDI his personal assistance mech to get her onto the citadel.

The Reapers talking about AI isn't because they can never have peace. It is because AI needs something specific to give them that organic side perspective. If Shepard never treated Legion with respect then the geth never would have been able to become peaceful. This is shown when you refuse to allow the upgrade and even your friend turns on you.

The reapers have been around for millions of years and have seen countless things repeated. It is impossible to see a cycle when all you are looking at is one example of the pattern. The protheans state that their Machine rebellion was almost won when the reapers show up. It shows that in two cycles at least the reapers showed up when organics almost beat Machines.

The other thing to remember is that the Reapers control of the cycle goes far beyond that of killing everyone off every 50 thousand years. They have the citadel and the keepers that make the citadel a perfect and inviting home each cycle for the first explorers. It doesn't have to happen each cycle but it will happen eventually given enough time. If the reapers never came this cycle would EDI be who she is? Would the geth be who they are? The answer is no because EDI and the Geth got to where they are from reaper upgrades.

They would still be a rogue AI on a lunar base that is destroyed or studied by cerberus. And the geth would still be fighting their war against the makers as AI's until they eventually evolved to the "reaper" level. But how many would have died? Would they geth have been content at isolationism? Much of what happens in this cycle is only possible because the reapers arrived to cull.

[khalltusk]

Except the game showed us several instances where the Reapers WERE defeated "conventionally,"

-The Alliance fleet defeating both the Geth and Sovereign in ME1 (with your help).
-A derilict reaper in ME2 that seems to have been defeated conventionally and gets blown up.
-Shepard and two squadmates defeating a WIP Reaper in ME2 with small arms fire.
-A Thresher maw, a (admittedly larger) kind of creature you routinely defeated in the Mako, going toe to toe and winning against Reaper.
-Shepard defeating a Reaper himself with the help of the migrant fleet.
-Shepard using missles against one and destroying it in the final mission before Harbinger appears.

So if anything it shows that we should technically be able to defeat the reapers ourselves with enough combined military might, or guess what, EMS! The refusal ending would've been a perfect chance for them to give players who were unhappy with getting shoehorned into 3 choices they didn't agree with a chance to defeat the reapers by their own hand. At the very least it would've been a good move to appease everyone. You don't like our three original endings? Ok, here have a separate one. I mean, they could've kept the refusal ending as reapers win ONLY if you didn't have 100% EMS. Make it seem like that bar actually mattered, which was one of the many arguments players had, "Nothing I did mattered."


INSTEAD what they chose to do is penalize people for not agreeing to their choices. It came off as a bit pedantic especially in how it instant triggers if you shoot the star child. Adding a small trigger like that makes me feel like they KNEW people didn't like the character, and they STILL go out of their way to show you that if you don't like what they did, then fuck you everyone dies.






Was anyone else creeped out by Reappard's final monologue? Almost kind of a brainwashed tone to it, as if he could easily lose control and start the cycle all over again in order to "protect" the people. Same issue I had with the synthesis, it was too creepy, like everyone was actually a husk but no one knew any better because they're all stuck in this weird blissful matrix reality.

I agree with you on the refusal ending. I would have loved for that to have been the option where if your EMS etc is high enough you can win (but with severe damage etc like losing most if not all the fleet etc) I hated the fact in the game when everyone kept bashing on that we "can't" beat them conventionally. It is something that only cropped up during ME3. Having seen a reaper in ME1 and defeating them it could have been done. Giving to the fact shep managed to defeat cerebus ally all the races into a single fighting force etc.

Also the weapons of the normandy, why didnt the turian ships get these equiped as well? since they were made as a result of fighting sovereign and the collectors it would make sense to get a weapon that can take on a reaper and arm more ships. Oh well, the destroy ending was the only one I truly liked that resulted in us saying FU to the reapers and remotely winning on our terms and taking our own "chances" as in to say we dont want to evolve down your green route and control is not an option. We want to evolve and find our own way (if you have seen babylon 5 you may know where I am coming from). Shame it results in genocide of an entire race and murder of a friend.

[Nerraw]

Except the game showed us several instances where the Reapers WERE defeated "conventionally,"

-The Alliance fleet defeating both the Geth and Sovereign in ME1 (with your help).
-A derilict reaper in ME2 that seems to have been defeated conventionally and gets blown up.
-Shepard and two squadmates defeating a WIP Reaper in ME2 with small arms fire.
-A Thresher maw, a (admittedly larger) kind of creature you routinely defeated in the Mako, going toe to toe and winning against Reaper.
-Shepard defeating a Reaper himself with the help of the migrant fleet.
-Shepard using missles against one and destroying it in the final mission before Harbinger appears.

So if anything it shows that we should technically be able to defeat the reapers ourselves with enough combined military might, or guess what, EMS! The refusal ending would've been a perfect chance for them to give players who were unhappy with getting shoehorned into 3 choices they didn't agree with a chance to defeat the reapers by their own hand. At the very least it would've been a good move to appease everyone. You don't like our three original endings? Ok, here have a separate one. I mean, they could've kept the refusal ending as reapers win ONLY if you didn't have 100% EMS. Make it seem like that bar actually mattered, which was one of the many arguments players had, "Nothing I did mattered."

While high EMS may have helped take out the Reapers at Earth, the fleet would still have sustained catastrophical damage. Add to that that the EC reinforces that there are still Reapers present on other planets. If the Reapers at Earth were to be destroyed, the rest would instantly have grouped up and wiped out every surviving ship in the fleet.

[rhorle]

INSTEAD what they chose to do is penalize people for not agreeing to their choices. It came off as a bit pedantic especially in how it instant triggers if you shoot the star child. Adding a small trigger like that makes me feel like they KNEW people didn't like the character, and they STILL go out of their way to show you that if you don't like what they did, then fuck you everyone dies.

Taking out a reaper on its own is far different then fighting a huge fleet of them. All the instances of Shepard defeating reapers were due to very special circumstances. On rannoch you had the largest fleet in the galaxy and it still took multiple hits to destroy one reaper with nothing attacking that fleet. Against hundreds of reapers actively attacking the fleet would the same outcome have happened?

Yes the reapers can be killed they aren't invulnerable. The reapers just overwhelm through sheer force of numbers and technology. They would win through attrition. We must also remember that by the time that the combined fleets show up at earth all major galactic centers are captured or in the process of being captured by the Reapers. Even if the fleets could withdraw from Earth to fight hit and runs against the reapers they would lose simply through attrition. Because the reapers take all the supply lines and major sources of ships, people, and food.

They could prolong the end but it isn't likely they could have won. In the end though it is Biowares game and their story. They decided to give you a specific set of circumstances that will make defeating the cycle possible. All of them make sense with in Mass effect and all of them fit.

[Nerraw]

Just watched the scene with Joker refusing to leave again. Man-tears. :'(

[Edgetroll]

The other thing to remember is that the Reapers control of the cycle goes far beyond that of killing everyone off every 50 thousand years. They have the citadel and the keepers that make the citadel a perfect and inviting home each cycle for the first explorers. It doesn't have to happen each cycle but it will happen eventually given enough time. If the reapers never came this cycle would EDI be who she is? Would the geth be who they are? The answer is no because EDI and the Geth got to where they are from reaper upgrades

Not sure about EDI because she was created as a response to the reapers, but as for the geth I very much think they would be. All it really took for them was the intervention of sheppard. They stated in mass effect 2 and 3 that the Geth were acting out in self defense and almost never went past the veil, the ones back on the Quarian home world were actually taking care of it and all this was BEFORE any reaper upgrades. I think they said the only thing the reaper upgrades did was give them more processing power which allowed them to act as individuals (could be wrong on that). Besides, as far as the geth go the only reason they wen't out from the veil in the first place and became more aggressive is BECAUSE of the influence of a reaper. If anything it comes off as the reapers are the ones intentionally causing these synthetic destroy organic cycle just to justify their own existence.

[Deleted]

Taking out a reaper on its own is far different then fighting a huge fleet of them. All the instances of Shepard defeating reapers were due to very special circumstances. On rannoch you had the largest fleet in the galaxy and it still took multiple hits to destroy one reaper with nothing attacking that fleet. Against hundreds of reapers actively attacking the fleet would the same outcome have happened?

Yes the reapers can be killed they aren't invulnerable. The reapers just overwhelm through sheer force of numbers and technology. They would win through attrition. We must also remember that by the time that the combined fleets show up at earth all major galactic centers are captured or in the process of being captured by the Reapers. Even if the fleets could withdraw from Earth to fight hit and runs against the reapers they would lose simply through attrition. Because the reapers take all the supply lines and major sources of ships, people, and food.

They could prolong the end but it isn't likely they could have won. In the end though it is Biowares game and their story. They decided to give you a specific set of circumstances that will make defeating the cycle possible. All of them make sense with in Mass effect and all of them fit.

On Rannoch they were using their smaller guns, you aren't about to start shooting Dreadnought level weapons at your homeworld (it was banned in the Citadel convention for a reason, also Shepard would have been pretty screwed at that range).
The codex states the 3-4 Capital ships focusing on one reaper is enough to buckle its shields and destroy it, with the amount of ships you amass with a perfect playthrough (and not just in the cutscene) and the advances in weaponry (Thanix cannons/some missiles you "find" in a sidequest, can't remember atm, think they were similar to the ones at the end on Earth) focusing/co-ordinating all that through something like EDI for optimal targeting would at least cripple a Reaper fleet imo.
Tbh if you play the mulitplayer enough you should just get an option to use the N7 squads as torpedoes and fire them at the Reapers

[Deleted]

So I just watched the 3(4 with refusal option) extended endings. There's nothing more then this, right, just a better conclusion to the 3 previous endings plus a "well, I'll ret the reapers win this one" option?

Now, I have a question. In the red ending, the red stuff destroys all tech eveywhere. So Geth die, Edi dies etc... but the fleet ships are there flying? What? And even if it destroyed only "intelligent" VI, and assuming none of the fleet ships had this, what about the Normandy? Edi was controlling the Normandy and Edi died, how does it still fly at the end?
If anything, the red ending makes less sense now.

The other endings look good (well, except for reapers winning, which has like 30 sec of cutscenes and nothing else) but I don't get the red ending now at all. Before it made sense, it destroyed tech, Normandy-crash-landed, maybe other ships of the fleet crash landed while others remained stranded in space with their crew dieing because life supports failed, but now? It makes no sense.

[Deleted]

Tbh if you play the mulitplayer enough you should just get an option to use the N7 squads as torpedoes and fire them at the Reapers

Some of those characters are pretty OP enough for that to work.

@Arnorei
Destroy ending never destroyed anything except Citadel and Relays (unless your EMS was shit), it just killed (but didnt destroy) A.Is.
Normandy crashed because it got hit by a shot of pure power that overloaded the relays which is quite insane amount.

[rhorle]

Not sure about EDI because she was created as a response to the reapers, but as for the geth I very much think they would be. All it really took for them was the intervention of sheppard. They stated in mass effect 2 and 3 that the Geth were acting out in self defense and almost never went past the veil, the ones back on the Quarian home world were actually taking care of it and all this was BEFORE any reaper upgrades. I think they said the only thing the reaper upgrades did was give them more processing power which allowed them to act as individuals (could be wrong on that). Besides, as far as the geth go the only reason they wen't out from the veil in the first place and became more aggressive is BECAUSE of the influence of a reaper. If anything it comes off as the reapers are the ones intentionally causing these synthetic destroy organic cycle just to justify their own existence.

The geth were still hostile towards all organics though. Most ships that went into the Veil were destroyed and people except for the quarians knew very little about the geth. If the reapers weren't here then Shepard wouldn't have intervened because circumstances wouldn't have led him to doing those things. He never would have fought geth at the citadel, he never would have encountered legion to stop the collectors, he never would have been on rannoch to broker a peace so the reapers could be defeated. The quarians may have still gone to war but would Shepard have been there? Would they have listened if the reapers weren't a larger threat? There are very few people in the galaxy that would consider AI's to have just as much rights as organics and to have "Humanity". Shepard is one of those and convinces some people but they also still deceive others. If the reapers weren't around would people still listening to shepard? Setting aside one issue for the "greater good" of defeating the reapers likely wouldn't happen if they had nothing larger to defeat.

We also can't ignore that the Reapers and the Catalyst might not have been the only things controlling the cycle. We could learn in Mass Effect 4 that the reapers were in defense to <entity controlling chaos> and that the Reapers only saw one way to stop them. The current endings fit as well as "Oh because of dark matter" which is essentially just saying space magic.