Mass Effect Ending Spoiler Thread

[Faeelin]

So, let's move this here to humor people.

As I see it, there are two problems with the ending:

1) It's full of plot holes, it's not consistent with the game, and requires a literal deus ex machina in the form of space magic waves.

2) I think it contradicts the theme of Mass Effect, particularly if you're an optimist. To claim that a game shouldn't have a happy ending is cheap; it reflects this stupid notion that to prove you're a good story teller, you need a a dark ending. There are games where this works; but in a game like Mass Effect, inspired by Star Wars, which is about how one man with good intentions can change a galaxy, it seems forced. There's no need for Shepard at the end; the Catalyst could have done whatever it wanted without Shepard. 

It's like if at the end of Return of the Jedi, as the emperor is shooting force lightning at Luke, he decides to blow up the Death Start and himself because.

I don't want to put on rose-tinted glasses, but I wonder if endings in general are becoming crappier of late for series.  Compare Babylon 5 or Deep Space 9's endings to Battlestar Galactica or Lost. I feel like there's this feeling among writers that to get credit endings have to be... disappointing.

[Scipio]

The Catalyst makes no sense.  There is literally no need for it to exist as a sentient being, especially one that created the Reapers.  Conceptually, it is incredibly stupid; a catalyst powerful  enough to conceptualize and actualize the Reapers is presumably powerful to destroy unshackled AI by will alone, or by sending the Reapers after the unshackled AI, instead of after organics.  If the Catalyst is an organic outgrowth of the Reaper process, that might make sense; spontaneous creation of a machine superintelligence via singularity accreting through the Citadel mechanism is credible, if a bit of a stretch.  Even a fairly malignant machine intelligence would tire of being a perpetual abattoir, and want an end to the Reapers.

But it just doesn't make sense as presented.  The simplest solution is the most likely; Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the Catalyst is lying, at least in part, and most likely almost entirely.  Therefore, Shepard's choice is essentially meaningless at the end; if the Catalyst is telling the truth, then every assumption Shepard's actions are based on is a lie, and so Shepard's moral reasoning is robbed of consequence.  If the Catalyst is lying, then the same issue results: a deceiver god cannot require reasoned action from its creation, so the choice is false, because ultimately the Catalyst can prevent Shepard's actions from having consequence.  I think the next time I play the ending (after I've maxed War Readiness, instead of raising it to only 55%), I'm just going to leave the game running with Shepard standing there, not having made a choice, and see if anything happens.  Only by refusing to act is Shepard morally free.

[viper37]

So, let's move this here to humor people.

As I see it, there are two problems with the ending:

1) It's full of plot holes, it's not consistent with the game, and requires a literal deus ex machina in the form of space magic waves.

2) I think it contradicts the theme of Mass Effect, particularly if you're an optimist. To claim that a game shouldn't have a happy ending is cheap; it reflects this stupid notion that to prove you're a good story teller, you need a a dark ending. There are games where this works; but in a game like Mass Effect, inspired by Star Wars, which is about how one man with good intentions can change a galaxy, it seems forced. There's no need for Shepard at the end; the Catalyst could have done whatever it wanted without Shepard. 

It's like if at the end of Return of the Jedi, as the emperor is shooting force lightning at Luke, he decides to blow up the Death Start and himself because.

I don't want to put on rose-tinted glasses, but I wonder if endings in general are becoming crappier of late for series.  Compare Babylon 5 or Deep Space 9's endings to Battlestar Galactica or Lost. I feel like there's this feeling among writers that to get credit endings have to be... disappointing.

In Babylon 5, Sheridan made his sacrifice, thinkin he'd died.  He slammed a Whitestar filled with nukes on Z'ha'adum to destroy the Shadow base.  He really thought it was the end.  But it merely delayed it for 20 years or so.  In the end, he had a much shorter life than the average human (60 instead of over 100).

Did The Empire Strikes Back really end that well?  Wich was the best movie, Episode I or IV with a good ending or TESB?  Wich was better, Revenge of the Sith or Phantom Menace?

I don't see the Catalyst as an intelligent being in itself.  It's merely a representation of an ancient race, those who built the Reapers.  It's purpose is to guide the Reapers in their harvest.  I see it as merely a sophisticated program existing on the Citadel.

And apparently, there is a possible ending where Sheppard lives and the Earth is saved.

[viper37]

The Catalyst makes no sense.  There is literally no need for it to exist as a sentient being, especially one that created the Reapers.  Conceptually, it is incredibly stupid; a catalyst powerful  enough to conceptualize and actualize the Reapers is presumably powerful to destroy unshackled AI by will alone, or by sending the Reapers after the unshackled AI, instead of after organics.

It's not a sentient being, it did not create the Reapers.
Remember what are Reapers in the lore of ME2: Machines with an organic brain (sort of).  They contain billions of "soul" from the races harvested in the past, as well as those of their creators (according to the Catalyst itself).

The races of the Citadel are mere children compared to the Reapers.  When you punish a kid, you tell him you're doing so because you love him, because you want him to learn the consequences of his mistakes.  Now, twist it.  And make it prehemptive.  The Reapers believe that organics left alone will eventually destroy all life in the galaxy.  In their mind, they are beating and torturing people for the greater good (doesn't mean it is, but that's what they think).

If the Catalyst is an organic outgrowth of the Reaper process, that might make sense; spontaneous creation of a machine superintelligence via singularity accreting through the Citadel mechanism is credible, if a bit of a stretch.  Even a fairly malignant machine intelligence would tire of being a perpetual abattoir, and want an end to the Reapers.

The Catalyst was most certainly created by the same people who built the Reapers, the same people who built the mass effect relays and the Citadel itself.  It is a mere representation of the collective will of an ancient race.  It's not a being in itself.  It uses the image of a child to communicate with Shepard, because it's probably easier that way.  A race using images and pleasant figures to communicate with another species is kinda seen a lot in sci-fi.

But it just doesn't make sense as presented.  The simplest solution is the most likely; Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the Catalyst is lying, at least in part, and most likely almost entirely.  Therefore, Shepard's choice is essentially meaningless at the end; if the Catalyst is telling the truth, then every assumption Shepard's actions are based on is a lie, and so Shepard's moral reasoning is robbed of consequence.  If the Catalyst is lying, then the same issue results: a deceiver god cannot require reasoned action from its creation, so the choice is false, because ultimately the Catalyst can prevent Shepard's actions from having consequence.  I think the next time I play the ending (after I've maxed War Readiness, instead of raising it to only 55%), I'm just going to leave the game running with Shepard standing there, not having made a choice, and see if anything happens.  Only by refusing to act is Shepard morally free.

There are 16 different possible endings, depending on your war readyness (see the other thread) and the choices you made in ME2.
If you war readyness is too low, you will destroy the Reapers and the Earth as well, synthesis won't be an option.

[Faeelin]

http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/

An excellent article.

[Legbiter]

[katmai]

I blame Neil for this ending.

[Tamas]

Good article, points 5 and 1 are the best ones.

I suspsect that the answer is quite easy: lack of money and/or time to do proper 16 different endings

[viper37]

Point 3 is ridiculous, save for the last part (wich I agree with).  A lot of ships were losts, for 1, and secondly, it has been established through the end mission on London that the Reapers are targetting population centers, leaving the rest intact.  So, countryside is ok.  Smaller cities are ok.  It's the big cities and the people living in it who are fucked.  Casualties are high, very high. 
So the Earth could sustain alien life.  Those who can eat human food at least.  Quarians could probably eat human foods so long as it is properly prepared and sanitized.  When you speak to a drunk Tali, she talks about drinking some triple distilled whiskey with a straw.

[katmai]

I didn't talk to a drunk Tali, i chose the Geth

[Faeelin]

I didn't talk to a drunk Tali, i chose the Geth

I saved them all.

Which is another example of how this is stupid. If you want to argue that you can't save everyone, yadda yadda yadda, then do that through the series. Make it so you have to lose people in ME2; make it so that you can't save the Geth and the Quarians. 

Don't decide "I made it edgy by giving you a child at the end who gives you unclear goals and outcomes."

[Habbaku]

So, basically, they ripped off the ending from the Matrix trilogy?  Wut.

[katmai]

I wouldn't know, I gave up on that series after first one.

[Habbaku]

Oh, that I wish I had done the same...

[viper37]

Which is another example of how this is stupid. If you want to argue that you can't save everyone, yadda yadda yadda, then do that through the series. Make it so you have to lose people in ME2; make it so that you can't save the Geth and the Quarians. 

you lose an entire squad of Krogan if you save the Rachni Queen.
You lose Thane, also.  And Kelly Chambers if you're not careful.  And Mordin.  And you may also lose Miranda.
In ME1, there was no way to save both Ashley and Kaidan.  If you weren't careful, you might have also lost Wrex.

Don't decide "I made it edgy by giving you a child at the end who gives you unclear goals and outcomes."

Rumor says there's a DLC called "The Truth" coming...