So when I beat Mass Effect 3, I was really confused as to why everyone was so upset about the ending - especially to the point of starting a petition and hurling threats towards the BioWare development team. The ending made sense to me, here's why.
The catalyst character was set up earlier in the game. Most people are acting like it came out of no where, but there is some foreshadowing in the games. It starts with some vague hints in ME1 and 2 saying that the Reapers are salvation through destruction. On Rannoch in ME3, the Reaper you destroy repeats this idea to you and alludes to a higher power orchestrating everything.
The Prothean VI expands a bit on this on Thessia. He tells you that the Reapers are servants, Shepard asks of who and the VI says that is unknown. By this point I thought it was almost obvious you were going to eventually meet up with some sort of "divine" like thing in control of everything.
So flash forward to Earth. BioWare does a good job throughout the final mission of really making you feel a sense of desperation and almost hopelessness. From the shuttle with heavy weapons that gets shut down to the missles that miss the reaper to Harbinger killing everyone - nothing seems to be going right.
That sets the stage for the ending. Shepard gets up after getting blasted by a reaper, armor torn off, he/she can barely walk and is barely conscious (the weird dream sequence behind him/her that people attribute to Indoctrination Theory).
Next, Shepard's almost there and its just the Illusive Man standing in his way of completing his mission. He convinces the Illusive Man to kill himself but uses every last bit of his energy to do so. That's made kind of obvious when he's sitting next to Anderson, exhausted, bleeding. Then the part happens that everyone hates- he meets the catalyst.
The catalyst in the form of the little kid tells Shepard about how organic life creates synthetic life which then destroys organic life. And the Reapers are its solution, as they harvest the organic life to preserve it before Synthetics completely destroy it (as the Geth do to the Quarians if you save them).
People point to that idea as not making sense. How is the Reapers killing everyone and indoctrinating them saving them? I think you have to understand that these are synthetics we're talking about. Haven't you ever talked to legion? Logic takes precedence over morals.
Logically, the Reapers are in a way saving the organic races by not allowing them to become completely extinct - instead preserved in reaper/indoctrinated form. The fact that they are massacring them to do it is just a means to an end, a necessary evil in their mind. As this would happen anyway at the hands of the synthetics the organics create, but they would not be preserved.
So the Catalyst gives Shepard the three choices. People have a problem with 1. the fact that Shepard doesn't argue with the Catalyst and 2. the choices themselves.
Shepard is exhausted, near death (dude just got blasted by a reaper), at a more desperate state that we've ever seen him/her before. How much energy does he/she really have here? The catalyst makes things simple for him/her. Destroy, Control, or Combine.
Now onto the choices. I've heard many have a problem with essentially, without using these words, the lack of a happy ending. There's no way to do what you sought out do do - save and preserve the galaxy. Each decision has a positive and a negative. Destroying the Reapers is the closest to your original mission- you kill them but you also destroy the mass relays, and you live. In the other decisions you don't kill the Reapers, but they stop killing everyone and you die/get turned into a husk.
I like that there's no perfect stereotypical ending. With something as massive and destructive as the Reaper invasion, its hard to imagine a way to get rid of them and have everything being able to go back to exactly how it was.
It's at this point (the catalyst part) that I start buying the indoctrination theory. When you talk to the Illusive Man you see the weird black things on the sides of the screen. The decisions you get are actually a way of you choosing whether to resist the indoctrination or not - with the destroy option being the only way to resist.
As for the problems with the lack of closure. What can I tell you? BioWare didn't want to make a 45 minute cutscene? A valid point but not valid enough to start a petition and threaten bioware team members.
-- Uncle Owen RIP--Uncle Owen RIP 21:14, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
Felt like writing a response, if you have actual explanations for all the questions I raise, I would love to hear them. Really. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or everything, if someone can actually answer without using the word “space magic”, I would be extremely happy. (Oh and you should sign your posts.)
“It starts with some vague hints in ME1 and 2 saying that the Reapers are salvation through destruction.” - Sovereign also says that “organic life is just an accident” and that the reapers are each independent and a nation on their own. Which of course could be lie, though it's not really clear why he would lie about it. But overall, I would say the Catalyst wasn't foreshadowed enough in the games, and it could have used a much more emotionally painful form (like Virmire sacrifice), and not the kid. Honestly, as someone who played all three games numerous times, I think focusing so much on this child is bad. Shepard already lost many people either due to this war, or eve before, so one random kid giving him/her PTSD is unlikely.
“So flash forward to Earth. BioWare does a good job throughout the final mission of really making you feel a sense of desperation and almost hopelessness […] nothing seems to be going right.” - My problem with the Earth part is that you don't get to see or use any of your War Assets. We spend so much time collecting them, doing people favors and all, yet we don't even have cut scenes about krogan forces fighting husks... well except for that one cut scene where a mixed race group dies horribly...but that's really not nearly enough. Though this isn't really a “problem with the ending”, I just thought I mention it.
“I think you have to understand that these are synthetics we're talking about. Haven't you ever talked to legion? Logic takes precedence over morals.” - I agree with this. But if you take into account ME1, where Sovereign says that they built the mass relays and the Citadel, so that galactic civilization develops in the way they want it, then that means, the reapers technologically advance species into the direction of creating an AI on purpose. Why not try to advance them in a way that they won't create AI? Why not kill the synthetics that try to kill the organics instead? How can they be sure that synthetics want to always kill their creators? It certainly wasn't true in this cycle.
“Shepard is exhausted, near death (dude just got blasted by a reaper), at a more desperate state that we've ever seen him/her before. How much energy does he/she really have here?” - Sooo, he/she has the energy to walk down the road and possibly shoot things, but not enough to mention that outside the geth and the quarians are working side-by-side and that the geth acted in self-defense, and the only time they actively tried to kill organics was when they were under Sovereign's (or some other reaper's) influence? It takes less energy to say things than walk at that state imho.
“I've heard many have a problem with essentially, without using these words, the lack of a happy ending.” - That's really not the issue. Most people are prepared for Shepard to die, and it fits their story perfectly. The problem with the endings is that none of the options is properly explained. Destroy: kills reapers and every other synthetic. Why does it kill other synthetics too, and not only the reapers? If the geth die, why isn't it shown? If Shepard is part synthetic, and should die due to that ending, why is Destroy the only ending where you can see the “Shepard takes a breath” 10 seconds cut scene? Control: Will Shepard be able to truly control the reapers forever? Or can Shepard order the reapers to fly into the nearest sun and die? How does control actually work? Does Shepard get uploaded into every reaper, or does he/she become the Catalyst? Synthesis: How does it work? How can you make a new DNA from something that doesn't have DNA? Does that mean that everybody is immortal now? Do objects become synthetics too? If they don't, what's to stop the new hybrid DNA people from creating true synthetics, who could possibly rebel against them? And once again, how in hell does it work?!
Also, you didn't mention, but I have too. Normandy running away from the blast and crash landing on an unknown planet. Why was Joker running from the fight? Hackett says in one conversation that the Normandy will be the “tip of the spear” in this fight, and he also says that in case the Crucible doesn't work, the plan is to fight until we die. So why is Joker flying away, and possibly doing a relay jump? If he actually does jump through the relay then it's even more unbelievable, cos that would mean, he started flying away while Shepard was making his/her choice since the relay is still there. Also there is no real reason for him to fly away, since he can not know what the blast is. Maybe in Destroy ending he tries to flee so EDI won't die, but it's doubtful that in the short time it takes for the blast to reach the relay they would be able to analyze that EDI would die. And more importantly, Joker is a soldier who served with Shepard since ME1, and who actually says in ME3 that he blames himself for Shepard's death. Would someone like that really just leave, without knowing if Shepard is alive? Doubtful.
And then there is the problem that your squad mates, who were all on Earth with you, suddenly appear on the Normandy after the crash landing. Once again: How? There is no beam-me-up technology in ME, and they were all fighting on the ground, hell two of them gets even blasted by Harbinger, like Shepard, yet the cut scene implies that they are not only unharmed but managed to get on the Normandy. Getting on the ship is really doubtful, the Normandy is much bigger than it was in ME1, so maneuvering in a place like London would be hard, that's why they use shuttles. So if your team gets on to the Normandy that would mean they are picked up by a shuttle around the time while Shepard is either still unconscious due to Harby, or when he/she is on the Citadel. In both cases, the fighting is still going on both in space and ground. Would they really leave the fight? I mean everyone in your squad pretty much says that they are prepared to die here, so why would they leave? And more importantly, none of them would be willing to leave Shepard behind. Yet, that cut scene happens...
“I like that there's no perfect stereotypical ending.” - While I love non-stereotypical endings too, Mass Effect always had a cliché ending. I mean both in ME1 and ME2 the hero gets a seen where he just walks away with a smug smile on his face, knowing that he won. Changing this formula for the last game is a bit stupid. But even if they want to change it, why not try to end it on an actual positive note? Like after Shepard and Anderson talks, and Anderson dies, Shepard looks at Earth, gives a tired smile, says “It is beautiful.” and dies, then the Crucible fires, reapers are defeated, mass relays blow up and credits. Sure we don't learn why the reapers are doing what they do, but is that bad? I mean throughout 3 games we are told that limited organics like us can not understand their purpose, so leaving it out completely would have been acceptable. Hell they could have made a new game with a new protagonist about finding out the reason.
“BioWare didn't want to make a 45 minute cut scene? A valid point but not valid enough to start a petition and threaten bioware team members.” - They could have made it a text-roll instead of cut scene, and people would have liked it, since most Bioware fans like to read. They could have made it even skippable, so that if your not interested in Vega's future, you can just jump to the next part. And no, the “petition” isn't about the lack of closure. It's about all those things I mentioned, and more than anything, it's about the trust between Bioware and the players. Bioware officials repeatedly said that the ending won't be a pick between A, B, C, yet it was. They said that every ending is achievable through only singleplayer, and doesn't need multiplayer or other kind of extras for it, which isn't true, because the “Shepard lives” ending can be only seen if you have 5000 EMS and that number is not possible to get only through sp (though granted this could be a bug, however it won't be fixed in the next patch). They also claimed that we will get answers for everything, yet we don't, and the lead writer, Mac Walter's notes on the ending even say “lots of speculations from everyone”, meaning that they did not intend to answer our questions to begin with. Here, a thread about what BW said about the game, which didn't turn out to be true. So once again, it's not just about the lack of closure or happy ending, it's about faulty logic, trust between company and consumer.
Have to add though that Bioware will release a free DLC explaining the endings this summer. Will all the plot-holes be filled? I don't know. Will we have closure for our characters? I don't know. But I still stay pessimistic, because that way at least I can be pleasantly surprised.
PS: Bioware team members were not really threatened or bullied this time. That Jennifer Hepler thing was a totally different matter. I mean sure lot of people think that Casey Hudson is satan and stupid stuff like that, but it's not harassment level.--SunyiNyufi 18:21, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I started this topic as someone who did not hate the ending and did not understand why people did. I am glad that you chose to respond to me in the manner you did, as to help me understand that and not just yell at me. So thank you again for taking the time to write.
"Sovereign also says that “organic life is just an accident” and that the reapers are each independent and a nation on their own." -- I'll first start by saying plot holes will exist in any majorly epic fantasy canon (Star Trek, Star Wars both have them) I understand that you are talking about what you consider major plotholes but I just want to preface what I say with that.
Obviously you cannot take what Soverign says here at face value, given what happens at the end. That opens the door for other questions. Also are we ever given much insight into how Reapers think? For instance, I interpret what he says kind of like the opposite of how Legion explains the Geth. Legion says the Geth all share one mind basically, which is why he always refers to himself as "We". It's possible Sovereign is just stating in kind of a weird way that each reaper is its own synthetic mind, not connected to one big consciousness like the Geth are. Or of course Soverign could've just been lying, yes.
Organic Life is just an accident. So he means that just by a miracle of science organic life exists, but synthetic life is created methodically and intentionally. I'd really have to hear everything Sovereign says here again to put it all into context, but I think this statement is too ambiguous on its own to take anything from either way.
But overall, I would say the Catalyst wasn't foreshadowed enough in the games, and it could have used a much more emotionally painful form (like Virmire sacrifice), and not the kid.
I have to disagree on the first part, like I said, it was obvious to me the direction that this was heading. I even said to a friend of mine before beating it that I was worried the ending would have God in it and that is why people were getting mad about it.
As for its form, I can't argue. the kid was lame, but I think this is one of the more minor points here.
"Why not try to advance them in a way that they won't create AI? Why not kill the synthetics that try to kill the organics instead?"
We're given the understanding that the reapers have been doing this for billions and billions of years and many many different cycles before even the Protheans. You'd have to assume that synthetics killing their creators was a bit of a problem for millions of years before they even started this "solution".
Why don't they just kill the synthetics to save the organics? Well the Catalyst and Reapers are synthetics themselves, and based on the way the Catalyst would like you to choose at the end, they seem to favor their own kind a little bit. Even Legion favored his own kind over organics, as if you choose to save the Quarians he tries to kill you.
How can they be sure that synthetics want to always kill their creators? It certainly wasn't true in this cycle."
The Catalyst does say that the solution doesn't appear to be relevant anymore based on this cycle, this could have something to do with it. However, the Geth do wind up completing wiping out the Quarians if you side with them.
It takes less energy to say things than walk at that state imho.
Like I said I kind of viewed the last scene as Shepard being in a haze, and possibly being in the process of being indoctrinated. Obviously open for interpretation but the fact remains, he did not ask those questions. This is why I think he did not.
But even if they want to change it, why not try to end it on an actual positive note? Like after Shepard and Anderson talks, and Anderson dies, Shepard looks at Earth, gives a tired smile, says “It is beautiful.” and dies
I would loop Shepard just dying to save earth in with the streotypical sorry. This ending has generated A LOT of discussion, controvery, writing and interpretation. They went an unexpected route and I give them props for that.
Bioware officials repeatedly said that the ending won't be a pick between A, B, C, yet it was. They said that every ending is achievable through only singleplayer, and doesn't need multiplayer or other kind of extras for it, which isn't true, because the “Shepard lives” ending can be only seen if you have 5000 EMS and that number is not possible to get only through sp
I guess I never read any of their promises before playing so I'd have to agree with you here that they didn't deliver on that end of the bargain and I'd be disappointed had I been expecting that. Thought BTW I beat the game with under 5,000 EMS and I got the "Shepard lives" ending. Yet it does seem like multiplayer plays a big part. I did have 100% Galactic Readiness and had promoted one character.
Look forward to your response. Thank you!
Uncle Owen RIP --Uncle Owen RIP 21:14, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
I always try to be polite :) Also while I am deeply disappointed in the endings and in Bioware, I already passed the “anger stage”, so...
About Sovereign. Obviously we can't take everything he says at face value, and we really shouldn't. However, even Legion says (in ME2 I believe) that reapers are each a nation and that they are independent. Yet, now they are controlled by an AI God. Sure it could be true, if we are willing to accept that both Harbinger and Sovereign lie about their goals, but from a narrative point that would mean that they have sort of mislead as for 2 games. Not the best move.
“I was worried the ending would have God in it and that is why people were getting mad about it” - Well in all honesty, since the Crucible itself is a deus ex machina in the trilogy, including an actual God, once again not the best move from a narrative viewpoint.
“You'd have to assume that synthetics killing their creators was a bit of a problem for millions of years before they even started this "solution". “- My problem with this is that we only have Catalyst's word for any of this (and well Javik's, cos he comments on war with the synthetics, but I discount him, since he is racist). In a story like ME you really can't accept everything without proof, since most people (especially the ones connected to the reapers) lie and cheat all the time.
And to come back to my original point about reapers forcing the cycle on the galaxy: it's like treating the symptoms of an illness really. You can make those go away, but the illness will stay. In this case the proposed problem is that synthetics will always kill organics. So the best solution would be to create a situation where they can co-exist (not merge mind you). Actually you know what could have been brilliant? If you managed to get the geth and quarians to co-operate and the Catalyst would say that this was all they wanted, that they created the reaper threat so that all races in the galaxy organic and synthetic alike would unify, stand together against a common foe, and learn each other values in the process. Now that would be fitting for the series.
“Even Legion favored his own kind over organics, as if you choose to save the Quarians he tries to kill you.” - When he feared that all of his people will be wiped out? Yes, he will do everything he can, like any organic most likely. However in both games, ME2 and ME3, he is willing to kill a faction of his own kind in order to be able to bring piece and show organics that they are not all like that.
I also have to mention once again, that the geth did not start the war. Not the Morning War, and not the one in ME3. Both were initiated by the quarians, and geth acted mostly in self-defense. To quote Shepard: “Your entire history is you trying to kill the geth. You forced them to rebel. You forced them to ally with the Reapers. The geth don't want to fight you.”
But let's not focus only on the geth, there is EDI. An unshackled AI, who was made from a VI that tried really hard to kill Shepard in ME1. Now she is friendly, and willing to risk non-fuction so that organics can live. I mean, seriously, Shepard can teach her what love is.
So yeah, no, synthetics won't always rebel. If you treat them like slaves, then they probably will. Treat them with respect and they won't. And obviously if Shepard plays his/her cards right, this cycle is ready to treat them with respect. Yet you can't point that out to the Catalyst, not even once.
“However, the Geth do wind up completing wiping out the Quarians if you side with them.” - Which once again happens in self-defense, since the whole quarian fleet is trying to kill them. Also it's really really easy to make peace between them, unless you rush ahead and don't do any side missions.
“Like I said I kind of viewed the last scene as Shepard being in a haze, and possibly being in the process of being indoctrinated. Obviously open for interpretation but the fact remains, he did not ask those questions. This is why I think he did not.” - The biggest problem with this is that it means we pretty much loose control over the player character at the most crucial moment in the entire series. If we believe the Indoctrination Theory (which we shouldn't, because it isn't true), then that would mean Control and Synthesys are bad endings, and Destory is the “good” ending. Then why are the cut scenes mostly the same for all three endings? If 2 of those choices are bad, then why isn't it clearly shown that they are indeed bad? “They went an unexpected route and I give them props for that.” - Oh c'mon now! Everyone and their dog could see at the start of the Earth mission, that there is a 99,99999999% chance for Shepard to die. He/she was a mild case of Death Seeker throughout the whole of ME3. Still I think that there should have been an ending where Shepard clearly, I mean CLEARLY, lives and get's a happy ending, they should have just made it insanely difficult to get. So like 90% of the different endings have Shepard die one way or the other, but there would be that one ending where he/she lives, because you worked hard for it. But again, I could be ok with Shepard dying, if it's explained why it has to happen, and not just because “it's a cool ending to the story”. Oh and a lot of people have a problem with Shepard dying the way he/she does. They would have preferred that Shepard goes down actually fighting not while “picking favorite color”.
About the EMS stuff... I think you need 5000 EMS, if you let Anderson die, and 4500 if you didn't...or something. Anyway if you don't play multiplayer or use one of the iOS apps, then your war assets will always will be halved, which leaves most people somewhere between 3500-4100 EMS before starting the Cerberus base mission, which is not enough for Shepard lives ending, and you can't get more from the war assets, unless you edit some game files (which could get you banned from Origin).
I noticed you didn't even touch the Normandy crash landing subject. Sneaky ;P--SunyiNyufi 22:32, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
First off, I just want to say it was really a bit of a relief to find a forum where the ending was actually being discussed instead of just bashed. I also rather liked the ending - it wasn't what I expected, and it could have been better, but it was very interesting nonetheless.
Anyway, these are just my impressions regarding a couple of the questions thrown around above:
Sovereign also says that “organic life is just an accident” and that the reapers are each independent and a nation on their own. My thoughts regarding the first bit is that Sovereign is referring to the fact that the Reapers are "perfect" - they are ageless, almost invulnerable, and by their own admission the "pinnacle of evolution and existence."They are debatably superior to organic life in every way, and they are the "end result" that every intelligent species arrives at via the Cycles. Ideally, at least in the Reapers' view, all intelligent life would be like them, as there would no longer be any war, disease, and certainly no rogue AIs taking over galactic civilization. As such, while I think Sovereign may indeed have been referring to the "accidental" nature of how organic life originates, he may have also been asserting that organic life is a minor, pointless detour that evolution inevitably must take before it can "ascend" (with the Reapers' assistance) to the perfection of the Reapers. As for the second bit, I'm pretty sure that Sovereign is referring to the fact that each Reaper is made up of billions of minds from a conquered intelligent species.
Synthesis: How does it work? How can you make a new DNA from something that doesn't have DNA? Does that mean that everybody is immortal now? Do objects become synthetics too? If they don't, what's to stop the new hybrid DNA people from creating true synthetics, who could possibly rebel against them? And once again, how in hell does it work?! Although I can't say that I know the answers to any of the questions above, here's how I think of it: The main traits of organic life include reproduction, evolution, and a variety of mental faculties that machines generally lack (creativity, emotion, irrational thought). Synthetic life, on the other hand, is characterized by flawless logic, functional immortality, and separation of hardware and software. I'm guessing that the Synthesis option blends these traits together so that all intelligent species live indefinitely, think with perfect logic but retain emotion and creativity, retain the ability to pass their genes on and evolve, and are able to meld their "software" (minds) with other software, such as that found in machinery or other bio-synthetic organisms. I haven't the vaguest idea of how that process works, but I'm guessing it doesn't involve DNA - "DNA" is just an analogy for the basic layout that all life will be based upon from here on out. Seeing as the Mass Effect universe makes use of solid "holographic" technology like omni-tools, I'm guessing the energy released by the Crucible becomes a similar holographic form that bonds to the tissue of organics and the circuits of synthetics; that would explain why Joker and EDI have a layer of green "holographic" circuitry over their bodies. As for why the new bio-synthetic races wouldn't face the issue of rebellious AI - the Synthesis option seems to convert every intelligent being into an AI, just one that also happens to have an organic body. As such, assuming that every intelligent being in the galaxy has the same capabilities as an AI, fighting back against one wouldn't be as difficult. Also, if everyone were to have the abilities described above, creating an AI wouldn't be necessary - you could just download your own mind into a computer instead of create an artificial mind from scratch. OperativeKlause 22:39, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
Disclaimer: sorry if my English isn't that good right now. I just woke up...sipping coffee takes time...
“I'm pretty sure that Sovereign is referring to the fact that each Reaper is made up of billions of minds from a conquered intelligent species.” - My original point in mentioning that Sovereign part was meant to be, that both Sovereign and Harbinger claim that while they are each a nation (consisting of millions), they are independent from each other. Yet in ME3 it turns out that they are controlled. Sure Vigil said that they appear to be “servants of the cycle”, but the fact that both the Catalyst and Shepard can control them, no matter what the reapers actually want, is more akin to slaves than servants. Also every reaper we hear talk very clearly looks down on organic life, yet the Catalyst claims that their purpose is to save organic life. Meaning that they save organic life in way that will more than likely make organic hate other organics. And I think it's worth to mention that they don't use every organic for the future reapers, since they also create husks or force genetic mutation on them, and turn them into Collector-like beings. So why are hey allowed to decide who get the “happy reaper ending” and who will be turned into a mindless shell?
Okay, I can sort of agree with what you said about synthesis. If it's actually possible to do, then this is probably what it's effects would be. However, this still doesn't answer a lot of technical questions, like how the machine part will be passed down to future generations. Also if we take the omnitool holograph thing as a base, we have to remember that the omnitool is created through implants, which most people in the galaxy have, but which is obviously not present in a new born baby. So yeah, I would say that synthesis raises way too many questions for a sci-fi story, and gives no answers.
And I have to mention, that personally I dislike synthesis mostly because of the moral implications. Shepard basically decides in that ending that “we are all reapers now”, even though most people in the galaxy do not want that. Not even the geth. You are basically forcing a genetic change on everyone in the galaxy against their will. So unless they really become as logical as AI, and can deduce that this was “the best option”, it would create a much bigger problems than reapers and synthetics together.--SunyiNyufi 10:28, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
While there is no explanation given as to how synthesis works in the Mass Effect universe, we can look to modern Eukaryotes for a less implausible explanation than "space magic." In recent years scientists have discovered that the mitochondria, and I believe that the chloroplasts in plants, in all eukaryotes has its own DNA within its membrane that is different from the rest of the cell. One of the leading theories as to why this is the case suggests that mitochondria originally existed as a prokaryote on its own, and that a good number of these mitochondria diffused into the larger eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells. This resulted in a mutual relationship where the mitochondria would allow for respiration to occur within the cells, and the mitochondria had protection. Upon the host cell's replication, the mitochondria was also replicated, and since then the two have always replicated together as a Eukayotic cell. Now synthesis may have introduced a similar synthetic organelle into our cells that reproduces in a similar manner as our own as the cell replicates. Now I don't understand why a microscopic mechanical part would reproduce, or how these mechanical organelles would be introduced into our cells. I don't think that this specifically would be the explanation that Bioware had in mind but the idea of synthesis ins't totally implausible. Especially in Sci Fi. --Mand'alore te Kote 21:27, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. Didn't know about that stuff, since I'm not into that part of science much. It could certainly work in a ME-like sci-fi, since we allow mass effect fields to work, this could be allowed too. Then synthesis ending wouldn't make sense from a (imho moral and) narrative view point, since nowhere in the three games anybody ever mentions this as a possibility for the future. Well except for Saren, but I think we can agree that his idea of “union of flesh and machine” was just an excuse for having implants that gave Sovereign more powers. So yeah, if they wanted to do something like this, they should have at least made a Codex entry regarding the science behind it...or well maybe that's what they will add in the Extended Cut DLC? Who knows...--SunyiNyufi 10:20, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
At this point it should be obvious to any reasonable observer that the current ME3 ending does have significant problems. Even BioWare was finally forced to face the truth of the adage, where there's smoke there's fire. The fact that BioWare will need months to "clarify" the ending admits the extent of missing material needed to achieve a proper ending.
The OP makes a number of thoughtful observations and comments about the ME3 ending. Nevertheless, it isn't enough that one can make sense of the current ending. An ending must stand on its own and on the plot that precedes it. A proper ending must make objective sense as presented.
The ME3 ending is nothing more than a collection of unconnected dots. The dots of the ME3 ending are too few and far between to suggest a definite picture founded on objective logic. Sure, one can draw numerous lines between different ones of the dots in the ending to formulate a picture based on speculation. But the picture drawn by the ending isn't a picture; its a Rorschach inkblot without objective meaning.
The DNA synthesis ending is one example. Without some explanation, DNA of a synthetic makes absolutely no sense. DNA is a component of cellular organisms, but synthetics are not cellular. Synthetics aren't constructed of cells and don't grow or reproduce by cellular division. Compare ME3's complete failure to explain synthetic DNA to the detailed presentation of DNA in Deus EX HR. In Deus Ex HR, DNA was an important plot element throughout the story. The need for DNA modification allowing for human mechanical implants without biological rejection was supported and explained by the plot.
Problems also abound in the Starchild. For example, Starchild claims that Shepard's presence means that his solution will no longer work. But that doesn't make sense because Admiral Hacket has just told Shepard that the Crucible isn't firing; i.e., isn't working. Hence the Reapers are still wiping out organics and Starchild's solution is indeed working despite Shepard's presence.
Another Starchild problem lies in his rule that synthetics will always destroy their creators. But we have just learned that Starchild is the creator of the Reaper synthetics. Hence the Reapers should be destroying Starchild. Reapers have had millenia of millenia to go after Starchild, but they haven't destroyed Starchild and aren't trying to do so.
In short, the ME3 ending doesn't make sense standing on its own, and isn't supported by the ME3 plot. Starchild is a gimmick, and a poorly constructed one at that. WarPaint 20:00, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
I know I’m jumping in late, but here are my two cents:
It’s not really about the kid. It’s about what the kid represents, which is the vulnerability and innocence of natural organic life. The child doesn’t know killing, greed, or abuse of power. The child just wants to live and be happy. Shepard is fighting for a galaxy in which life can be just that. He/she is not just worried about losing lives; he/she is worried about losing what makes life worth living. That is what is on his/her shoulders. That’s what weighs so heavily on him/her.
When he meets the catalyst, I think that’s just the image he sees. It’s just one of those cases where the image of the catalyst would be different to everyone who speaks to it. The reason the image is not of a person that was killed in the war that’s close to Shepard is because we as the player have been allowed to feel however we want toward these characters. Who knows, some people might hate Mordin and had their Shepard treat him like crap. So seeing Mordin wouldn’t have worked for that player. Whereas, while you might not like the child, it’s clear how Shepard is supposed to feel about what the child represents means to him/her.
I do agree that I wanted to see more of the war assets. There was that cut scene where all the races are listening to the speech and preparing for the attack on the Reapers so the crucible can go inside the Citadel. But I wish there was a bit more.
I think the reason that the plot devise of synthetics always risinging against their creators is really a statement about humans always leading themselves to their own destruction. The inevitable synthetic uprising represents humanity’s destruction of itself. Our history is littered with war. We are constantly coming up with new ways to kill each other. I think Bioware created a story that asks the question of what it would take to keep humans from eventually killing ourselves off, and the irony that it might take a great sacrifice and loss of life to keep that from happening; much like the pruning of a tree.
I think we're missing the point is we argue whether synthetics really will destroy organic life and why that is. We just need to accept that in the universe that Bioware created, they just will. That rule is needed to tell the greater story. Yes, the Geth were fighting alongside the Quarians at the end, and the Geth were only acting in self-defense, but who’s to say that lasts forever? Who’s to say that another synthetic won’t be created that will wipe out life? Bioware gets to set the rules of their own galaxy. If eventually synthetic life will always eventually destroy all organic life, then those are their rules.
The story of Mass Effect is bitter sweet one. It makes the point that accomplishing a goal is often only a done with great sacrifice. Shepard made the ultimate sacrifice (in my ending) in destroying the mass relays, essentially wiping out many planets, stranding millions away from their homes, killing himself (?), and setting the galaxy back thousands and thousands of years. But he/she did so to keep organic life from ever creating the means of their complete destruction again. He was able to save what the child represented, but it took far more than anyone thought it would. To end the story with Shepard walking off into the sunset, everyone lives, and everything is great would have been a great disservice to the story being told.
No, Mass Effect isn’t perfect. There are issues like why is Joker running away or why wasn’t there more of an epic fight with all my war assests, but when I step back and look at Mass Effect as a whole and what the story had to say about being a leader, sacrifice, and (cliché, I know) the will to live, I think Bioware did a fantastic job. The fact that I can write what I just did about a video game…a freaking video game!, speaks volumes about the bar that’s been set by Bioware with narratives this medium. --Brian4Turner 21:36, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- It's true that the developers have claimed that the ending is "bittersweet". But as you acknowledge, there's actually no way to know based on the ending, itself, what the outcome of Shepard's choice might be. The ending added nothing regarding self-sacrifice, the will to live, etc. Those have been elements of Mass Effect throughout the series (suicide mission, Shepard's death, etc.), and were fleshed out with greater detail and clarity in numerous other instances. The lack of clarity on these aspects in the ending actually undercuts their overall value in the game.
- Although I don't fully understand why you believe that a happy ending would harm the value of the story (a hero is still a hero even if they live after risking their life, after all), the point here is that the ending is unknown. Happy, sad; who knows? Lack of ending clarity does an injustice to the story by decreasing the meaning and our understanding of the story as a whole. The numerous questions undercut story immersion. We're left wondering about the story's meaning rather than being impacted by same. WarPaint 23:25, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
Ending the game ended on strictly happy note would not have been a good idea. Mass Effect has always been about stressing the tough decision. They acknowledge the harsh reality of being a leader, which is that you often have to make a choice that requires loss in order to achieve your goal. That point would fall flat if you weren’t faced with that at the end of the game. I would argue that the choice is even more difficult because the issue isn’t only about sacrificing Shepard’s own life, but about sacrificing the lives millions. It should be a gut check to the player. Should this really be up to me or any one person for that matter? I don’t think it’s as much about being a hero as it is about what it means to be a strong leader. I think those, while not mutually exclusive, are not the same thing.
I don’t think there was much of a lack of clarity to end. Or at least not to what I wanted to know. For my ending (the combing one) the galaxy suffered a huge hit and life has to start over, basically. It's happy and sad. Organic life will forever live on, but at a massive cost. That’s all I really needed to know. I’m fine with filling in the blanks. But I can understand why that wouldn’t be enough for people. They did announce that they will add some scenes to the end to make things clearer, so that’s good news.
I’d also like to echo the point made on this forum that I have really enjoyed the thoughtfulness and consideration of people’s arguments rather than constant bashing. --Brian4Turner 00:33, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
First of all a disclaimer once again: I wrote this at 4am, but didn't send it for some reason, but since I have a lot of work today, I'm not really going to re-write it, so sorry if parts of it don't make sense.
I mostly want to react to some things Brian4Turner said.
“It’s not really about the kid. It’s about what the kid represents” - Sure, we all know what he represents, really. The problem with the kid is that it's him popping up every time at the most annoying sections of the game really. Because the Vancouver tutorial isn't well done, neither are the nightmares (which aren't frightening or depressing enough, unless you let a lot of people die), and then “he” shows up again for the ending. He gets used in the wrong places really. Also it would be pretty much possible to use the one squad mate who died on Virmire, because even if the player didn't have any actual emotional connection to him/her, the game still makes it really clear that it was a hard decision for Shepard. Or there could be dialogue flags for squad mates that could show whether Shep likes the person or not. Or it could have been Shepard's father, who is always dead in every back story.
“The inevitable synthetic uprising represents humanity’s destruction of itself.” - That's an interesting theme really, I love to see it in other works, but Mass Effect wasn't about that before. In ME it was always shown that humans can overcome pretty much anything, because they are dedicated and focus on their goals. Introducing a completely new theme in the final installment of a trilogy is bad writing, and one of the reasons why the ending feels so disconnected from the rest of the series.
“Bioware gets to set the rules of their own galaxy. If eventually synthetic life will always eventually destroy all organic life, then those are their rules.” - Rules in a setting, and especially in a sci-fi setting, have to be explained though. Like how FTL drivers are explained, or the politics of the galaxy, biology of the alien races etc. The “fact” that synthetic life will always destroy organics is not really explained why. Why would they destroy organics? Is it because they want to turn them into batteries alá Matrix? Is it because God tells them to alá Battlestar Galactica? Is it because organics always use them for slave labor and don't value them? Why is it inevitable? And why isn't the geth proof that it doesn't has to be that way? Sure the geth might not stay peaceful forever, but that can be said from any other organic race too. Whose to say that after this war the turians don't try to kill off all humans? The chances of that happening, and the geth turning against organics. Though I personally think that since the geth are more rational than organic races, the chances for them to go to war on their own is really low.
“To end the story with Shepard walking off into the sunset, everyone lives, and everything is great would have been a great disservice to the story being told.” - Why? Why would be an actually happy ending so bad? I mean, if you “worked” your butt of in all three games, making all the “right” decisions, gathering all the war assets, having united the galaxy, why would it be bad to give people a happy ending? Most people don't even want a rainbows&bunnies kind of ending, just one where Shepard gets up, covered in blood, has some broken bones, walks up to his/her LI or best friend whatever, and they hug, while London is still a pile of rubble, and things are burning around them. This would even fit with the rest of the series, since it's pretty much similar to the ending of the previous games. But once again: I'm not saying that everyone should survive or that Shepard always has to live, but there should be an option for that kind of ending too. I also would like an option where Shepard utterly fails, and the Reapers harvest everyone. Would be great for balance.
“Ending the game ended on strictly happy note would not have been a good idea. Mass Effect has always been about stressing the tough decision. They acknowledge the harsh reality of being a leader, which is that you often have to make a choice that requires loss in order to achieve your goal.” - I agree with that, but it could have been done in a better way... Like seeing your squad mates die while rushing for the Conduit (which scene was actually there, but got cut from the game in the end), or seeing your war assets die during the fight, or once it was over and Shepard lived, he/she would look around and see corpses everywhere... or as Archengeia mentioned in his youtube video, Shepard could have gone on the Normandy, looked at the Memorial Wall, touch it with one hand, and then stand there in silence. There are many ways to acknowledge loss, which would make even a “Shepard lives happily ever after” ending bittersweet in the end.
“I’m fine with filling in the blanks.” - Actually I already reached the point where I'm fine with that too. Though I do retcon something from the original in my headcanon. However overall, if you just look at the story, there are way too many blanks for a trilogy to end like that. If it was only one game, it would be sort of ok not to explain things, but as the last one in the trilogy, ME3 should have wrapped things up. And I don't just mean what happens to Shepard's friends, it's more about the galaxy in general. For example they could have told us what happens to the assembled fleet. Can they go back to their homeworlds with just FTL drives or not? Because there are actually a lot of people arguing about this on the net, and both sides are using valid points from ME lore and physics in general to make their point.
“I think Bioware did a fantastic job. The fact that I can write what I just did about a video game…a freaking video game!, speaks volumes about the bar that’s been set by Bioware with narratives this medium.” - I'll agree. The Mass Effect series is great. I love it. I still love playing ME1 and ME2, the characters are great, the setting is brilliant, it makes you think about interesting stuff, like unity, free will, friendship, loyalty etc. That's why it really hurts that at the end, your Shepard loses most of his/her free will, and is forced to accept somebody else's logic, and is not even given the chance to properly argue about it. For the record, I chose Destroy, because destroying Reapers is what my Shepard does. Everything else in unacceptable. And yes I refuse to believe the geth dies, because it's not shown, and even Shepard can survive.--SunyiNyufi 08:17, April 12, 2012 (UTC) SunyiNyufi, you certainly raise some good points. You seem to agree with me on the meaning or the angle taken by Bioware and their reason for doing it, but one of your biggest issues looks like it’s their execution of those ideas. Maybe I was arguing the wrong points, because I think your right about that. The dream sequences with the child felt hollow. Using him again at the end didn’t feel right either. I just wanted to argue what Bioware was going for, which I like, but they didn’t really hit it home. I would say that the ME has always had an undertone of mutual destruction. The Quarian’s war with the Geth, the Genophadge (sp), the counsel’s unwillingness to take action. ME3 just brings the theme further into the light. I do want to say that this is not the only major theme that ME uses. Absolutely not. You’re right, leadership, friendship, perseverance are all themes of the trilogy. The end of ME trilogy had to be bittersweet. I made a further argument for that above, but I’ll just add that in many cases there is no “right” decision to make. There are serious pros and cons to each. The player is left to decide what’s most important to them. If everything ends perfectly then the message seems to be “hey, if you stick to it long enough, everything will work out just fine”. Bioware is sending the sobering message of “you can give it everything you have, but to get where you want to go can cost you”. It’s not a feel good message. I like that they don’t give in to the fairy tale ending. They acknowledge the reality. As for what happened to the fleets and if they can get home; I just assumed that they wouldn’t be able to with regular FTL drives. Or at least it would take years and years. Like in Star Trek: Voyager. I kind of played out this story in my head where many people decided to stay where they were and others took off on the long journey home. Bioware has said that they will address some these issues, so we have that to look forward to.
The biggest problem with the ME3 ending uproar, as I see it, is the lack of separation between the legitimate complaints about the product as a product (“BioWare lied to us!”), which is a matter of integrity and customer service, and the ultimately dismissible complaints about the game as a game (“Space Magic is stupid!”), which are essentially nothing more than negative opinions. That is to say, we can’t piggyback arguments for it being a bad ending and expect BioWare to logically conclude that they’ve given us a broken product. (Though they really should, in this case.)
Part of it is unavoidable, because there are so, so, SO many things you could list that make it both a bad ending and a broken product, and many of them overlap. The complaint about choices, for example, is both an opinion (“I wanted my choices to matter! And you didn’t make a game that did that!”) and a legitimate gripe (“You promised us choices! WHERE ARE THEY?!”). Which, unfortunately for fans, means that BioWare can react to one side of it (negative opinion) and ignore the other (legitimate complaint) and still claim to have acknowledged the “player choices” complaint.
Because they can safely hide behind the (albeit weak) “artistic integrity” argument for selling us a disappointing ending (“We wanted it to be a weirdass ending, and that’s our right.”), and they know it. After all, it’s their story; no one is making us listen. But they can’t make any kind of argument for selling us a broken ending (“Ha! Shimmery space ghost! You’ve been punk’d!”). That’s fraud. And they are not going to admit to that if they can help it. HELO 19:09, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
“I would say that the ME has always had an undertone of mutual destruction. The Quarian’s war with the Geth, the Genophadge (sp), the counsel’s unwillingness to take action. ME3 just brings the theme further into the light.” - Actually I'm glad you mentioned those things because those are the prefect example why ME3 is brilliant, and why the ending isn't. Sure, the organics destroying eachother and pretty much everything else in the galaxy was always there in the series, however most of ME3 is spent on putting an end to those things. For example, you get the chance to cure the genophage AND show people why it isn't necessary anymore, and tell others that the krogan will be different this time, which honestly they most likely will if both Even and Wrex are alive. You also have a chance to make piece between the quarians and the geth, while influencing both sides actually, which I think it's important to mention. After the geth server mission Legion tells Shepard, that he/she managed to change the opinion of several geth about organics. You do the same for the quarians, and they have peace. And in the end even the Council is fully on Shepard's side, hell the salarian councilor even gives you their fleet against the wish of the dalatrass. But to get these results you have to work hard ever since the first game, which means that your Shepard did think about these problem, and made decision about it according to his/her morale. An example: while my Shepard had no problem killing the geth who attack her in ME1, while talking with Tali, she already pointed out to the quarian girl, that it's no wonder the geth rebelled if the quarians tried to kill them all. You could also make statements about the genophage, and how you feel about it. Yet at the very end of the game you are presented with a problem that uses circular logic, and which you possibly already solved. Not only that, but you have to make your choice without any evidence relying on an unknown beings perspective, which is very obviously flawed, and the game doesn't let your Shepard represent his/her own perspective, which goes against the themes and gameplay of the whole series. Speaking of themes, I think that rather then “mutual destruction”, the undertone of the series is, that there is always a way to avoid destruction, and break the cycle of violence.
“If everything ends perfectly then the message seems to be “hey, if you stick to it long enough, everything will work out just fine”. Bioware is sending the sobering message of “you can give it everything you have, but to get where you want to go can cost you”. It’s not a feel good message.” - I couldn't disagree more with that. First of all, let me say that a “perfect” ending for most hardcore fans isn't really all rainbows and unicorns, and it does involve heavy losses. I mean, even if Shepard gets to walk up to his/her friends for a hug in the end, Earth is still devastated, so is Palaven, Thessia is pretty much gone, and so are the elcor and volus homeworlds, and the batarians are almost completely wiped out. These are the facts. These won't change even in a “happy” ending, because these are the sacrifices and failures that lead the galaxy to the final battle. Heck, if that's not enough, even Anderson dies, who is a father figure no matter what kind of Shepard you play. Do you really need to add more sacrifice to this? I really don't think it is needed from a narrative point to be even more in-your-face about it. Also I have to argue that a “happy” ending would mean that you just have to “ stick to it long enough”. Once again, ME3's Priority missions make it really clear that you can only get happy ending if you work for it. Work for it. Can't really stress this point enough, because that's why the game is a let down for a lot of people. You work for a happy ending, where you made sacrifices and lost friends, for three games, but in the end you don't get it. What you get is the message that “hey life sucks”. Which sure is realistic and all that, but everyone already knows that, and seriously it's depressing. It's really not a message that any interactive medium should aspire to, because when people work for something, they like to get the results they expected. There is a plenty of other media, where we get the same message, and where it actually works, because you aren't invested in them the same way as you are in a role-playing video game. So all in all, I think ME3's ending sends a different message than the rest of the game, and it's not something a video game should be about anyway.
“I just assumed that they wouldn’t be able to with regular FTL drives.” - The problem is that at the end of a trilogy you shouldn't have to assume things like these. The writers should show people what happens and actually wrap things up in a logical manner that fits the setting. They failed to do that, and I have a hard time to believe that they actually have any answers to the questions about the endings (and believe me the fleet stuff is just the tip of the iceberg), then again they have a couple of month to try to figure them out. I will be interested in whether they manage to do that, or just raise even more questions.
Also HELO is right. The biggest problem with all of this is the breach of trust between Bioware and their consumers, which is Bioware still not willing to admit, while even BBB agrees that they used false advertisement and made promises that they couldn't live up to. And Casey Hudson outright lied about the ending not being A-B-C in January, when the game was already finished, and he knew what the ending was.--SunyiNyufi 21:05, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
While I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree about the “happiness” of the ending, I think you make a really good point about how an ending like this doesn’t work in an interactive medium. I can see the merit in that. But let me be clear, I don’t think this was just a “hey life sucks” ending. In fact, I think it was a happy ending. Organic life has been spared from ever having to endure a Reaper threat or complete destruction at the hands of synthetics. In my view, that was the ultimate goal. But it’s important to know that the ultimate goal can sometimes come at a great cost. I know there had already been significant sacrifices by the galaxy, but adding even more makes that last decision an even more gut retching one. Which it should be.
Luckily enough for me, I try to stay away from any and all talk about a hugely anticipated game like ME3, so I didn’t know about what Bioware had promised, so I don’t feel cheated. I didn’t buy it under false pretenses. However, now that I know what they said, I would be very upset about that. The outrage is totally justified over that. --Brian4Turner 23:58, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
“Organic life has been spared from ever having to endure a Reaper threat or complete destruction at the hands of synthetics.” - While I agree that the first part happens, if you pic destroy, I still can't fully believe the second part will actually would actually happen. I'm sorry, but I really can't see why synthetics have to always destroy organics. Especially since in this cycle there are a lot of people like Shepard, who are willing to treat synthetic life with respect, and not let others to exploit them like slaves, so they really have no reason to rise up. That's why I think that Shepard's big sacrifice in the end is unnecessary, because it's the answer to a question that has already been answered several times, so I really don't see why they need to make it needlessly dramatic with a heroic sacrifice. But hey, it's really just my opinion. And to mention something you wrote, yes the execution in ME3 ending isn't good, which is really sad, because Bioware did the heroic sacrifice thing really well in Dragon Age Origins actually, where it all depended on the character you play. Played as a hero? Go sacrifice yourself for the greater good! Played as an asshole? Order someone else to sacrifice themselves. Played as an anti-hero (type I or II), so you wouldn't like to die just to save everyone? Here is a third option for you. ME3's ending should have been similar to that, since you can play Shepard in so many ways, and there are some Shepards out there who are not necessarily willing to die for the galaxy. All in all, ME3's ending design is not good enough for an RPG...then again this last game is more of a shooter anyway.
“so I don’t feel cheated.” - Good for you, but you can't tell me that you didn't feel that the Catalyst part of the game was odd from purely a gameplay-dialogue perspective. Disregarding the content of the dialogue, Shepard doesn't even have an investigate option, and only gets to voice his/her opinion once in such a critical moment. And the Catalyst itself has 14 lines. 14 lines for the biggest revelation in the series! Heck, you get more dialogue about the Normandy's stealth system throughout the three games than that!--SunyiNyufi 08:49, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
I may be asking pre-timely, since I haven't finished the game yet, but this really boggles me: the Reaper on Rannoch, when asked to help to understand, starts babbling about how organic life is chaos and that Reapers bring order, to which Shepard replies that organics and synthetics needn't fight - now, this is a connection I sure don't understand, and in extension, I do not understand how the ending is supposed to be tied to that, either. From ME1 and 2, I would expect that Reapers are some kind of AI on the loose, who probably destroyed their own creators, and decided that organic life is chaotic and inferior by definition, and that the potential it has should be harnessed and transformed into a synthetic form. I don't see anywhere the organic-synthetic conflict as any major issue, since, yeah, we do have the gath attacks, but they really don't fall out of a pattern of one race attacking another (actually, Rachni seemed a much worse threat). Similarly, Javik says about the synthetics of his time that the Protheans had almost handled the problem just before the Reapers arrived. - BTW, is it stated anywhere what became of the Prothean "geth", or with the "geth" of the previous cycles? And, when the Reapers are supposed to be so big on "saving" the organics, why don't they simply pull a "deus ex machina" every now and then and wipe out the synthetics? Given how easily they screw the geth every time, I'd think it might be much easier that harvesting races all around the galaxy. - Sure, I'm human, so I'm too dumb to understand, but I'd really like if someone at least tried to explain me the briliance of the idea. So far, it reminds of burning the house instad of eradicating the rats. --Ygrain 11:44, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
- When you you do finish ME3, I recommend you read Mass Effect 3 Ending-Hatred: 5 Reasons The Fans Are Right at GameFront. That article sums up the brilliance of Reaper logic as follows:
- "The [Reapers] save Organics by killing them... So that Organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill organics."
- Which is to say you're doing an excellent job of picking up on Clues for why the ending makes sense. WarPaint 12:25, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
SunyNyufi, I think only in the only ending where you are assured organics are safe from synthetics is the combining choice, so I suppose my point only applies that that one.
I do agree that the Catalyst scene was too short. I have to tell you, I was dying for an investigation option. Although you may not be able to tell from my posts, I honestly don’t think the ME3 ending was great. Good, but not great. I just feel compelled to defend it in light of all the outrage.
One last thing. The point of
"The [Reapers] save Organics by killing them... So that Organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill organics."
ignores a pretty critical part. Reapers only kill the highly advanced organic life capable of creating the synthetics that will kill them. When the Reapers killed the Prothians, they left primitive humans alone. We learned this in ME1. The synthetics would kill ALL life. Organics would cease to exists if the Reapers didn’t come wipe out advanced organic life. That’s what the Reapers mean by “we are your salvation” Like I said before, it’s like pruning a tree. If you don’t prune a tree, it can become top heavy and it will fall over. ME is just making the case that humanity may become too advanced for own good. Or maybe they’re saying that its all well and good to create spaceships and faster than light travel, but we’re crossing a line when we create life with our technology. Now, we can argue the success of making that point forever, all I’m saying is that I like that idea. --Brian4Turner 16:11, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing wrong with your enjoyment of the ending. Nothing in the following, or in my prior comments, is meant to suggest otherwise. Just want to make sure you understand this is not criticism directed at you or your enjoyment of the ending. Just wanted to clarify that before continuing.
- Continuing now. It makes no difference if we change the above quote to read:
- "The [Reapers] save advanced Organics by killing them... So that advanced Organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill advanced organics."
- The point is this. Nothing in the game's plot suggests that synthetics attack primitive organic species that aren't capable of creating synthetics. Such primitive organic species pose no threat to synthetics, and vice versa. There is no basis in the game plot for presuming the Reapers "save" primitive organic species, since the game plot never portrays primitive organic species as being threatened by synthetics to begin with. WarPaint 17:27, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
I never felt that anyone here is trying to suggest I shouldn’t have enjoyed the ending. I’m really enjoying the discussion. I certainly hope no one here has felt that I was attacking their opinions. I completely respect that everyone gets to have their opinion. I just love to talk about this stuff. I mean, when you played Mega Man 2 for the first time did you ever think we would be talking about a video game like this? I love that. Back to the talk.
I think the way you are phrasing it still isn’t right. It should say
"The [Reapers] save Organic life by killing them... So that advanced Organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill all organics."
No, nothing really in the games plot suggests this, but they do say that this istrue. I think that’s an issue, sure. They should show us more than tell us, but they do tell us this is the case.--Brian4Turner 21:15, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
- There's a great deal of ambiguity and contradiction in what starchild says. For example he first says, "I control the Reapers. They are my solution." But a few lines later he says, "I know you've thought about destroying us", implying that he and the Reapers are one and the same. Such phrasing is repeated later as starchild discusses "destruction".
- As to organics, initially starchild says the Reapers are his "solution" to "chaos". He says, "The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening..." A few lines later starchild tells Shepard, "... without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics," and then states again that the Reaper cycle is the "solution". Starchild never says that that synthetics would attack, or have attacked, primative organics, and doesn't give any reason why they would.
- Since the "all organics" characterization is made in the context of discussing the problem of "the created rebeling against the their creators", a fair interpretation would be that starchild is simply speaking of "all advanced civilizations...". But who knows exactly what was meant? As indicated above, starchild's dialog isn't exactly a model of clarity. At any rate I don't think there's a proper basis for a definitive conclusion that starchild's "all organics" was meant to be inclusive of primative organics.
- But enough already. IMHO the GameFront quote properly summed up what starchild said. WarPaint 23:35, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
@War Paint: Fair enough.
“I think only in the only ending where you are assured organics are safe from synthetics is the combining choice” - I still don't see how there is a garantuee for that with synthesis ending. I mean unless everything is really becoming hybrid including inanimate objects like Joker's hat...which is troubling and raises many questions. And the fact that one person forced this change upon everyone in the galaxy would more than like create a totally new war and problems altogether. I personally also find that option unethical.
While that last part wasn't an answer towards me, but I feel inclined to chime in :) I don't really have a problem with the Reapers motivation being that they prune galactic civilization. If it was just that, if they said that they do this, so that not-so-advanced species eventually get their turn too, I would be fine with that reasoning, though I would still think that the Reapers shouldn't be the ones doing the pruning but evolution itself. The problem is that the Catalyst tries to justify it with something completely unrelated claiming that synthetics will always try to kill their creators, and will always continue on to destroying ALL organic life. And that's something that is simply not true, especially not for the current cycle. You could argue that the Catalyst means that technology itself will destroy society, but he was pretty literal with his other “explanations” so, I don't think that's the case.--SunyiNyufi 17:24, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see how there is a guarantee for that with synthesis ending.
The only reason for the guarantee is just that they say so. You’re right, they give no real reason why that is. They just say its so. It’s an incomplete explanation, for sure.
And the fact that one person forced this change upon everyone in the galaxy would more than like create a totally new war and problems altogether.
Yes, it might. But that little clip at the end of the credits shows that, at least in the long run, things worked out alright. The point wasn’t to end war as we know it, just to ensure that organic life will live on.
I personally also find that option unethical.
I saw it as the most ethical. Shepard had the chance to spare organic life from ever facing their end again. In my ending, he took it. It came at a significant loss, yes. Should Shepard have been the one to make that call all by himself? No, but it was the Catalyst that put in the position. It’s not like he/she could have said “I choose not to answer, let’s bring it to a galactic vote.” Destroying the Reapers gets rid of the Reaper threat, but (at least according to story they give us) synthetics would still be created again and destroy organics eventually. I also want to point out that I misunderstood what would actually happen with the controlling option. I may have chosen that if I’d known more.
And that's something that is simply not true, especially not for the current cycle.
We don’t know that for sure. Again, the game tells us that synthetics will always end up destroying life, so I don’t see any reason not believe that. We might not like it, we might see flaws in it, but this is just something that Bioware calls a fact of their universe. They’re problem is that they don’t give us a compelling enough reason to believe it. That’s the mistake. Not in the idea itself, just the execution of it. Also, about the current cycle, it might be true that synthetics and organics are making it work now, but we don’t know what’s around the corner.--Brian4Turner 17:53, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's not discuss what ending is ethical, cos that would totally sidetrack the whole thread, so let's just agree on different mindsets :) Sorry for mentioning it, should not have done that.
“We might not like it, we might see flaws in it, but this is just something that Bioware calls a fact of their universe.” - The problem with that is: it's not a fact, since the trilogy disapproves it several times. And true, in the future synthetics might try to kill all organics, but that's an assumption, not a fact. The Catalyst tries to state it as one, but it's not. It's not supported by evidence, or rather any evidence given in the three games disapproves it, turning it really just a theory about what might happen. It's similar to the whole genophage thing really, where the salarians argue that their simulations show that the krogan will rebel again, if they are cured, yet evidence suggest that if Wrex and Eve are both alive, the krogan won't do that.
“That’s the mistake. Not in the idea itself, just the execution of it.” - I do find the idea rather silly actually, but true enough, if Bioware would have been able to provide evidence, or just make the geth side less compelling really, they could have gotten away with it. Though I think their very best move should have been to not explain the motivation of the reapers at all, because that would have allowed the positive kind of speculations between fans, and after repeatedly telling us for 3 games that we can not comprehend the reaper's reason, I doubt that people would have been angry about not knowing.--SunyiNyufi 21:39, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is: it's not a fact
I don’t think its been disproven. We just haven’t seen it happen yet. I think the Catalyst brings in the Reapers before signs of it start happening. The Catalyst seems to be some kind of divine figue. I think it possible that it can somehow look beyond what we’ve seen. I like the idea (haven’t really thought about it until you brought it up) that maybe the Catalyst doesn’t know for sure. Maybe it is just assuming. That adds a whole different twist to what I was thinking. That gives a terrible power to the Catalyst that it really shouldn’t have. I’ll have to play it again with this in mind.
I do find the idea rather silly actually
It is. It’s just a plot device used to make a larger point. I can see why the silliness would turn people off. --Brian4Turner 21:55, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
“I don’t think its been disproven. We just haven’t seen it happen yet.” - Sooo then the geth not displaying any signs of wanting to kill everyone and seeking co-operation with organic, and EDI as an AI falling in love with an organic, is what exactly? Before you say that the geth can turn on us, yes they can, but that they will is only an assumption ;)
“The Catalyst seems to be some kind of divine figure.” - And that's where things get messy once again. Divinity and higher power can fit some sci-fi settings, like Battlestar Galactica, where it's established pretty early on. Bringing a divine power into the Mass Effect universe where except for one or two, none of the main characters are religious, is a bad idea. Also general consensus between the fans is that the Catalyst itself is actually an AI, which complicates the whole thing even more.
“It’s just a plot device used to make a larger point.” - But plot devices used for that are usually subtle, cos their purpose is to make the audience raise the question themselves, and find the answer themselves. And that was actually done regarding synthetics in all three games already, and you gave your final answer about it on Rannoch, regardless of what the answer actually is. That's why I can't really fathom why they thought that bringing this all up again in the last 5 minutes is a good idea, especially since they don't really provide any more input on the whole thing. Then again, Mac Walter's notes indicate that he just wanted to end it like Matrix 1, which is sad.--SunyiNyufi 22:23, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
@OP. I'll be brief. I don't agree with you. I won't be writing why and where, because other people already wrote/writing it better then I could. But about your original question as to why people are so upset - just watch this. Very illustrating.-Algol- 23:18, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Sooo then the geth not displaying any signs of wanting to kill everyone and seeking co-operation with organic, and EDI as an AI falling in love with an organic, is what exactly?
Well, its not proof that the uprising won’t ever happen. But I understand why that’s a hard pill to shallow considering those facts.
But plot devices used for that are usually subtle
They don’t have to be. Sometimes you need to make things clear so the analogy comes thru.
Is it just me or is all this talking making anyone else eager to get off work so you can go home and play some multi player ME3?
Oh, and I forgot to add this to a previous post
Sorry for mentioning it, should not have done that.
Don’t be sorry. I think we should have a conversation about the ethics of the ending. The ethical issues are central to the story. But you’re right, that should maybe be another forum.--Brian4Turner 23:43, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
“Well, its not proof that the uprising won’t ever happen.” - But there is also no proof for it happening in the future, hence it's an assumption :) While there is proof of the geth currently not trying to kill everyone.
“Is it just me or is all this talking making anyone else eager to get off work so you can go home and play some multi player ME3?” - For me, these talks are keeping me up at night, while I should be really sleeping, because if I don't I will be late for tomorrow's renaissance fair omg it's 2am already, I really should go to bed... and my English is getting all weird too... signing off now...--SunyiNyufi 00:19, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
The catalyst claims that the cycle exists to prevent the rise of synthetic life which would destroy organic life, but here is the problem, if it hasn't happened at least once in galactic history then how does the catalyst know that it will happen, in which case the catalyst is operating from a faulty premiss. And if it did happen then why is there organic life in the galaxy. Organics aren't that hard to kill. We need food, water, air and even sleep to survive, synthetics don't.
If synthetics did previously wipe out organics, then the new organics must have wiped out this first synthetic life in turn. Unless of course, the Reapers are the first synthetic life, in which case the catalyst lied to Shep about the nature of the cycle.
So either the catalyst lied about synthetics wiping out organics (because there is no precedent for it and EDI/geth contradict that assumption), or it lied about the nature of the cycle (Reapers are the first synthetic and as they need bio mass in their construction the cycle is about breeding new Reapers). Remember also that the best lies contain elements of the truth, makes them harder to disprove.
This second conclussion actually fits all available evidence, further it could be viewed that once a cycle species reaches a state where they can start to create synthetic life they become a danger to the Reapers and thus it is time to start the termination of that cycle, while 300 years may seem a long time synthetics are essentially immortal, and the geth didn't become true AIs until after Reaper interference.
Given that the catalyst is either operating from a faulty premiss (synthetics will destroy organics), or that it has out right lied (Reapers are the first synthetic life and they follow the cycle to increase their numbers and ensure that organics never challenge them), why would Shep believe anything the catalyst says.
So now lets examine the ending. Shep is all but dead and the crucible is not working yet instead of leaving things as they are and wiping everything out the catalyst brings Shep to it and offers him "a way out". Why? Well I get the impression that the catalyst is no longer in full control of the Citadel and it is only a matter of time before other organics board it and bring things to an end, so the catalyst brings the half dead Shepard for a chance to end things on the catalysts terms.
Which leads to our choices. Destroy, control, synthesis.
Destroy. Why include this option if the the catalyst is lying about the nature of the cycle. Simple, everyone is already thinking about it and remember that part about the best lies also containing elements of the truth. Also the option colour is red suggesting that this is a negative option. Furthurmore you are warned that this option will kill the geth, EDI, and that Shep is also part synthetic. Clearly the catalyst doesn't want you picking this choice.
Control. You gain control over the Reapers, but for how long for. 5 minutes, 5 years, 50000 years? Do you retain control after you die? How complex a message can you impart to the Reapers before you die? Is it a single command such as retreat or more complex ideas like respect all life? Also the catalyst seems vague about the whole concept. Whose to say you even end up controlling them at all. Maybe the the catalyst removes them to a safe location and waits for the relays to destroy themselves and then they return to "clean up the mess". And as Shep dies in the process and everyone else thinks the Reapers are gone and no longer have the relays they probably don't even notice when the Reapers return.
Synthesis. This is the option that the catalyst wants most of all and is therefore the one that should never be picked. If as has been suggested that synthesis merges traits of organics with synthetics then it is possible that this would allow Reapers to reproduce without the need to harvest other species. So while synthesis will stop the cycles it will also remove the last impediment to the Reapers achieving total dominion over the entire galaxy and possibly beyond.
With all this in mind I feel as if I have spent about 90 hours to "simply pick the red door". This is because the destroy option is the only one that makes sense. All the others raise to many questions.
So now you have made your choice (whichever one that may be) and the crucible fires. In doing so it causes the destruction of every mass relay, and anyone who has played arrival will know that when a relay explodes it tends to destroy the system it is in, or at least the organics living in it. You could ask about 300000 batarians for proof, except for the fact that they are all dead.
Even if you accept the premiss that the crucible energy is in some way altering the energy released by the relays you have effectively isolated the various inhabitants of the galaxy in their current clusters. While game lore indicates that an FTL capable ship can travel to other systems in a cluster it needs the relays to reach other clusters. So you have successfully united the galaxy, or at least most of it, only to isolate them from each other.
Again I am left feeling that I have done exactly what the catalyst wanted. Even choosing to destroy the Reapers doesn't help this feeling and I am left wondering if there are Reapers unaffected by the destruct command just waiting to come finish us off. So after 90 hours (real time), during which time Shep has made friends, made enemies, fallen in love, watched as friends/lovers die, killed enemies/friends/lovers, I am left picking the lesser of the 3 evils and feeling as if I got jerked around by the catalyst. Not a good way to end what was otherwise a sheer joy to play.
And all this doesn't cover the disapointment that descissions that Shep had made in the past no longer have any impact on the game. For example at the end of ME I chose to let the council die and save the fleet for an attack against Sovereign. After that I put Anderson in charge of an all human council. Dialogue in ME2 would indicate that the all human council is still in place yet 6 months later ME3 begins. Anderson, who is your biggest ally on the council and probably the only one who beleives you about the Reapers simply quits and becomes surplus to requirement. He is replaced by Udina whom I never trusted not to put his own agenda ahead of dealing with the Reapers. The other human councilors are also gone, replaced by replacements from the 3 previous goverments to hold those positions. I opted for an all human council to ensure that human interests took priority. Also given the plot of ME3 it doesn't make sense that Udina/Cerberus would allow this collapse of human dominance, yet they do. Why? Because otherwise the story wouldn't work. And there are other such examples depending on how you played the previous installments. Descission were supposed to matter and have an impact yet they don't. --TSwiftFan1346 00:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
My problem with the ending isn't so much the actual ending but how they resolved the story. Some of what tswistfan just stated and things I've heard elsewhere come into account. I don't want to complain that it's not "good" but that it just doesn't go into any depth and leaves you wondering about everything.
The reapers whom are synthetics had to be created by biological life, which is assumed to be what the catalyst is a representation of. This means that they would have had to come to the conclusion that synthetic life "always" kills biological life.
For one, how did they come to this conclusion? I think tswiftfan just stated this, but if it has happened before the reapers were created then how did the reapers get created? You can assume that they defeated the synthetics and then decided to create the reapers, which brings up other issues I'll try to get to later (note1), but if so how does creating more synthetic life help? If they just came to the conclusion that synthetic life will always destroy life, then how can they create one that won't just destroy organic life? Admittedly they don't completely destroy all life permanently, which also brings up other issues I'll get to (note2), but by their logic it ALWAYS happens so by creating the reapers they are doing exactly what they wanted to prevent. Going by this logic the original creators of the reapers were destroyed by the reapers. If so, this means that the reapers were the original synthetic life and thus created this solution on their own. This brings up major problems I'll discuss in the latter half of this post (part2). This leads to two possible stories.
part1: Assuming the reapers were created for the solution.
What happened to the creators? I guess they could have let the reapers kill them (note2), they could have turned themselves into the original reapers (note1), or countless other outcomes which could have been explained in at least moderate detail. They for sure didn't just die out from... old age, because aside from being highly improbable they have then just disproved their whole statement of life always creating synthetics that destroy themselves.
It could also be assumed that the race that came up with this solution had a different understanding of logic than the races currently in the galaxy have, but by example of the ME universe just about ALL life has a very similar view on logic and ethics. And it would thus seem likely that most races that have existed previously would think similarly; there's even the protheans that support this. (If you'll notice, a lot is going to be left up to assumption) This kind of leads into note2.
note2:
If the creators of the reapers were organic and had similar views on logic... or not even, why would they even care if life still exists beyond theirs? Not to say that the current life in the galaxy wouldn't care if life still existed, but why go so far as to destroy all advanced life to keep organic life in existence? If the creators of the reapers let the reapers kill them then what purpose would they see in preserving life and what would it even accomplish? It all just seems like a reason for a story, and a very loosely thought up one at that.
This whole "solution" just doesn't fit the outcome. If they are so committed to preserving life then there are a million different ways they could prevent synthetic life from destroying organics, which by the way don't include killing all organics. This whole kill to preserve thing is highly idiotic to put it bluntly.
For example, they could just kill all synthetic life ...doesn't this solve EVERY problem? Besides the fact that organics may create more, which after this hypothetical situation would be highly unlikely given the out come, they could still presumably just stay in the galaxy and destroy any synthetic uprising. This would save lives, both organic and reaper, and would be less of an undertaking than having to wipe out all advanced life in the entire galaxy.
There are probably too many other solutions to name that don't involve a species who's only existence is to preserve organic life having to kill all organic life.
note1:
Assuming that the creators based their solution on previous happenings: If synthetic life is to destroy all organic life to the point where organic life would cease to even exist, which is what I presume the catalyst is implying, or else there is no reason for the solution, then how did the creators of the reapers come into existence. They are an exception to their own logical outcome.
But if they didn't create the reapers because of past events involving synthetics then where did they even get this idea that organics will always create synthetics that will always kill their creators?
The creators can also presumably not be the reapers because this would also disprove their logic of synthetics destroying all organics. It could be assumed that by "destroying all organics" they mean that all organics will just end up as synthetics, thus destroying the organic, but where would they see a problem? If they decided to become synthetic then what would be their reason for even caring about organic life existing in the galaxy?
Also, considering that the reapers are synthetics and thus most likely a form of AI then what is keeping them from just "evolving" or whatever you call it when an AI learns and adapts, and just not care about carrying out the creators solution? It can be understood that from the way the Catalyst describes synthetics that they will inevitably gain independence from their creators. This means that the reapers will eventually gain independence from the creators solution-programming and either kill all organic life permanently (like is described of ALL synthetics doing) or just... do something else, like live secluded like the geth.
Otherwise there is the possibility that the reapers came up with the solution.
part2: The assumption that the reapers devised the solution.
If the reapers were not created for this purpose then why would they care about synthetics destroying organics, or organic life at all for that matter? Especially when it is stated as fact by the Catalyst that that is all synthetic life does is kill organic life to the point of extinction or where if any new organic life grows relatively advanced. It seems quite obvious that if this were even the case it wouldn't make any sense at all.
other:
I also have a problem with the way the reapers enslave other species. Perhaps they realize that a species under complete control won't create synthetics because ...well, they're under control. It just doesn't seem like it fits with their purpose. Why would they care at all about organic life growing if they are willing to enslave an entire species? If they'll do this then why not just indoctrinate all organic life and thus prevent them from creating synthetics in the first place. It is obvious that it doesn't even take much effort on the reapers part to control an entire species given that the collectors had been under their "direct control" :P for over 10,000 years or so. Even if a reaper does have to stay around to keep them under control, which I don't see as being supported, then it would still take less effort on the reapers part because one reaper could stay behind and just switch every few ten thousand years as was already done. Talking of reapers as though they have a sense of time or a value to time is also unjustified. They speak of themselves as being eternal and thus it would not even matter to them how long they had to stay around the galaxy to control all species.
I also don't understand why reapers would create reapers out of a certain species. It was totally unjustified as to why they did it for humans and was just quickly commented on by the Catalyst as "preserving the species." The reason I have a problem with it is that they don't do it for all species. They obviously didn't do it with the protheans; I don't even think that all the individuals in the galaxy would be enough to create that many reapers. Although it could be perceived as a misunderstanding by the characters, in ME2 it is described that the reapers were creating a human reaper because of their interest in Shepard. The only reasoning I can see behind this is that in order to recoup the losses from the war they need to create more reapers. But then how come there are only two or three variants of reapers, all of which look nearly identical? I can't remember if it was stated that other species couldn't be turned into a reaper, but if they could then why would the reapers only want to make a human reaper? Humans only make up a fraction of the galactic population and in the case that the reapers need them to replace those lost in the war, then why not use all available species? Reapers are also described as being eternal, so if this isn't the case then there is no need to create more of them. The whole "preserving the species" thing seems like a reason to fill space in dialogue rather than actually having been thought out reasoning for them making a human reaper.
If you want to believe that the Catalyst was just lying to Shepard about everything then there is no real reason for a story at all because anything could be possible. That would be just as much of a lack of story as the one they have. Also, like was stated by another post, some of the outcomes don't really support this such as the destruction ending.
It seems like bioware didn't really think about the back story to what they were creating and just thought: "Oh, this seems like an interesting reason to have robots kill all life in the galaxy." It for one doesn't make much logical sense and two, just seems like a half-assed excuse for the reasoning behind the two previous games.
I'm sure there are things I meant to bring up but have forgotten at the moment, but that covers most of my complaint about the ending. Otherwise, I don't really have a problem with the actual endings of the game. As in Shepard's three options of dealing with the reapers. There are many other problems I could bring up about the overall way they handled the ending, but that was the biggest for me.
Played Thessia just yesterday. Alright, so there is a clue that Reapers are controlled by someone, fine. Still not getting the logic of the whole "solution", though, since there has been nothing to indicate anything about it.
What I find rather implausible is the claim that the Crucible has been passed on throughout the countless cycles. Pardon? Are we really supposed to believe that in the repetition of, how many? hundreds of cycles, the information always survived, even though it takes only as much as a single civilisation that doesn't manage to pass the knowledge on? In the current cycle, there is no mention of any previous civilisations except the Protheans, who in turn knew of a single preceding civilisation - now this concept of preserving something so specifics over hundreds of millenia is ridiculous.
And BTW, seeing the involvement of Javik in Thesia, making his character a paid DLC is simply milking the customers.--Ygrain 07:52, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
Actually I replayed ME1 and ME2 not so long ago, and one of the planet description mentions the Innusanon, which was they pre-prothean civilization, if Javik is right, so at least they were mentioned at some point...even though one can very easily miss that. As for the Crucible itself, while I don't find the idea of it being passed down from civilization to civilization completely impossible (only really silly), what boggles that mind is that it seems every civilization started to build it, or tried to add to it without actually knowing what it is. How can you build something like that? I mean, they should have at least had an idea about what it will do. Unless the previous civilization did know what it was, if so they should have left a memo with the blue prints at least.--SunyiNyufi 09:58, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- They sorta knew it's a weapon... At least Liara figured out it's a weapon. But that's all we get.-Algol- 10:16, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I just wanted to say everyone was so respectful of everyone else on this post that it was a pleasure to read everyone's arguments on the issue, pro and con. Thanks for being awesome----Nuveena7 10:12, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome! And yeah, I'm narcissistic enough to claim all the credit for myself ;D--SunyiNyufi 10:04, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Nice post you made there. And definitely, its great to find a forum where posters respect and listen to each other.
- Everybody here is outta sight
- They don't bark and they don't bite
- They keep things loose, they keep things light
- Everybody's dancing in the moonlight...
- ... ♫ King Harvest, Dancing in the Moonlight
- WarPaint 16:23, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
I haven't posted in a while, but I'll second what was said about the tone of this forum.--Brian4Turner 17:17, April 20, 2012 (UTC)