Support NeoGAF

[EmCeeGramr]

Okay guys, I'm here now. Can you tell me specifically why the whole "Reapers are a measure taken by an artificial intelligence to prevent organic life from permanently destroying itself" thing does not make sense? Thank you.

If all synthetics are destined to destroy all organics permanently, then why hasn't there been a single prior example in the last 30 hours or 3 games* showing this to be the case? Why haven't the Reapers or Catalyst, the synthetics most able to fulfill this threat for the longest period of time, never done it? Every synthetic met in the series was sympathetic in some way and showed no inclination of this. Why does the Catalyst seem to think that the only possible kind of synthetic life is electronic robots? Why do the Reapers HELP the geth against organics? Why didn't Sovereign and Harbinger get the memo on half this stuff?** If you're a super intelligence that wants to save the galaxy from the oddly specific threat of robo-genocide against their builders, why build a race of godlike robo-genociders?



*Because the motivation intended for the Reapers as they were written in ME1 and ME2 wasn't the same then
**Ditto

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Okay guys, I'm here now. Can you tell me specifically why the whole "Reapers are a measure taken by an artificial intelligence to prevent organic life from permanently destroying itself" thing does not make sense? Thank you.

1)It’s logically inconsistent:
By the catalysts logic, it should have murdered every organic ever at least a few million years ago.

And really, there’s no proof of this ever happening(because, if it did happen, then there wouldn’t be any organics around who could give a rats ass about it anymore).

The catalyst just tells you to take its word for it and offers no conceivable proof that the possibility exists. Seems pretty legit to me.

2)It’s thematically inconsistent:
Conflicts with artificial life have occurred within the series, yes. But there has NEVER been any implication in one of those that AI will always try to kill all organics because it’s in their nature to do so.

This is especially true in both ME2 and ME3, which both go extremely far out of their way to make Synthetics seem sympathetic.

3)Too little, too late:
Revealing the main antagonist’s motivation at the last possible second is such a cheap twist. All it means is that the story has no way to follow through or give weight to this new idea because the game ends literally right after you’re told it even exists.

This would be fine if any of the games preemptively supported the idea with plot points and themes, but they don’t.

It’s the same “you don’t have schools” crap Enslaved tried to pull with its main antagonist.

 

[Trigger]

If all synthetics are destined to destroy all organics permanently, then why hasn't there been a single prior example in the last 30 hours or 3 games* showing this to be the case? Why haven't the Reapers or Catalyst, the synthetics most able to fulfill this threat for the longest period of time, never done it? Every synthetic met in the series was sympathetic in some way and showed no inclination of this. Why does the Catalyst seem to think that the only possible kind of synthetic life is electronic robots? Why do the Reapers HELP the geth against organics? Why didn't Sovereign and Harbinger get the memo on half this stuff?** If you're a super intelligence that wants to save the galaxy from the oddly specific threat of robo-genocide against their builders, why build a race of godlike robo-genociders?



*Because the motivation intended for the Reapers as they were written in ME1 and ME2 wasn't the same then
**Ditto

The bold makes the whole Quarian-Geth conflict seem ridiculous.

 

[Rufus]

In addition to the above, why is there a need to kill the species that produced the supposedly homicidal synthetics (and all other space faring species) instead of saving them from said synthetics and wagging a finger at them?
Besides, the two examples that we know of, the Geth and the species Javik mentions were dealt with one way or another by the Galactic community at the time. AI research was banned by the Council after the Geth exiled the Quarians three hundred years (!) prior and the Protheans apparently dealt with their uppity synthetics by eradicating them.
What's more, the Geth didn't seem to be aggressive at all unless provoked by Quarians or manipulated by Reapers. They even tended to the Quarian home world, which seems awfully nice for a species supposedly hell-bent on destroying their creators.

 

[riceandbeans]

Okay guys, I'm here now. Can you tell me specifically why the whole "Reapers are a measure taken by an artificial intelligence to prevent organic life from permanently destroying itself" thing does not make sense? Thank you.

Because it wasn't the original ending planned during Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. The original ending was suppose to revolve around dark energy mentioned in Arrival(?) in Mass Effect and on the Quarian ship in Mass Effect 2, but when key writers left, the ending was changed. That's why we have so many inconsistencies since the ending was changed so late in development like the previous posts have mentioned.

 

[MechaX]

One would think that instead of having the Reapers do an extremely roundabout way of "saving" organics by eliminating 98% of them, harvesting 1%, and ignoring the primitive remaining 1% every 50k years, the creator of the Reapers would have just used the Reapers to destroy synthetics alone every single cycle instead of the organics. I mean, the Crucible can apparently do that, so why didn't the Catalyst or whatever race it was also try to investigate space magic?

 

[Dresden]

One would think that instead of having the Reapers do an extremely roundabout way of "saving" organics by eliminating 98% of them, harvesting 1%, and ignoring the primitive remaining 1% every 50k years, the creator of the Reapers would have just used the Reapers to destroy synthetics alone every single cycle instead of the organics. I mean, the Crucible can apparently do that, so why didn't the Catalyst or whatever race it was also try to investigate space magic?

because

speculation

 

[hateradio]

because

speculation

You're not even trying. :/

Okay guys, I'm here now. Can you tell me specifically why the whole "Reapers are a measure taken by an artificial intelligence to prevent organic life from permanently destroying itself" thing does not make sense? Thank you.

If the Reapers are controlled by an IA, what has prevented that AI, and the Reapers it controls, from doing exactly what the AI is supposing that all synthetic life will do?

 

[Blue Ninja]

You're not even trying. :/


If the Reapers are controlled by an IA, what has prevented that AI, and the Reapers it controls, from doing exactly what the AI is supposing that all synthetic life will do?

They build the relays so civilizations develop along the path they desire. This includes developing synthetics. Then, when the Reapers deem them 'advanced' enough, they come to harvest them.

That "we're doing it to save you from destruction" just doesn't make sense if you take the shit from Mass Effect 1 into account. The only reasonable explanation is this:

Vent God is a lying bastard. The Reapers are evil. They don't want to save us, they're using it as a pretext just in case somebody manages to speak to their transparent overlord and is, for some reason, given three choices. Why? Because BioWare™.

 

[Rufus]

The funny part is that this particular blow could have been softened if Hudson and Walters hadn't decided to keep the conversation with Space Kid more 'high level'. I mean, why would you want the opportunity to question the entity that decides how the game ends? It's not like important plot points have been decided/elaborated on in conversations before. That would be stupid, right? I mean, why start now?

I am still bitter about this. Fuck.

 

[Myomoto]

The funny part is that this particular blow could have been softened if Hudson and Walters hadn't decided to keep the conversation with Space Kid more 'high level'. I mean, why would you want the opportunity to question the entity that decides how the game ends? It's not like important plot points have been decided/elaborated on in conversations before. That would be stupid, right? I mean, why start now?

I am still bitter about this. Fuck.

It's inexcusably poor writing.

 

[TheContact]

So I loved ME1 and ME2 and played them from beginning to end. I bought ME3 on release but haven't really played too much of it. I'm maybe an hour or two deep into the story. I saw the people complaining about how bad the ending was, and the subsequent Bioware new ending DLC. My question is, should I play it, see the bad ending, and wait for the DLC like most everyone else did? Or should I just wait for the DLC so I won't be one of the bitter ones about how disappointing the ending was?

 

[Gui_PT]

So I loved ME1 and ME2 and played them from beginning to end. I bought ME3 on release but haven't really played too much of it. I'm maybe an hour or two deep into the story. I saw the people complaining about how bad the ending was, and the subsequent Bioware new ending DLC. My question is, should I play it, see the bad ending, and wait for the DLC like most everyone else did? Or should I just wait for the DLC so I won't be one of the bitter ones about how disappointing the ending was?

The DLC won't make a good ending, that crap can't be fixed so you'll still be pissed off about it.


Just finish the game and complain with the rest of us.

 

[Aske]

I wish I'd waited for the DLC. The more you care about the story, the worse the ending will feel. If you loved the first two games for more than just gameplay, my advice would be to wait a month or two and hope Bioware sets things right.

The DLC won't make a good ending, that crap can't be fixed so you'll still be pissed off about it.

This isn't necessarily true. I get that the indoc theory makes you sick, but if Bioware incorporates it, the ending is completely salvageable and hasn't even happened yet.

 

[Escape Goat]

BioWare said they aren't changing the ending just "clarifying". I don't know if thats the same thing or not to them but I hope so.

 

[PinkCrayon]

Everyone who has hope that the indoc theory will be added in the extended cut needs to come back to this thread once it's out so I can personally laugh in each and every one of their faces.

 

[Aske]

BioWare said they aren't changing the ending just "clarifying". I don't know if thats the same thing or not to them but I hope so.

It seems clear that Bioware won't remove the content currently in the game and replace it with something completely new; but they could profoundly change its meaning and bolt on an extra chunk of game, while claiming all they did was 'clarifiy'.

I think anyone making claims about what we will or will not get from the epilogue are just giving voice to their optimism or pessimism at this point. The truth is we won't know exactly what we're getting until its released.

Everyone who has hope that the indoc theory will be added in the extended cut needs to come back to this thread once it's out so I can personally laugh in each and every one of their faces.

Bioware already did this with the current ending. If they fuck up the DLC, they'll have done it again. I doubt further face-laughter will bother me at that point.

 

[PinkCrayon]

Yeah, but it might make me feel better.

 

[Ciastek3214]

Those who think Indoctrination Theory give Bioware too much credit. Also, it wouldn't make for a better ending.

 

[Jake Tower]

Those who think Indoctrination Theory give Bioware too much credit. Also, it wouldn't make for a better ending.

Anything that means StarChild and his Xzibit logic aren't real is better.

 

[Aske]

Anything that means StarChild and his Xzibit logic aren't real is better.

Exactly my thought. I'm not sure what people have against the indoctrination theory, beyond thinking it's a stupid fan delusion and hating it by proxy. Dismissal of the 'evidence' for the theory that people suggest is already present in the game is a perfectly logical position, but I don't get the hate for the indoc plot itself. Shepard gets nailed by Harbinger, and is then mentally attacked by the reapers while unconscious. The rainbow choices and star-child ending are part of a reaper dream. Shepard wakes up having fought off reaper control, and the game concludes with literally any other ending. What's not to like?

 

[DTKT]

Exactly my thought. I'm not sure what people have against the indoctrination theory, beyond thinking it's a stupid fan delusion and hating it by proxy. Dismissal of the 'evidence' for the theory that people suggest is already present in the game is a perfectly logical position, but I don't get the hate for the indoc plot itself. Shepard gets nailed by Harbinger, and is then mentally attacked by the reapers while unconscious. The rainbow choices and star-child ending are part of a reaper dream. Shepard wakes up having fought off reaper control, and the game concludes with literally any other ending. What's not to like?

It ignores too much of the sad reality of the current Bioware. I wrote a little blurb about it. Basically, I have nothing against the IT. I would even be okay with it if Bioware just decided to integrate it. But I doubt that's going to happen.

There is one key point I need to address to make things a bit clearer. We basically have two different perspectives on Bioware and how they are currently functioning under EA.

You assume that Bioware is at it's peak in writing, that it has all the money and time it wants. They cannot make mistakes, they cannot be in a situation where the best they can do is to produce rushed content. They then created a vast conspiracy where clues were hidden throughout the game. excluding both script leaks for some reason. They expected the fanbase to find these clues and speculate.

I don't.

I assume that Bioware ran out of time/money and had to rush to meet the release date. Endings being the last thing a studio works on, suffered in quality. That's why we get 3 similar endings with a color swap in order to make them more "unique". I find a much more "grounded" reason for everything that wen't wrong. Bioware failed. There is nothing unusual about that. It happens to the best of studios.

That's the key difference. You ignore the realities of developing a game. You ignore the dealines, the crunch and we know for a fact that they were pressed for time till the very last second. The level of fan-fiction you are creating would have required months of planning. It would have also been the single most risky PR and business decision I would ever seen this generation. Over the past 2 months, Bioware has taken a lot of flak for how bad the endings are. They could have come out the day of release, saying "Do not fret! The true endings are coming in 3 months! We just wanted them to be perfect". That would have silenced most of the complaints. Instead, they waited and waited till they announced the EE which would "clarify" the ending. Nothing more. That's where all that debate about "Artistic Integrity" started.

I don't believe in the IT because it makes no sense from a business and development point of view. It simply doesn't fit with what we know of the last months of dev time and the conditions in which Bioware had to work. It doesn't fit with the script leaks, it doesn't fit with the Final Hours app.

I honestly wish I could believe. It sounds nice! It's bold from a gameplay perspective, misleading the players is never something that's easy to do. It "repairs" the endings by making them dreams and that's something I can get behind.

I just don't think I can ignore everything we know outside of the game. I simply can't.

 

[AwakenedCloud]

Just finished the game a couple of moments ago, the ending didn't seem any better or worse than ME1/ME2.

I didn't even feel like I needed to know what happened with the important characters by the time the credits started rolling. Whoever survived after dealing with the Reapers seemed pretty insignificant, at least to me. Everybody did what they came to do and losses were expected. I'm almost glad they left it to imagination.

 

[Gui_PT]

Just finished the game a couple of moments ago, the ending didn't seem any better or worse than ME1/ME2.

I didn't even feel like I needed to know what happened with the important characters by the time the credits started rolling. Whoever survived after dealing with the Reapers seemed pretty insignificant, at least to me. Everybody did what they came to do and losses were expected. I'm almost glad they left it to imagination.

I think this is what Bioware expected from the players.



For them to have no standards for quality at all

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I think this is what Bioware expected from the players.



For them to have no standards for quality at all

Or to imagine their own endings.

Crazy, right?

Allowing your audience to use their own creativity with an interactive medium.

But it's far easier to assume that the makers of something you dislike are either villains or idiots. So.

(Unfortunately, Mac Walters' version of leaving it up to the audience is leaving it up to the audience, but my point still stands)

 

[Gui_PT]

Yeah



No

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

You do realize that "leave it up to the audience" is actually a Thing, right? BioWare didn't just make it up. Writers use it all the time.

 

[Gui_PT]

I know it's a thing.

What you don't seem to know is that it wasn't their intention, just bad writing.

Also, if you want to do that, there's a way to do it. A way to do it properly. It doesn't just consist in not explaining anything.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

What you don't seem to know is that it wasn't their intention, just bad writing.

Except that it's pretty clearly documented that it was their intention.

You seem to think that I'm arguing that, in this case, it wasn't bad. I've said that I thought it was bad. I was just defending against the idea of "I didn't like it, which means X meant Y".

 

[the chris]

Those who think Indoctrination Theory give Bioware too much credit. Also, it wouldn't make for a better ending.

The Indoctrination Theory ending would actually piss me off more, only because that means the real ending was taken out in favor of selling a better ending at a later date.

 

[Aske]

You do realize that "leave it up to the audience" is actually a Thing, right? BioWare didn't just make it up. Writers use it all the time.

"Leaving it up to the audience" would be magnificent compared to the illogical stream of thematic paradoxes that we were actually given.

The ending as it stands is indefensible. It takes core ideas, themes and plot elements decisively established during the trilogy, and tosses them out the window. You can't spend three games showing me that organics and synthetics are philosophically and morally identical, and then tell me that despite all evidence to the contrary, they will DEFINITELY wipe each other out based on nothing but their biology. But rather than letting me argue the point based on all Shepard's experiences and give me an option to defy the space-god, my only choices are to kill the geth, pointlessly unite all life forms along arbitrary biological lines, or attempt to control the reapers which I've been told repeatedly won't work. "You can’t control them. They will control you. People always seek to control the reapers, but are always controlled themselves, and then used to wipeout their own species. Except actually you can control them, based on no evidence but my word. By the way, I'm the sadistic, genocidal king of the reapers." I'm not imagining how things may go and filling in the blanks after these endings - I'm too busy lamenting the specifics of the narrative the writers chose to include.

But hell, sending Shepard up the beam, then fading the screen to white and having Buzz Aldrin tell his kid "no one knows what happened after that, but we're still here, so I guess things occurred" would have been better than what was written. As it stands, what we have is appalling. There's no room for me to use my imagination here, and I don't think one can argue that the ending allows for it in any meaningful way, regardless of what the writers claim they intended.

 

[Subitai]

So I loved ME1 and ME2 and played them from beginning to end. I bought ME3 on release but haven't really played too much of it. I'm maybe an hour or two deep into the story. I saw the people complaining about how bad the ending was, and the subsequent Bioware new ending DLC. My question is, should I play it, see the bad ending, and wait for the DLC like most everyone else did? Or should I just wait for the DLC so I won't be one of the bitter ones about how disappointing the ending was?

You should stop right before it starts getting bad and going to horrible. My precise point would be...

Spoiler

...at this part towards the end where you need to "Alamo" stand before two heavy missiles can be launched at a Reaper. Once you get them off, take a good long break and bask in all the great feelings for a week or until it wears off and you miss the feeling of epicness. Let your mind run wild with all the possible great endings that could occur if you kept going. Or, play the final run again few times to that point if it felt really great. And then, commence with things and join the rest of us sad sots.

At least that's what I wish I did.

 

[Gui_PT]

"Leaving it up to the audience" would be magnificent compared to the illogical stream of thematic paradoxes that we were actually given.

The ending as it stands is indefensible. It takes core ideas, themes and plot elements decisively established during the trilogy, and tosses them out the window. You can't spend three games showing me that organics and synthetics are philosophically and morally identical, and then tell me that despite all evidence to the contrary, they will DEFINITELY wipe each other out based on nothing but their biology. But rather than letting me argue the point based on all Shepard's experiences and give me an option to defy the space-god, my only choices are to kill the geth, pointlessly unite all life forms along arbitrary biological lines, or attempt to control the reapers which I've been told repeatedly won't work. "You can’t control them. They will control you. People always seek to control the reapers, but are always controlled themselves, and then used to wipeout their own species. Except actually you can control them, based on no evidence but my word - and I'm the sadistic, genocidal king of the reapers!"

But hell, sending Shepard up the beam, then fading the screen to white and having Buzz Aldrin tell his kid "no one knows what happened after that, but we're still here, so I guess things occurred" would have been better than what was written. As it stands, what we have is appalling. There's no room for me to use my imagination here, and I don't think one can argue that the ending allows for it in any meaningful way, regardless of what the writers claim they intended.

This wut I sed but wit betterier words

 

[Aske]

This wut I sed but wit betterier words

You beat me to it on the writer's intention for players to have absolutely no fucking standards. There's no way to bullshit the ending into anything artistically defensible. It's success relies on apathy and ignorance.

 

[DTKT]

You beat me to it on the writer's intention for players to have absolutely no fucking standards. There's no way to bullshit the ending into anything artistically defensible. It's success relies on apathy and ignorance.

Well said.

 

[riceandbeans]

After reading that, I wonder if TOR's development had anything to do with it. There was a rumor they had to drag some of DA3's staff away to work on it and maybe some of ME's staff too? Bioware may not be the king of polish, but they always craft a good story. I'm blaming EA on the ending.

 

[RedRedSuit]

The funny part is that this particular blow could have been softened if Hudson and Walters hadn't decided to keep the conversation with Space Kid more 'high level'. I mean, why would you want the opportunity to question the entity that decides how the game ends? It's not like important plot points have been decided/elaborated on in conversations before. That would be stupid, right? I mean, why start now?

I am still bitter about this. Fuck.

Yes, very strange. Having a nice detailed chat with Sovereign? Sure, absolutely. Star Kid? Nah, let's keep it high level.

 

[RedRedSuit]

So I loved ME1 and ME2 and played them from beginning to end. I bought ME3 on release but haven't really played too much of it. I'm maybe an hour or two deep into the story. I saw the people complaining about how bad the ending was, and the subsequent Bioware new ending DLC. My question is, should I play it, see the bad ending, and wait for the DLC like most everyone else did? Or should I just wait for the DLC so I won't be one of the bitter ones about how disappointing the ending was?

You should certainly, definitely wait until the DLC to play through the game. Anyone telling you differently is probably just being a bit selfish and wanting other people to join the club.

You want to avoid the club. The DLC is your best chance to do that, other than not playing the game at all. Whatever this DLC will be, it's going to be better than the piece that we got. Think of it as a big patch trying to fix a major issue. It may not fix it, but it should at least not be worse... have patience.

 

[spekkeh]

You can't spend three games showing me that organics and synthetics are philosophically and morally identical

The thing is though, they didn't. Maybe you got this out of it, but at best they left the answer hanging.

 

[spekkeh]

And definitely not in the first game, or most of the second one. Only the inclusion of Legion all the way at the end of ME2 precipitated a 'maybe the Geth aren't so bad after all', but Legion could well have been an anomaly, which would also be the reason that he alone sided with the organics.

 

[RedRedSuit]

In the first game they're controlled by a Reaper... so not a fair way to assess them. Most of the Geth are not shown -- only the Reaper slaves are shown.

In the second game they're only part of the plot but are shown to not be endemically hostile to anyone. Morally they're on the right side of things; it's not just Legion. Legion is only special because he's individual-leaning unlike the Geth normally are.

In the third game they turn into metallic humans, if you let them. They're also clearly and without ambiguity shown to have been oppressed and non-threatening even at their very beginnings on the Quarian homeworld.

EDI is Commander Data, nothing more.

So yes, the series shows that synthetics = organics in all the ways that matter.

 

[Aske]

It's odd to think of it, but the space-god endings would have all made sense if the first three games had foreshadowed inevitable conflict between synths and organs to some degree. Hell, it wouldn't have been hard to tease hope with ME2 and then destroy it by showing that the geth and quarians could never live in peace in ME3; or that Joker and EDI couldn't be together because of some inherent racial incompatibility. But whether or not you unite the geth and quarians, every player is shown that the geth only rebelled in defense, and the quarians only attacked out of fear. The game goes out of its way to show the conflict is not rooted in intrinsic discordance between the species. On top of that, every conversation you have with EDI shows her character progression towards an ever greater sense of personhood, and the feeling that she's more a part of the Nroamndy's crew than an AI in service to them. No matter what you choose to do, that's her character arc. Shepard goes through the same thing in reverse to a lesser degree; questioning how human he really is after Cerberus resurrected him.

It would be one thing if the ending ignored a few ideas which popped up in the first and second games; but the 'humanity' of AIs and the baselessness of the prejudice displayed towards them is a central theme throughout ME3. The space-god dialogue is both a thematic and a narrarive paradox whichever way you slice it. There's no room for interpretation, because there's no way for Shepard to reject the space-god.

 

[Blue Ninja]

It's odd to think of it, but the space-god endings would have all made sense if the first three games had foreshadowed inevitable conflict between synths and organs to some degree. Hell, it wouldn't have been hard to tease hope with ME2 and then destroy it by showing that the geth and quarians could never live in peace in ME3; or that Joker and EDI couldn't be together because of some inherent racial incompatibility. But whether or not you unite the geth and quarians, every player is shown that the geth only rebelled in defense, and the quarians only attacked out of fear. The game goes out of its way to show the conflict is not rooted in intrinsic discordance between the species. On top of that, every conversation you have with EDI shows her character progression towards an ever greater sense of personhood, and the feeling that she's more a part of the Nroamndy's crew than an AI in service to them. No matter what you choose to do, that's her character arc. Shepard goes through the same thing in reverse to a lesser degree; questioning how human he really is after Cerberus resurrected him.

It would be one thing if the ending ignored a few ideas which popped up in the first and second games; but the 'humanity' of AIs and the baselessness of the prejudice displayed towards them is a central theme throughout ME3. The space-god dialogue is both a thematic and a narrarive paradox whichever way you slice it. There's no room for interpretation, because there's no way for Shepard to reject the space-god.

Ironically, the only thing in ME3 that actually foreshadowed the ending was Javik and his remarks on the matter. A DLC character that might let you prepare for the ending. BioWare, come the fuck on.

 

[Gui_PT]

Ironically, the only thing in ME3 that actually foreshadowed the ending was Javik and his remarks on the matter. A DLC character that might let you prepare for the ending. BioWare, come the fuck on.

A DLC I didn't even get. Is it any good?

Edit: If anyone has a code but really really hates the game, I'll sacrifice myself and take that code.

Spoiler

What? It was worth a shot

 

[Rapstah]

Ironically, the only thing in ME3 that actually foreshadowed the ending was Javik and his remarks on the matter. A DLC character that might let you prepare for the ending. BioWare, come the fuck on.

He contradicts himself. In the first dialogue you get with him on the ship, he says that the AI race in his cycle were beating them, or that they were at least fighting evenly all over the galaxy when the Reapers arrive. In the dialogue you get when he's mad about Legion being allowed to be on the ship, he makes it sound like his cycle defeated the AI race.

But otherwise that's the only plot point in the entire series that points to technological singularity being the Reapers' target, yep.

EDIT: There's a Metroid: Other M thread going on in the main gaming forum now, and it stuck me - Metroid fans' reaction to that is the same to hardcore ME fans' to this, only their issue is with the entire game rather than with the last five minutes and their franchise is four times older than the ME series. I have never played a Metroid game, but I can kind of really see how people would be mad at that game now.

 

[riceandbeans]

It's odd to think of it, but the space-god endings would have all made sense if the first three games had foreshadowed inevitable conflict between synths and organs to some degree.

The synthetics destroying everything ending was created late in development, around the time Mass Effect 3 started. The Geth did show a sense of humanity, in a way, in Mass Effect 1 as well. The whole reason they sided with the Reapers was to protect themselves against organics, not because they wanted to kill them.

A DLC I didn't even get. Is it any good?

Edit: If anyone has a code but really really hates the game, I'll sacrifice myself and take that code.

Spoiler

What? It was worth a shot

He's worth it. Javik gives a ton of backstory into the Protheans and his character, love him or hate him, is very well put together and hilarious at times. I don't believe he was created by a separate team just because his character is so polished and fits in perfectly. Kasumi and Zaeed felt like DLC characters. Javik doesn't.

 

[Rufus]

He's worth it. Javik gives a ton of backstory into the Protheans and his character, love him or hate him, is very well put together and hilarious at times. I don't believe he was created by a separate team just because his character is so polished and fits in perfectly. Kasumi and Zaeed felt like DLC characters. Javik doesn't.

Just like Shale in Dragon Age. They tried to justify that one with a fuck up on their part. Supposedly they'd used the same model as the enemy Golems you fight, only those didn't quite fit in the environments they'd built because they're huge. I can see that happening, but there's no way they noticed this so late in development that they had to make him a DLC character.

 

[Rapstah]

Just like Shale in Dragon Age. They tried to justify that one with a fuck up on their part. Supposedly they'd used the same model as the enemy Golems you fight, only those didn't quite fit in the environments they'd built because they're huge. I can see that happening, but there's no way they noticed this so late in development that they had to make him a DLC character.

Dragon Age has far more invasive DLC than that. There's the guy in your camp who has the quest explamation mark over his head and tells a long story about the DLC keep that ends with a dialogue option to buy the DLC... and the two map locations where you get an introduction to DLC and you have to buy the content to continue.

 

[Blue Ninja]

Dragon Age has far more invasive DLC than that. There's the guy in your camp who has the quest explamation mark over his head and tells a long story about the DLC keep that ends with a dialogue option to buy the DLC... and the two map locations where you get an introduction to DLC and you have to buy the content to continue.

I enjoyed never buying it.

DLC can be a good thing, if it's implemented right. Unfortunately, lots of devs still don't know how to do it.

 

[Rufus]

Well, it's dilemma for them too. You can't really win with launch DLC. Either it's insubstantial crap you can ignore, which defeats the purpose from a business standpoint, or it is substantial and ends up being a hidden price increase to get the 'complete' version of the game.
I can see ME3 feeling complete without Javik, but he adds so much to the game that it just seems cynical to cut him out for part of the audience.