Mass Effect Series Thread

[Chaos Incarnate]

This kind of grasping at straws, but looking back, Mass Effect 3 had some stellar marketing.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AluTOOCVXVQ

 

Anyone remember this trailer with Protectors of Earth playing in the background? Best way to get me pumped up for any game's release, hands down.

[Patticus]

I just finished the game. Well, apart from the Citadel DLC, but that's post-finale fodder, even though certain aspects of it won't make sense now.

 

I got the Perfect/Paragon Destroy ending, with 50% readiness (because fuck paying for Live), and I'm feeling really bad for EDI and the Geth dying.

 

I'm not really sure how to feel about it. I'll have to give it some time to sink in, I suppose...

 

 

Edit: I've gathered a few vaguely considered thoughts regarding the main story ending, as well as the game as a whole, except for the Citadel DLC, which I accidentally stumbled into early on (not realizing it was that DLC) and had to load up a much earlier save to escape.

 

I think that it was a bad move to try to tie the singleplayer story's Galactic Readiness Rating system to apps and the game's multiplayer mode. While the concept sounds good enough, I dislike being forced into utilizing multiplayer features or apps when I would have been perfectly okay with an alternative means to the same end that allows me to remain antisocial. I think that that whole area (galactic readiness) should have been dependent upon the numbers of side quests completed in each region, including DLC, as well as certain war assets and intel which the player can acquire over the course of the game. Those criterion, along perhaps with the outcomes of certain events, like Rannoch, would have done me just fine.

 

 

I feel awful for destroying EDI and the Geth. The genocide of the entire Geth race, whom I had only just got done saving because I recognized that they counted as living, intelligent beings, stings particularly badly; more so given how much they were helping the Quarians to acclimatize to living on Rannoch again. Given my views there, it follows that I should have gone for the Synthesis ending, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it, and as a result a beloved character and a race another beloved character sacrificed itself to save are all dead.

 

I understand that many things can be replicated and rebuilt, as Hackett said in the Extended Cut video, but with people, with intelligent A.I.s, well, they cannot be identical. Identical clones with identical programming created after the Reaper War will develop differently to those created before. Their lives, the situations they'll be placed in etc, cannot be the same. I live in hope that perhaps EDI may have secreted a copy of her more developed self somewhere safe, maybe her cyber-warfare suites developed enough to protect her, or that the Geth built another deep space station out of reach of the energy wave in which to house runtimes and programs... but if the Perfect Destroy ending is the one Bioware at least eludes to in ME4, will it feel like the impact of ME3's ending was all for nothing? I want to think that I got the best ending, and in a way I did, but at the same time, I regret not synthesizing and combining all advanced organic and synthetic life, as that way I might have saved everyone, even though I doubt that Bioware will utilize that ending come ME4...

 

 

So, while the ending didn't kill me with rage like it evidently did some of you guys, it did leave me feeling pretty bad due to certain results of my final decision, but I still come away with renewed hope and hype for what ME4 may bring us, whenever it is ready to be shown off. I just hope that it retains the series' trademark attention to detail, with its own huge repository of lore, and that we can return to planetary exploration and resource gathering, intermingled with a freer, more dexterous movement system, more customization options, a tight little story and so on. This is a sci-fi universe I will not soon be letting go of.

[Chaos Incarnate]

Thought I would share one of my favorite scenes in the series from my favorite Scientist Salarian performing Gilbert and Sullivan.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxrO5-HPIAw

 

Love ya Mordin. =)

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm sorry, but perhaps the only ending that is actually worth anything is the Control ending. And I'm saying this as someone who chose Synthesis.

 

If you saved the Geth, and held any attachment to EDI and Legion (and yes I know what happens to it) as people instead of just machines, then the Destroy ending is nothing more than a huge middle finger to that sympathy you have. And there's no way in hell I'm going to make that kind of sacrifice after going through all that trouble to save them. All that development, all that attachment and sympathy isn't something I'm going to throw away for anything.

 

Synthesis is utopic, although it makes you wonder how they're going to incorporate that ending into ME4 if there's not much you can make conflict out of. Shared knowledge and history, merging of biology and technology, and the Reapers, the unstoppable juggernauts that were able to squash who knows how manage generations of space-faring, star-hopping civilizations, with the most advanced technology you could think of and even more, are on everyone's side? Unless they're going to make an extra-galactic threat in ME4, I would love to see how they work around this.

 

Control, however, keeps things pluralistic enough to generate conflict at least within the galaxy. Even with Reapers acting as guardians of the galaxy, you could still have things like wars between space-faring powers, civil wars, and the conflict of new species reaching the technological level to be a part of the galactic community.

[Patticus]

Actually, why do we need a new galactic threat? Why can't we return to having a specific evil villain, like Saren was back in the day?

[ImPantsAtThis]

Actually, why do we need a new galactic threat? Why can't we return to having a specific evil villain, like Saren was back in the day?

 

This is my thinking behind a sequel. It would be ludicrous to try and create a bigger bad than the Reapers. The only way to have beating a smaller-time antagonist in ME Next feel as triumphant as beating the Reapers would be to have it be a very personal conflict, perhaps a revenge tale of some sort. That is assuming that there'll be an antagonist you can put a name to, and that the game won't focus on fighting groups of hostile races as you explore (ala Star Trek: TNG)

 

But seriously, trying to one-up the Reapers and write in an extragalactic threat would be kinda ridiculous; what could be worse than a race of sentient machine-things that are programmed to wipe out all organic life every ~50k years? Nothing I could take seriously, that's for sure. Besides, we had enough of the war stuff and 'end of days' crap in the Shepard trilogy -- I want something fresh, something less gritty.

[Teoskaven]

Actually, why do we need a new galactic threat? Why can't we return to having a specific evil villain, like Saren was back in the day?

 

Better idea: why do we need a main villain in the first place? Why can't the next ME just walks the footsteps of Ultima IV? It could work for me.

[Emmett L. Brown]

The character-driven stories of Mass Effect 2 & 3 were the very best parts of the series for me, so I could definitely go for a game devoted to that end. Every single party member got a character arc across all three games that got me a heck of a lot more invested than the looming threat of SPACE CHUTULU IS COMING TO KILL EVERYONE!!! The interweaved stories of Mordin/Wrex and Tali/Legion were more interesting to me, had far better development and pacing, and got way, way, WAY better payoffs. The curing of the Genophage and the resolution of the Quarian-Geth conflict could have been the ending of their own games devoted to that story, and I would've loved them.

 

Saving an entire race with all their history and culture intact is easily a worthy goal for an RPG story. It doesn't HAVE to be saving the entire setting from total destruction every time.

[ImPantsAtThis]

I'm sorry, but perhaps the only ending that is actually worth anything is the Control ending. And I'm saying this as someone who chose Synthesis.

 

If you saved the Geth, and held any attachment to EDI and Legion (and yes I know what happens to it) as people instead of just machines, then the Destroy ending is nothing more than a huge middle finger to that sympathy you have. And there's no way in hell I'm going to make that kind of sacrifice after going through all that trouble to save them. All that development, all that attachment and sympathy isn't something I'm going to throw away for anything.

 

I would rather sacrifice the Geth and EDI than give one person command of the Reapers. I wouldn't even trust a paragon Shep with that kind of power.

 

Regardless, the space magic true ending is the best:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsz47q4utDk

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Actually, why do we need a new galactic threat? Why can't we return to having a specific evil villain, like Saren was back in the day?

Because if you chose Synthesis, what the hell is the point in having evil when the galaxy is utopic? With a galaxy that's rebuilt itself far better than it originally was thanks to the Reapers sharing all the ancient knowledge they had, I'm having trouble seeing any specific evil along the same line and depth as Saren. And with the most powerful force in the galaxy on everyone's side and with a setting that's far more peaceful than either of the other endings, it has a high risk of becoming underwhelming in comparison and villains becoming much more generic (and I really hate using that word) than you could see of Saren.

 

That's why I vouch for the Control ending, as even with the Reapers being guardians of the galaxy there's far more independence between the space faring races as the Reapers let them settle things themselves. Either way, I'd like to see how they work with Synthesis if they can, but I'm not optimistic about it.

 

I would rather sacrifice the Geth and EDI than give one person command of the Reapers. I wouldn't even trust a paragon Shep with that kind of power.

Right, because Paragon Sheperd, as a Council Spectre, didn't already have too much power in his/her hands due to being above the law as it was. Nor would Paragon Shep ever use such power responsibly even though as a Spectre that could practically do whatever he/she wanted short of what the Council disallowed him from doing, and despite being allowed to do certain immoral actions that would be war crimes anywhere else he/she goes the diplomatic, egalitarian route that only does ruthless actions as a last resort.

 

So with all that in mind, and after going through so much trouble to end the Reaper's cycle of galactic extinction, you'd rather commit genocide of a group of people you fought hard to allow to live in the first place, because you don't trust the person who had to make hard sacrifices in order to save the known galaxy to use that power responsibly when even before they got that power they could have gotten away with other irresponsible uses of that power. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[ImPantsAtThis]

 

Right, because Paragon Sheperd, as a Council Spectre, didn't already have too much power in his/her hands due to being above the law as it was. Nor would Paragon Shep ever use such power responsibly even though as a Spectre that could practically do whatever he wanted short of what the Council disallowed him from doing, and despite being allowed to do certain immoral actions that would be war crimes anywhere else he/she goes the diplomatic, egalitarian route that only does ruthless actions as a last resort.

 

So with all that in mind, and after going through so much trouble to end the Reaper's cycle of galactic extinction, you'd rather commit genocide of a group of people you fought hard to allow to live in the first place, because you don't trust the person who had to make hard sacrifices in order to save the known galaxy to use that power responsibly when even before they got that power they could have gotten away with other irresponsible uses of that power. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

 

Right, firstly, that snark at the end is uncalled for; we're disagreeing, I'm not crapping in your cornflakes.

 

First point is a faulty comparison. Being in complete control of a race of unstoppable machines is in no way comparable to not being bound by law. One pretty much makes you a god who, if turned evil, can enslave the whole galaxy, or crush it easily. The other, if turned evil, just makes you an asshole. A powerful one at that, but not capable of the same level of dickery as the overlord of the Reapers. Quite frankly, I don't get why you're assuming a paragon Shep (even a pure paragon) is incorruptible. The fact he's now an AI means he has a very different view on the universe, much different to live Shep's. Who's to say he won't make the same decision the catalyst, since he'll probably give himself the same manifesto the catalyst had (prevent organic/synthetic war) as the technological singularity is still a threat.

 

Second paragraph, like the first, assumes Shepard is incorruptible. I know Shepard has special snowflake syndrome, but he really isn't that resilient. Hell, if the dream sequences are anything to go by, he starts to lose his marbles early on in ME 3 -- it doesn't affect his decisions, but it shows a crack in his mental fortitude. Given the lifetime of an AI, an organic watching over other organics might see atrocities everyday, over eons possibly, and that crack could become a fissure. And besides, just because Shepard is the best organic for the job, doesn't mean he can do it right -- to assume he could is to put way too much faith in him. So yeah, I'd rather sacrifice my second-favourite race in the game and my least favourite character if it meant that the ultimate power stays out of everyone's hands.

[Emmett L. Brown]

My head-canon is that my Paragon Shepard, after taking Control of the Reapers, used them to repair the damage done to the galaxy during the war, and then sent the entire Reaper fleet straight into the heart of a star, destroying them all.

This is because MY Shepard had already argued with Legion and Mordin about letting species evolve along their natural paths without outside intervention. MY Shepard felt it was wrong for both the Krogan and the Geth Heretics to be uplifted and improved by outside forces without being allowed to advance on their own terms. MY Shepard would be the biggest hypocrite in the universe if she didn't follow the same morals in a position of absolute power.

Which conveniently also allows future games to happen.

 

 

EDIT: My obvious attitude problem is aimed at the shoe-horned ending rather than anyone in this thread. Your head-canons are also pretty cool.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Emmett L. Brown

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Right, firstly, that snark at the end is uncalled for; we're disagreeing, I'm not crapping in your cornflakes.

 

Yeah, well I have difficulty understanding how things like genocide are justified if alternatives can avoid it, as well understanding the disagreement in question given more of the following points I'm about to give...

 

 

 

First point is a faulty comparison. Being in complete control of a race of unstoppable machines is in no way comparable to not being bound by law. One pretty much makes you a god who, if turned evil, can enslave the whole galaxy, or crush it easily. The other, if turned evil, just makes you an asshole. A powerful one at that, but not capable of the same level of dickery as the overlord of the Reapers. Quite frankly, I don't get why you're assuming a paragon Shep (even a pure paragon) is incorruptible. The fact he's now an AI means he has a very different view on the universe, much different to live Shep's. Who's to say he won't make the same decision the catalyst, since he'll probably give himself the same manifesto the catalyst had (prevent organic/synthetic war) as the technological singularity is still a threat.

Whether god or man, an evil asshole is an evil asshole. One just has more power. And considering how the one who became a god was a mortal first, 

defeated the previous god, then became the new god, I think they'll have much more flexibility in understanding their power and the mortals who lack it if put to benevolent purposes. And if they were to turn evil then they'd still have that weakness of the previous god before them that they'd have to protect as well. Doubly so since their generation actually managed to survive the cycle they were in and would likely rebuild and adapt to prevent it from happening again or at least as easily. So for all that godlike power, and the old god defeated, and given what the galaxy tried for the new god to save them, I'd think the galaxy that managed to defy odds and survive would have a better chance at fighting back when not only did previous generations of galactic civilizations die out, but they either had no clue or no time to make it to that level. And in the event they don't, they damn sure wouldn't go down as easily as the ones before them.

 

Nevermind that it's pretty circular, if not hypocritical, for Sheperd to make that same decision the catalyst made after already being told by the Catalyst that the solution wouldn't work anymore, having changed the variables. Or that given Sheperd's experience with organics and synthetics not being so different that they couldn't work in harmony with each other, which the truce between the Quarian's and the Geth was suppose to be an example of. So here's a different question: who's to say Sheperd as the new Catalyst would actually bother preventing organic/synthetic war if it actually does come to pass? Why not just let them settle it out their own way as he deals only with threats that endanger the galaxy as a whole? Or if he does seek to prevent organic/synthetic war, why not just threaten both sides to get along or wipe out the aggressors while leaving the others groups alone so long as they don't cause the same trouble? You, the very person guiding all of Shepard's actions, don't think that, with all that power and knowledge, they would have more options other than "to prevent organic/synthetic war, kill off every space-faring race even if they have no synthetics?"

 

 

 

Second paragraph, like the first, assumes Shepard is incorruptible. I know Shepard has special snowflake syndrome, but he really isn't that resilient. Hell, if the dream sequences are anything to go by, he starts to lose his marbles early on in ME 3 -- it doesn't affect his decisions, but it shows a crack in his mental fortitude. Given the lifetime of an AI, an organic watching over other organics might see atrocities everyday, over eons possibly, and that crack could become a fissure. And besides, just because Shepard is the best organic for the job, doesn't mean he can do it right -- to assume he could is to put way too much faith in him. So yeah, I'd rather sacrifice my second-favourite race in the game and my least favourite character if it meant that the ultimate power stays out of everyone's hands.

If he's a god-AI, he'd be pretty hard to "corrupt" in the way you're making out. Nevermind that since you, the player, were guiding and controlling his actions, you'd think you would know whether or not 

your own character would be corrupted enough to do any of that unless you yourself would go along with said corruption for Shepard to do.

 

Nevermind that at this point he's already more than just an organic, and given even more knowledge than anyone could ever have, and having changed the variables of the previous AI, you're assuming that Shepard isn't flexible enough to find other solutions as he watches over and protects the galaxy compared to the more rigid logic of the previous Catalyst, whom Shepard has had a much different experience as far as synthetics go and isn't bound by the original Catalyst's creators to find a solution to the synthetic/organic problem in a much different kind of galactic setting.

 

So I think Shepard running the Reapers could be a much different story and era than reverting to the same problems as the Catalyst before him, enough to know he'd use all that power much differently, and if paragon much more benevolently. So, unless it does end up into a complete circle and Shepard becomes no different to the Catalyst (rendering all that effort in the originaly trilogy even more pointless as you continue the cycle you fought so hard to break in the first place), I don't see the value in sacrificing EDI or committing genocide of the Geth.

[Patticus]

All of the mentions of the various endings has me wondering what Bioware is going to do about them in ME4, if anything. It seems like a far bigger problem to incorporate all of them into the potential sequel than the previous game-ending decisions. That would indicate that the decision to keep them all, choose one or ignore them must surely have been made by now in their main ideas meetings, probably quite early on in the development process as that would be the number one issue to resolve before any semblance of a story could be formulated. BIOWARE HAS BEEN SHEPARDED! WHAT WILL IT DO?

 

Keeping them all would probably be too difficult to do in one game, or even in a single series, due to the totally different galaxies each would result in, and the wide range of contextual scenarios and overarching plots that they would have to account for. One possible way to save them all would be to say that Shepard's decision created, say, four separate timelines for events after that, similar to how Ocarina Of Time created three separate timelines for the Zelda series' games set after it. That way, each decision could be addressed in its own series of games, each isolated from all the others bar the original trilogy. The downside (and it is a whopper) is that some fans could be left waiting a very long time for resolution of their own decision. That issue could be mitigated if some of the games could be outsourced to other developers, if they could be trusted to deliver a product worthy of the Mass Effect name.

 

Choosing just one ending from the myriad we were presented with will step on quite a few peoples' toes, but the intriguing possibility with this decision is that certain aspects of the many endings could be brought in or taken out as needed. For example, Synthesis, now that Shepard knows it can be done (the Intelligence wouldn't have presented it as an option if it weren't possible), could become part of a long-running side story, perhaps intermingling with a central plot, if any of the other decisions is made the de facto canon choice. The end result there could perhaps be the realization of Synthesis in a similar manner to how the Genophage was deployed, resulting in a brewing war between the races/people who want it, and those who don't.

 

Ignoring all of the endings is the final option I can see. To do this, the plot would need to be firmly set outside the bounds of the galaxy as we know it, either in time (many years, centuries or millennia before or after) or in space.

 

The former option presents the possibility of Bioware giving the ME universe its own KOTOR game, set in the golden age of a previous cycle (the last one would make the most sense, as it could then include familiar races and provide faces to fit with races we have only heard of from Javik).

 

The latter presents an interesting scenario: An enormous, experimental ark ship (or perhaps an ark surrounded by a flotilla of smaller ships, including military vessels) is dispatched out of the ME galaxy, its mission being the exploration and documentation of another galaxy; perhaps colonization too, if need be. Maybe it was sent out during the golden age before the war, maybe it was sent in a desperate attempt evade the Reapers during the darkest days of the conflict, . Maybe a couple of Reapers and indoctrinated ships are following in hot pursuit (shades of BattleStar Galactica), perhaps not. Members of every major Council race would be present in numbers enough to avoid inbreeding, the ship/fleet would have its own Council to make decisions alongside a military hierarchy. The main ship would be pretty huge - big enough look a little bit Presidium-ish inside - and the primary antagonist could simply be a person or persons who differ in their views as to what the mission is supposed to accomplish, how it should be done, where to draw the line etc. Maybe you play a soldier aboard that ship, maybe you command your own squad, maybe you even captain your own ship, who knows. You'd get to explore new worlds in a new galaxy, meet new civilizations, encounter new threats, see new threats and old inter-mingle for better and worse, recruit people, embark on relationships etc, all very much isolated from the war at home, and all of its consequences.

[ImPantsAtThis]

Yeah, well I have difficulty understanding how things like genocide are justified if alternatives can avoid it, as well understanding the disagreement in question given more of the following points I'm about to give...

 

 

Whether god or man, an evil asshole is an evil asshole. One just has more power. And considering how the one who became a god was a mortal first, 

defeated the previous god, then became the new god, I think they'll have much more flexibility in understanding their power and the mortals who lack it if put to benevolent purposes. And if they were to turn evil then they'd still have that weakness of the previous god before them that they'd have to protect as well. Doubly so since their generation actually managed to survive the cycle they were in and would likely rebuild and adapt to prevent it from happening again or at least as easily. So for all that godlike power, and the old god defeated, and given what the galaxy tried for the new god to save them, I'd think the galaxy that managed to defy odds and survive would have a better chance at fighting back when not only did previous generations of galactic civilizations die out, but they either had no clue or no time to make it to that level. And in the event they don't, they damn sure wouldn't go down as easily as the ones before them.

 

Nevermind that it's pretty circular, if not hypocritical, for Sheperd to make that same decision the catalyst made after already being told by the Catalyst that the solution wouldn't work anymore, having changed the variables. Or that given Sheperd's experience with organics and synthetics not being so different that they couldn't work in harmony with each other, which the truce between the Quarian's and the Geth was suppose to be an example of. So here's a different question: who's to say Sheperd as the new Catalyst would actually bother preventing organic/synthetic war if it actually does come to pass? Why not just let them settle it out their own way as he deals only with threats that endanger the galaxy as a whole? Or if he does seek to prevent organic/synthetic war, why not just threaten both sides to get along or wipe out the aggressors while leaving the others groups alone so long as they don't cause the same trouble? You, the very person guiding all of Shepard's actions, don't think that, with all that power and knowledge, they would have more options other than "to prevent organic/synthetic war, kill off every space-faring race even if they have no synthetics?"

 

 

 

If he's a god-AI, he'd be pretty hard to "corrupt" in the way you're making out. Nevermind that since you, the player, were guiding and controlling his actions, you'd think you would know whether or not 

your own character would be corrupted enough to do any of that unless you yourself would go along with said corruption for Shepard to do.

 

Nevermind that at this point he's already more than just an organic, and given even more knowledge than anyone could ever have, and having changed the variables of the previous AI, you're assuming that Shepard isn't flexible enough to find other solutions as he watches over and protects the galaxy compared to the more rigid logic of the previous Catalyst, whom Shepard has had a much different experience as far as synthetics go and isn't bound by the original Catalyst's creators to find a solution to the synthetic/organic problem in a much different kind of galactic setting.

 

So I think Shepard running the Reapers could be a much different story and era than reverting to the same problems as the Catalyst before him, enough to know he'd use all that power much differently, and if paragon much more benevolently. So, unless it does end up into a complete circle and Shepard becomes no different to the Catalyst (rendering all that effort in the originaly trilogy even more pointless as you continue the cycle you fought so hard to break in the first place), I don't see the value in sacrificing EDI or committing genocide of the Geth.

 

Seriously? Talking down to me won't help your point, no matter whether you're wrong or right.

 

It's justified because I'd rather destroy one race than put the whole galaxy in peril. "Ruthless calculus of war".  (Just 'cause it's a quote doesn't make it valid, but I value multiple species over one.)

 

Yeah, they're both assholes. But you're right, one has more power. Enough to defeat the whole galaxy. Shepard did not defeat the Catalyst; he helped assemble the Crucible and then uploaded himself. Not a defeat, he just got replaced -- he didn't show he was better than the Catalyst at its job by taking its place, so that's a moot point. As for a corrupted CatalystShepard having the weakness the Catalyst had (the Crucible), you don't know how the Crucible works post-ending; it's never mentioned. And if it works the way you suggest, terrorists groups could hijack it and replace a non-corrupt Shepard just as easily as he replaced the Catalyst. On that basis, anyone with the arms for it could take advantage of the situation and we end up with somebody worse than Shep, but I digress since I don't think that's how it works. Note that the Milky Way was no match for the Reapers anyway; they could only slow them down. There is no feasible way they could advance to the Reapers' tech level, as they too would advance at the same time -- maybe the galaxy gets better equipped to fight the suddenly-evil Reapers, but the space cuttlefish will have gotten a few upgrades too, unless evilShep, a strong military mind and tactician, is stupid.

 

I agree it's circular, and I concede that: but the fact is that Shepard's cycle only got the Crucible because the Reapers got sloppy -- organics hiding data on the magic off button to pass down through the cycles. 

 

Regarding the whole organic/synthetic thing, I don't think you understand the original problem. The fact is, when you have a self-replicating synthetic race like the Geth, they advance at an exponential rate -- in both tech and population. This is the Technological Singularity as I understand it (note: I have been known to talk out of my ass on occasion). Case in point: the Geth advanced to power rivaling that of the Citadel Fleet in the time between the Morning War and ME 1. Organics grow to fear this power, and strike early. Case in point: Morning War. Even if the truce is in this canon we're discussing, you'd have to be awfully optimistic to assume organics would trust a race that would outmatch them in a matter of centuries, or that the synthetics would accept limitations placed on their race by the organics. 

 

The Calayst saw to stop this by stopping organics at the point where they would create synthetics... I think? (Not sure on this, Catalyst's logic is iffy, and if this is true, then he's been late twice in a row.)

 

--

 

He's a god AI with a human's mind and personality, from what I understand. That makes him vulnerable to changing his mind, especially when you consider his near-infinite lifespan. You say that about player knowledge, but I knew that Shepard *cough solesurvivor or me1cerberusarc cough* would never join Cerberus. I knew Shepard would not get PTSD, since he's lost people before *ruthless or virmire/suicidemission*. The point is that we, as players, don't have enough agency to make that call since we only choose his decisions and speech options -- we can't shape his thoughts, only use ours instead. Who can say what Shepard is thinking?

 

I can understand your point here. Shepard isn't your average bear: he has the Prothean cipher; has killed Reapers; potentially met the Leviathans etc. but I think you overestimate his capabilities. While my argument could be (unfairly) boiled down to "he goes space-crazy" on this point. I still think that you're making an assumption on what it's like to be the Catalyst for near-eternity. You can't quantify that amount of time. Even the Catalyst considered other solutions, as it said. But if the Catalyst had so long to work out the issue -- an intelligence created by a pretty much super race -- then why would Shepard, given less time, do better. Just because of his experiences? I don't think that gives him much insight into the issue, since he'd still have to get rid of organics' fear of synthetic expansion to solve it. After all, the Citadel will have something to say about the Quarians being besties with a self-aware synthetic army, I'm sure.

 

I agree it'd be different -- for example, the Reapers would probably be a constant presence under Shepard's rule, rather than visiting every 50K years -- and I think it could be quite interesting. But if Shepard is a benevolent Catalyst, how can you be sure that he won't go 'big brother' on everyone to keep the peace as he sees it? That's how I think it'd be written, and as interesting as it is, it would mean that Shepard truly is a special, unfaze-able, untemptable straight arrow.

 

While I fear this will render our debate pointless, you told me what ending you picked and why, so it's only fair for me to explain myself. I still think Destroy is worth it because too much can go wrong with Control. Trust me, I don't take losing the Geth lightly -- they were awesome, and I considered them all individuals with the Reaper code. But I'd rather get rid of them and leave the galaxy to face the tech singularity and life on their own instead of having human with galaxy-beating power run the show.

 

(Apologies if this is hard to read and match up to your post. How do you do that fancy quote thing? Thanks anyway.)

 

 

EDIT: @Patticus:

 

Oh yeah, they wrote themselves into a bit of a corner there -- you can tell they didn't want to make another set afterwards. I always favoured a reboot or alternate universe, maybe the first mission set on Eden Prime at the same time the original was just as a little in-joke to highlight that it's a different timeline. That said, I think they'll go far into the future, and sweep the whole thing under the rug, or go to unexplored stellar space and sweep the whole thing under the rug.

[Xenos]

The only ending that would be easy enough to lead off of is the Destroy ending, at least in my opinion.

 

And I personally chose the destroy ending myself. You mean to tell me after all the strife and pain my Shepard has been through with no time to rest, and no quarter, and after already dying once, he can't get his chance to live for a peaceful time with his friends/Love Interest? It's just not fair to me, to be honest. My Shepard was practically a selfless person, and cared deeply about his crew, and tried to make peace between all the races, so I am definitely not serving him death.

And about EDI and the Geth, there's one thing that bothers me; did the Catalyst say that the Crucible will destroy reaper-based technology or all synthetics in general? If that's the case, the perfect destroy ending, where Shepard takes a breath, has interesting implications:

1. Shepard is partly synthetic, and a lot of the synthetic stuff in his body is the only reason he's alive right about now. So if he managed to survive the point blank explosion, *and* breathe, I can only assume that while synthetic life may be devastated/weakened, it is more than possible to bring them back. With newfound partnership with the Geth, the Quarians may defy fate and make the Geth again, but this time treat them like they have souls this time. The unit does have a soul, you know.

Joker. That's all there is for EDI. I don't know about her having a physical body, but her original self and personality can be recreated, as well as reforming her memories. Remember, the synthetic life might be gone, but not all of their remains, I don't think it'd be possible to erase every trace of EDI there is, she *is* the Normandy after all. And the Normandy was still functioning for the most part, right?

The destroy ending doesn't completely alter the galaxy as a whole and it gets rid of the reapers, which I don't want to see around at all in ME4, because I spent an entire trilogy trying to get rid of them. Even better, Shepard gets to live a full life, and since synthetics and technology took a blow, it only means that things can start anew, which sets up Mass Effect 4 well to me.

[Patticus]

I would also be more than happy with a Civ-style civilization building game set during the galaxy's upcoming reconstruction era (or, well, any previous cycle). It would combine rebuilding devastated worlds, contending with other older races and new ones too, with colonizing new worlds and building a new golden age through conquest or cooperation.

 

With the relay system more or less dead in the water for god knows how long, HE-3 re-fuelling stations galaxy-wide turned into floating fields of slag, and FTL travel impractical for galaxy-wide travel, all of the galaxy's races will have to turn their attentions toward their local star neighborhoods as far as colonization, resource hunting etc goes. While scientists and researchers on multiple homeworlds will need to balance the need to quickly and efficiently clean their worlds up, as well as find a way to recreate the old relay network, somebody's gotta get out there and start setting colonies up, get resources/food etc flowing again, provide safe havens for refugees to build afresh while the rubble of their homes is cleared away and built upon. A Civ-style game might be the ideal way to show this period in the galaxy's history.

[ImPantsAtThis]

I would also be more than happy with a Civ-style civilization building game set during the galaxy's upcoming reconstruction era (or, well, any previous cycle). It would combine rebuilding devastated worlds, contending with other older races and new ones too, with colonizing new worlds and building a new golden age through conquest or cooperation.

 

Hmm. An interesting proposal, and I'd be content with it, were it not for the series' W-RPG roots. It would certainly make sense, given the context, that's for sure. I'm not much of a fan of games such as Civ (I have little patience for the genre for some reason) and I don't know how those who prefer Mass Effect for space opera and such would take it; such a change in gameplay style may be too drastic. But a similar thing worked for Halo, and that was an FPS, I suppose. A compromise would be to have it as a spin-off, but that would take away assets from mainline games.

[Chaos Incarnate]

To be honest, I'm hoping Mass Effect 4 is more of a self contained title that while setting up the new universe in 3's aftermath, manages to stand on its own two feet as an excellent title without even needing to lay the groundwork for a new trilogy. The original Mass Effect was definitely left open to a sequel, but a lot of its elements of choice weren't really followed up on.

 

What I'm saying is that while sequels to RPG's can be excellent, they do tend to disregard how you played the game and made your own choices. For instance, while Kotor 2 left the events of the first game somewhat ambiguous, it didn't tell you what was canon and what wasn't. You could still refer to Revan following a certain path, but it was set far after and you were given a completely new storyline, whereas that new MMO is basically telling you how to play the first two titles by going light sided and blatantly telling you any other option was non-canon. That kind of shit just pisses me off.

 

With the new Mass Effect title going next gen, I have no clue how the save import system is going to work. I just hope a word such as "canon" is never taken into account when the previous trilogy intertwines somehow. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Seriously? Talking down to me won't help your point, no matter whether you're wrong or right.

I wasn't? Either way, a point's a point as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

 

It's justified because I'd rather destroy one race than put the whole galaxy in peril. "Ruthless calculus of war".  (Just 'cause it's a quote doesn't make it valid, but I value multiple species over one.)

Yet you're reducing it to arithmetic and aren't much different to the Reapers, as mentioned Shepard themselves if you're really paragon. That "ruthless calculus of war" may mean things come at a sacrifice and that you can't save everyone, but it doesn't mean you can't save as many lives as you can and create options that minimize the damage done to you and others if you can avoid it.

 

Besides, since you want to bring up hypotheticals, how exactly do you know the whole galaxy would be in peril because you as its savior usurped the power and control over the people causing the peril?

 

 

 

Yeah, they're both assholes. But you're right, one has more power. Enough to defeat the whole galaxy. Shepard did not defeat the Catalyst; he helped assemble the Crucible and then uploaded himself. Not a defeat, he just got replaced -- he didn't show he was better than the Catalyst at its job by taking its place, so that's a moot point. As for a corrupted CatalystShepard having the weakness the Catalyst had (the Crucible), you don't know how the Crucible works post-ending; it's never mentioned. And if it works the way you suggest, terrorists groups could hijack it and replace a non-corrupt Shepard just as easily as he replaced the Catalyst. On that basis, anyone with the arms for it could take advantage of the situation and we end up with somebody worse than Shep, but I digress since I don't think that's how it works. Note that the Milky Way was no match for the Reapers anyway; they could only slow them down. There is no feasible way they could advance to the Reapers' tech level, as they too would advance at the same time -- maybe the galaxy gets better equipped to fight the suddenly-evil Reapers, but the space cuttlefish will have gotten a few upgrades too, unless evilShep, a strong military mind and tactician, is stupid.

 

I agree it's circular, and I concede that: but the fact is that Shepard's cycle only got the Crucible because the Reapers got sloppy -- organics hiding data on the magic off button to pass down through the cycles.

 

Also a galaxy that has 

survived extinction, where previous generations failed and died. Shepard did defeat the Catalyst, by virtue of replacing it, having fought a all out total war to reach it in the first place to put an end to what the Catalyst was doing. What else would that be if not a defeat? Even the Catalyst admits it in his own way.

 

Besides, the Crucible works as the way it is shown to us. It draws upon a lot of energy and allows the Reapers to be destroyed, or controlled via mind uploading, or combine organic and synthetic live into one. It was the very choices we were given, and I don't see how that would change post-ending; I'd assume it would work the same way if someone else were to try it. But like I said before, Shepard would have to fight to protect that very weakness, as it's the very thing that would defeat him as the control source of the Reapers - it's the kind of check and balance that would work hand in hand in limiting abuse if anything, because while any terrorist could fight to change him he could station sentries to block and keep it hidden. Or dismantle it while still being the central control of the Reapers like the previous one was, but with the surviving generation of space-faring powers keeping the thing in mind, should the Reapers under Shepard's control go for round two, they could try to disable Shepard with it again. And one can assume that given that disaster they had survived from the previous Catalyst that they would be prepared for another massive threat like that, building and advancing their technologies in order to better counter them should they decide to try and wipe out the galaxy.

 

This isn't a black and white situation of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" because there are a number of variables here that you don't seem to realize beyond "giving someone control of the Reapers runs the risk of them wiping out the galaxy again." Because here's big question here: if this generation of galactic powers were capable of actually putting a stop to the Reapers, after previous generations failed to do so, what prevents them from doing it again? Because regarding those previous generations 1) the Reapers kept themselves hidden, 2) the Reapers sabotaged and destroyed their seat of power when the invasion begins, and 3) even when they tried to make the Crucible, no generation except for the one that actually stopped them were able to finish it. It's a completely different ordeal with the ME3 ending, because 1) after surviving the Reaper's onslaught, the whole surviving galaxy now knows they exist, 2) their seat of power is still intact or capable of being rebuilt, 3) they were able to finish the Crucible (and they could probably make more as a countermeasure).

 

So with all these options, how are you that sure the Reapers would wipe out the galaxy in a round two scenario? And what about that sloppiness on the Reaper's part? Because that one sloppy mistake was a major cost that screwed them over for possibly the first time in the Reaper's ancient cycle. They have a different setting to contest to now that things are much different, and since they didn't fully wipe out this cycle, they'd be hard pressed to find it easy to try again.

 

 

 

Regarding the whole organic/synthetic thing, I don't think you understand the original problem. The fact is, when you have a self-replicating synthetic race like the Geth, they advance at an exponential rate -- in both tech and population. This is the Technological Singularity as I understand it (note: I have been known to talk out of my ass on occasion). Case in point: the Geth advanced to power rivaling that of the Citadel Fleet in the time between the Morning War and ME 1. Organics grow to fear this power, and strike early. Case in point: Morning War. Even if the truce is in this canon we're discussing, you'd have to be awfully optimistic to assume organics would trust a race that would outmatch them in a matter of centuries, or that the synthetics would accept limitations placed on their race by the organics.

 

The Calayst saw to stop this by stopping organics at the point where they would create synthetics... I think? (Not sure on this, Catalyst's logic is iffy, and if this is true, then he's been late twice in a row.)

Yet you're forgetting the key element of the Morning War: the Geth were fighting in self-defense. They advanced in power, yes, and the organics feared this power because they thought the synthetics would attempt to wipe them out. Yet only 5% of the Geth actually made any attempt to do so, while the rest of the Geth left the entire galaxy alone as they worked to build their Dyson Sphere. This is all the more evident in that most of the Geth refused to side with the Reapers at first until the Quarians made another attack that gave them no other option if they wanted to survive. Even more so when the Geth sent Legion as their ambassador to Shepard instead of hunting him down to kill him like the other geths have. And this is magnified by Legion being willing to destroy the remaining 5% of "heretics" when finding their base, or giving Shepard the option to reprogram them to rejoin the "true" geth.

 

So come around ME3 the Quarian's try to wipe them out for good, but there you are in the middle of it to decide who does what to who. But if you played your cards right, rather than allow distrust to sow between organics fearing the synthetics, you can get the organics to understand that the sythetics in question don't want fight. Get them both to stop fighting, and what do the synthetics do? They help you. They even help the quarians who tried to wipe them out by allowing them back on their homeworld that they've been keeping maintained, make programs in the Quarian's suits to help their immune system, build house. All in all, a complete defiance of the idea that organics and synthetics will always war against each other, because synthetics aren't different in their actions as organics, having their own beliefs, systems, cultures, ideas, and desire to survive just like any organic out there.

 

So come around the aftermath of either the Control or Synthesis ending where the Geth are still around, they don't turn against anyone, but continue to work in harmony with the Quarians. As far as the Geth are concerned when you allow them to live, they've already reached the Singularity. But that Singularity doesn't sacrifice everything about who they are as the Geth, continuing to work with organics after the war. This all defies everything about what the Catalyst understands, because while it does know that organics and synthetics will be at war, it apparently wasn't counting on them to stop and work together instead.

 

 

 

He's a god AI with a human's mind and personality, from what I understand. That makes him vulnerable to changing his mind, especially when you consider his near-infinite lifespan. You say that about player knowledge, but I knew that Shepard *cough solesurvivor or me1cerberusarc cough* would never join Cerberus. I knew Shepard would not get PTSD, since he's lost people before *ruthless or virmire/suicidemission*. The point is that we, as players, don't have enough agency to make that call since we only choose his decisions and speech options -- we can't shape his thoughts, only use ours instead. Who can say what Shepard is thinking?

How about you? The player in control of him? Projecting their experiences onto him?

 

 

 

I can understand your point here. Shepard isn't your average bear: he has the Prothean cipher; has killed Reapers; potentially met the Leviathans etc. but I think you overestimate his capabilities. While my argument could be (unfairly) boiled down to "he goes space-crazy" on this point. I still think that you're making an assumption on what it's like to be the Catalyst for near-eternity. You can't quantify that amount of time. Even the Catalyst considered other solutions, as it said. But if the Catalyst had so long to work out the issue -- an intelligence created by a pretty much super race -- then why would Shepard, given less time, do better. Just because of his experiences? I don't think that gives him much insight into the issue, since he'd still have to get rid of organics' fear of synthetic expansion to solve it. After all, the Citadel will have something to say about the Quarians being besties with a self-aware synthetic army, I'm sure.

It doesn't matter about how much time you quantify. Shepard is much different in mind, body, and now in spirit as he takes control of the Reapers, understanding the meaning of things he could not as a mortal. And now that he has that power, and that experience, the melding of man and machine, how would he be no different from the catalyst given that flexibility he has over it? I don't even see how it's overestimating anything when he's already wired into the Reapers, knowing everything they know while adding his experience to change things onto a different course that the Reapers haven't done under the previous Catalyst.

 

Because as the Catalyst notes, Shepard changed the variables, and allowed those other solutions the Catalyst couldn't make to become possible despite all the time it had in the galaxy to do so. Whether Shepard does better depends on how you've guided him, which if renegade!Shep I'd have actually seen your point in not trusting him with that power. But you were clearing including paragon!Shep as equally untrustworthy of it because he would risk coming to the same conclusion with all that power, even though the Catalyst already flat out said that Shepard changed the variables and allowed room for different possiblities, likely starting with what to do with the Reapers.

 

So why don't you tell me exactly how a paragon!Shep, one who fought to save whatever species in the galaxy he could, sacrificing his own body to be the new catalyst, and has experience subversions and defiances of the logic in original Catalyst with a much more flexible view of things, would be untrustworthy of that power and make the very same or even similar conclusion to the Catalyst by trying to wipe out the galaxy again? Because I really don't see it as worth commencing genocide of a species for fear of someone like that misusing that power.

 

 

 

 

I agree it'd be different -- for example, the Reapers would probably be a constant presence under Shepard's rule, rather than visiting every 50K years -- and I think it could be quite interesting. But if Shepard is a benevolent Catalyst, how can you be sure that he won't go 'big brother' on everyone to keep the peace as he sees it? That's how I think it'd be written, and as interesting as it is, it would mean that Shepard truly is a special, unfaze-able, untemptable straight arrow.

I actually wouldn't mind him going "big brother" on everyone if it means browbeating people back into line and keep them from being bastards toward each other. But while there are bastard people out there, there are those that rise above that and actually seek to be benevolent. Things aren't that black and white regarding cynicism and idealism in Mass Effect, because there are third options out there that allow the best of both worlds adding flexibility to their strengths and weaknesses as they try to do the right thing.

 

 

 

 

 

(Apologies if this is hard to read and match up to your post. How do you do that fancy quote thing? Thanks anyway.)

I just copy and paste parts of the quote outside the quote box, and then wrap them in [ quote][ /quote] tags.

[ImPantsAtThis]

I wasn't? Either way, a point's a point as far as I'm concerned.

 

What about when you went for sarcasm to try and trivialise my argument and dismiss it as nonsensical?

 

 

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

 

I may be mistaking an attempt at a dry, conversational tone for condescension. But it still doesn't sit right with me.

 

 

Yet you're reducing it to arithmetic and aren't much different to the Reapers, as mentioned Shepard themselves if you're really paragon. That "ruthless calculus of war" may mean things come at a sacrifice and that you can't save everyone, but it doesn't mean you can't save as many lives as you can and create options that minimize the damage done to you and others if you can avoid it.

 

Eh, you're right; I am reducing it to arithmetic. To me, all spacefaring races in a galaxy full of life > a whole race. From where I stand, minimising casualties down the line is a lot better than having a Reaper army ready to turn whenever Shep feels like it.

 

 

 

Besides, since you want to bring up hypotheticals, how exactly do you know the whole galaxy would be in peril because you as its savior usurped the power and control over the people causing the peril?

 

 

This was going off my assumption that Shep eventually click in with the Catalyst's way of thinking. While that's not necessarily the case when I think on it more, I still believe it's more likely than an asspull solution to the organic/synthetic problem.

 

 

 

Also a galaxy that has survived extinction, where previous generations failed and died. Shepard did defeat the Catalyst, by virtue of replacing it, having fought a all out total war to reach it in the first place to put an end to what the Catalyst was doing. What else would that be if not a defeat? Even the Catalyst admits it in his own way.

 

 

But Shepard never overcomes the Catalyst in any way. He only overcomes the Reapers which, while under the command of it, do not present the challenges the Catalyst faces. Just because Shep can beat the Intelligence's minions, doesn't mean he's bested the Intelligence itself. Honestly though, this is semantic acrobatics and I shouldn't have started it. Sorry.

 

 

 

Besides, the Crucible works as the way it is shown to us. It draws upon a lot of energy and allows the Reapers to be destroyed, or controlled via mind uploading, or combine organic and synthetic live into one. It was the very choices we were given, and I don't see how that would change post-ending; I'd assume it would work the same way if someone else were to try it. But like I said before, Shepard would have to fight to protect that very weakness, as it's the very thing that would defeat him as the control source of the Reapers - it's the kind of check and balance that would work hand in hand in limiting abuse if anything, because while any terrorist could fight to change him he could station sentries to block and keep it hidden. Or dismantle it while still being the central control of the Reapers like the previous one was, but with the surviving generation of space-faring powers keeping the thing in mind, should the Reapers under Shepard's control go for round two, they could try to disable Shepard with it again.

 

 

Ah, but ShepCatalyst has Shepard's experience. So he could just move the Citadel -- and therefore the Crucible -- with his Reaper army or hell, given the knowledge the Reapers likely possess, shut down the relay network to prevent people accessing it. That last bit is baseless I know, but the point is that, upon reflection, shutting the guy down would be very hard, given his knowledge and resources. The catalyst already took the Citadel out to Earth, and that worked for a while.

 

 

 

And one can assume that given that disaster they had survived from the previous Catalyst that they would be prepared for another massive threat like that, building and advancing their technologies in order to better counter them should they decide to try and wipe out the galaxy.

 

 

So would Shepard. Who knows who would advance at a faster rate, but they'd both be building up in parallel.

 

 

 

This isn't a black and white situation of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" because there are a number of variables here that you don't seem to realize beyond "giving someone control of the Reapers runs the risk of them wiping out the galaxy again." Because here's big question here: if this generation of galactic powers were capable of actually putting a stop to the Reapers, after previous generations failed to do so, what prevents them from doing it again? Because regarding those previous generations 1) the Reapers kept themselves hidden, 2) the Reapers sabotaged and destroyed their seat of power when the invasion begins, and 3) even when they tried to make the Crucible, no generation except for the one that actually stopped them were able to finish it. It's a completely different ordeal with the ME3 ending, because 1) after surviving the Reaper's onslaught, the whole surviving galaxy now knows they exist, 2) their seat of power is still intact or capable of being rebuilt, 3) they were able to finish the Crucible (and they could probably make more as a countermeasure).

 

 

Oh no, I agree it isn't that clear cut. It's still, to me, more likely than "he's remains perfectly benevolent" considering Shep is, in fact, human in personality. What would stop the next generation from fighting ShepCatalyst is that he has the Crucible. He can move it, hide it, destroy it, whatever. But he can keep it away from the mortals. The only issue would be the plans still being around, but there's a chance (albeit slim) that Shepalyst would be able to use sleeper agents to find and shut down new Crucible projects. 

 

 

 

So with all these options, how are you that sure the Reapers would wipe out the galaxy in a round two scenario? And what about that sloppiness on the Reaper's part? Because that one sloppy mistake was a major cost that screwed them over for possibly the first time in the Reaper's ancient cycle. They have a different setting to contest to now that things are much different, and since they didn't fully wipe out this cycle, they'd be hard pressed to find it easy to try again.

 

 

Still fairly sure. The mortals would have a chance, sure, but I doubt they'd be able to take them conventionally. If they go for the Off Button/Catalyst or even a new Crucible, then we have either a new ME3 on our hands and have to hope for a new Chosen One (a Shepard 2.0, if you will), or a situation I can't predict because we don't have enough context.

 

 

 

Yet you're forgetting the key element of the Morning War: the Geth were fighting in self-defense. They advanced in power, yes, and the organics feared this power because they thought the synthetics would attempt to wipe them out. Yet only 5% of the Geth actually made any attempt to do so, while the rest of the Geth left the entire galaxy alone as they worked to build their Dyson Sphere. This is all the more evident in that most of the Geth refused to side with the Reapers at first until the Quarians made another attack that gave them no other option if they wanted to survive. Even more so when the Geth sent Legion as their ambassador to Shepard instead of hunting him down to kill him like the other geths have. And this is magnified by Legion being willing to destroy the remaining 5% of "heretics" when finding their base, or giving Shepard the option to reprogram them to rejoin the "true" geth.

 

 

You misunderstand me here. re: Self-defence: That's my point -- the organics struck first, and would do so every time. I'm not siding against the Geth here, just stating that organics will grow to fear and be suspicious of even the most benign self-replicating machine races because of their advances. I'm not saying the Geth needed to be killed before they killed organics or anything like that. They'd be able to wipe out organics in self-defence if they advanced for long enough, and the organics would still attack first. The conflict is inevitable. The only difference is how much damage is done.

 

 

 

So come around ME3 the Quarian's try to wipe them out for good, but there you are in the middle of it to decide who does what to who. But if you played your cards right, rather than allow distrust to sow between organics fearing the synthetics, you can get the organics to understand that the sythetics in question don't want fight. Get them both to stop fighting, and what do the synthetics do? They help you. They even help the quarians who tried to wipe them out by allowing them back on their homeworld that they've been keeping maintained, make programs in the Quarian's suits to help their immune system, build house. All in all, a complete defiance of the idea that organics and synthetics will always war against each other, because synthetics aren't different in their actions as organics, having their own beliefs, systems, cultures, ideas, and desire to survive just like any organic out there.

 

 

Here's the thing, how sure are you that the truce will last, centuries down the line, and between all races? I hope it does, really, but I see it going one of two ways: 1) Geth become hyper-advanced. Quarians stay friends with them, but Citadel fears their power. War, caused by fear of their expansion. 2)Geth become hyper-advanced. Anti-Geth sects in Quarian politics/intelligence (ala Cerberus, but Quarian and thinking Geth are expanding too much) gain enough power to start some hit-n-run attacks. Things escalate. War, not based on old grudges, but caused by fear of Geth power.

 

 

 

So come around the aftermath of either the Control or Synthesis ending where the Geth are still around, they don't turn against anyone, but continue to work in harmony with the Quarians. As far as the Geth are concerned when you allow them to live, they've already reached the Singularity. But that Singularity doesn't sacrifice everything about who they are as the Geth, continuing to work with organics after the war. This all defies everything about what the Catalyst understands, because while it does know that organics and synthetics will be at war, it apparently wasn't counting on them to stop and work together instead.

 

 

Maybe I'm being stubborn on this subject, but I see this as being caused by organics. It doesn't matter how cool and friendly the post-Reaper war Geth are, they're still going to be viewed with suspicion as they become increasingly more advanced than everyone else.

 

 

 

How about you? The player in control of him? Projecting their experiences onto him?

 

 

I'm not sure I get this part, but my response is that Shepard as a character, is not a blank slate. He is, if only partially, divorced from the player. The dreams are a testament to this; I'm not concerned about not being able to save that kid, so why is Shepard?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter about how much time you quantify. Shepard is much different in mind, body, and now in spirit as he takes control of the Reapers, understanding the meaning of things he could not as a mortal. And now that he has that power, and that experience, the melding of man and machine, how would he be no different from the catalyst given that flexibility he has over it? I don't even see how it's overestimating anything when he's already wired into the Reapers, knowing everything they know while adding his experience to change things onto a different course that the Reapers haven't done under the previous Catalyst.

 

 

So you're suggesting that the addition of Shepard's experience to the Catalyst's makes Shepalyst far more flexible, and more able to solve the problem? That sounds about right, but I have a hard time swallowing that that is enough for him to be able to work out the issue.

 

 

 

Because as the Catalyst notes, Shepard changed the variables, and allowed those other solutions the Catalyst couldn't make to become possible despite all the time it had in the galaxy to do so. Whether Shepard does better depends on how you've guided him, which if renegade!Shep I'd have actually seen your point in not trusting him with that power. But you were clearing including paragon!Shep as equally untrustworthy of it because he would risk coming to the same conclusion with all that power, even though the Catalyst already flat out said that Shepard changed the variables and allowed room for different possiblities, likely starting with what to do with the Reapers.

 

 

What are these variables, though, and how do they change anything? I've always wondered how the Catalyst determined its solution. Anywho, I'm not saying ParagonShep is equally untrustworthy, I'm more saying that no-one is completely trustworthy. I'm a Murphy's Law kind of guy -- that's why I choose to put no-one in that position of power. Even of there were only a 0.00001% of it going wrong (as it could be in ParagonShep's case) I still wouldn't pick it, because I have terrible luck and such. Again with the variables. Does this get explained in dialogue anywhere, what actually is different this time around? Or is it left aside, because the writing team dropped a ball not explaining why this cycle was special.

 

 

 

So why don't you tell me exactly how a paragon!Shep, one who fought to save whatever species in the galaxy he could, sacrificing his own body to be the new catalyst, and has experience subversions and defiances of the logic in original Catalyst with a much more flexible view of things, would be untrustworthy of that power and make the very same or even similar conclusion to the Catalyst by trying to wipe out the galaxy again? Because I really don't see it as worth commencing genocide of a species for fear of someone like that misusing that power.

 

 

As long as the tech singularity issue exists, which it will because organics are idiots incapable of peace, a benevolent Shepalyst will be trying to fix the problem. If he's as flexible as you say, which I concede given the concept of adding the intelligences, he could come to any number of conclusions on how to solve it. Some could be worse than the original. If we were to assume that Shepalyst has an infinite lifespan, and will be constantly trying different solutions, then the probability of him coming to a bad conclusion approaches 1. So does the probability of him reaching the optimal solution, or good ones even. In that case, do you trust that the good ones will happen first? While it's true that ParagonShep would affect the initial probabilities (i.e. bad solutions will reach 1 slower), and on an infinite timeline that would mean good would happen first, I still don't like the numbers on that one. I would rather have a 0% chance of a Reaper return than 0.0000000000000000000001%. Maybe that's me being crotchety, but I like to play that safe.

 

 

 

I actually wouldn't mind him going "big brother" on everyone if it means browbeating people back into line and keep them from being bastards toward each other. But while there are bastard people out there, there are those that rise above that and actually seek to be benevolent. Things aren't that black and white regarding cynicism and idealism in Mass Effect, because there are third options out there that allow the best of both worlds adding flexibility to their strengths and weaknesses as they try to do the right thing.

 

 

Honestly I think well-intentioned and malicious 'big brother' Sheps could work from a storytelling point of view, but I would prefer the kind Shep because I play Paragon. I agree about the third way; there is always an optimal, 'best of all worlds' solution, but it often comes with more risk than the the other options. And depending on the scale of that risk, I might not be able to abide it.

 

 

 

I just copy and paste parts of the quote outside the quote box, and then wrap them in [ quote][ /quote] tags.

 

 

Ah, I see. Thanks a bunch.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

 

What about when you went for sarcasm to try and trivialise my argument and dismiss it as nonsensical? 

 

I may be mistaking an attempt at a dry, conversational tone for condescension. But it still doesn't sit right with me.

 

Oh it was it was certainly dry and sarcastic, but that's also me being honest because it didn't make any sense to me what you were telling me. That doesn't mean I think of you as stupid, but more that you should really really think about what your saying so that it doesn't come off as awkward like that.

 

Because like I said, I have a hard time understanding the support of genocide if it can be avoided. That's a huge sacrifice to be making to avoid even a minimal chance of the fear in-game that you're saying is better avoided. The only way I'd support something like that is if the stakes and the threshold were to clearly match the sacrifice, but throw an different option on the table that allows me to side step it and it's clear which I think would be much better.

 

 

Eh, you're right; I am reducing it to arithmetic. To me, all spacefaring races in a galaxy full of life > a whole race. From where I stand, minimising casualties down the line is a lot better than having a Reaper army ready to turn whenever Shep feels like it.

 

Yet once again we Shepard has more options than the previous catalyst did. Nevermind that the whole reason the catalyst did so was because it was programmed to do so by its creators and came to that as a solution. Shepard being the new Catalyst isn't bound the same way, yet you dismiss any potential optimism of even the paragon path controlling the Reapers, regardless of how benevolent they could be, as if it isn't worth letting one race continue live with the rest of the galaxy full of life.

 

 

 

 

This was going off my assumption that Shep eventually click in with the Catalyst's way of thinking. While that's not necessarily the case when I think on it more, I still believe it's more likely than an asspull solution to the organic/synthetic problem.

 

Let me ask you again: how do you know a Paragon Shepard would abuse his godlike powers against the very people he fought so hard to save if he controls the Reapers?

 

 

But Shepard never overcomes the Catalyst in any way. He only overcomes the Reapers which, while under the command of it, do not present the challenges the Catalyst faces. Just because Shep can beat the Intelligence's minions, doesn't mean he's bested the Intelligence itself. Honestly though, this is semantic acrobatics and I shouldn't have started it. Sorry.

 

Yes he does. The whole Reaper War was him overcoming the Catalyst, because the Catalyst was the one controlling the Reapers carrying out the cycle in the first place. By being the first lifeform to reach the Catalyst, and by being given the full choice of what to do with it and the Reapers it controls as the Catalyst steps aside, Shepard overcomes the Catalyst. I'm pretty sure having the Catalyst flat out saying that his solution won't work and giving Shepard the power to decide instead of fighting him off the Crucible is a sign of defeat on the Catalyst's end.

 

 

 

Ah, but ShepCatalyst has Shepard's experience. So he could just move the Citadel -- and therefore the Crucible -- with his Reaper army or hell, given the knowledge the Reapers likely possess, shut down the relay network to prevent people accessing it. That last bit is baseless I know, but the point is that, upon reflection, shutting the guy down would be very hard, given his knowledge and resources. The catalyst already took the Citadel out to Earth, and that worked for a while.

 

And the space-faring powers can just build another Cruicble, and bulk up their arsenal, maybe even build relays by scratch if you want to turn this into an arms race. The overall point is that there's more options here than just the negatives you continue to emphasize.

 

So would Shepard. Who knows who would advance at a faster rate, but they'd both be building up in parallel.

 

And again, it's an arms race. Might as well have them blow themselves to extinction if you going to keep stressing the negatives like this.

 

 

 

Oh no, I agree it isn't that clear cut. It's still, to me, more likely than "he's remains perfectly benevolent" considering Shep is, in fact, human in personality. What would stop the next generation from fighting ShepCatalyst is that he has the Crucible. He can move it, hide it, destroy it, whatever. But he can keep it away from the mortals. The only issue would be the plans still being around, but there's a chance (albeit slim) that Shepalyst would be able to use sleeper agents to find and shut down new Crucible projects.

 

Except each generation built the Crucible from scratch, and considering how feasible and simple it was to build, it shouldn't be too hard for them to make more than one of them. But by this point, you're straying away from the alternatives and seeing only a single outcome, because with a human in machine body, with fusion of both into one, I think there's other likely scenarios out there than just Shepard curbstombing everyone in the galaxy because he can. And it's a pretty narrow view with all things considered.

 

 

 

 

Still fairly sure. The mortals would have a chance, sure, but I doubt they'd be able to take them conventionally. If they go for the Off Button/Catalyst or even a new Crucible, then we have either a new ME3 on our hands and have to hope for a new Chosen One (a Shepard 2.0, if you will), or a situation I can't predict because we don't have enough context.

 

Then the mortals will find non-conventional ways to fight back. Let me emphasize that this isn't black and white. This is the first cycle that was able to stop this onslaught, I'd think they would make more preparations just to be safe if they were to live alongside what cause the onslaught. And they in turn would be much harder for the Reapers to wipe out as well this time around.

 

 

You misunderstand me here. re: Self-defence: That's my point -- the organics struck first, and would do so every time. I'm not siding against the Geth here, just stating that organics will grow to fear and be suspicious of even the most benign self-replicating machine races because of their advances. I'm not saying the Geth needed to be killed before they killed organics or anything like that. They'd be able to wipe out organics in self-defence if they advanced for long enough, and the organics would still attack first. The conflict is inevitable. The only difference is how much damage is done.

And the funny thing about that is that organics are like that towards each other as well, case in point a lot of alien sentiments toward humanity rising on the galactic scene. It makes no sense to treat synthetics as the outleir on this, because conflict happens between every opposing faction regardless. What you're describing is nothing but simple racism towards other people, and you get conflict from that regardless.

 

 

 

Here's the thing, how sure are you that the truce will last, centuries down the line, and between all races? I hope it does, really, but I see it going one of two ways: 1) Geth become hyper-advanced. Quarians stay friends with them, but Citadel fears their power. War, caused by fear of their expansion. 2)Geth become hyper-advanced. Anti-Geth sects in Quarian politics/intelligence (ala Cerberus, but Quarian and thinking Geth are expanding too much) gain enough power to start some hit-n-run attacks. Things escalate. War, not based on old grudges, but caused by fear of Geth power.

 

I'm not? And I'm not going to assume it would last for centuries, because for all I know they could go right back to trying to kill each other. The Reapers simply gave everyone a common foe to fight, like the Krogan Rebellions or the Rachni War before them. One simple screw up that screws the galaxy over could change the tables for any side that can get an advantage.

 

But you're making it clear to me that you're seeing this as binary and rigid, instead of seeing other outcomes out of it - not all of it would be peaceful, but I'm pretty sure you can see more than just two outcomes.

 

 

 

Maybe I'm being stubborn on this subject, but I see this as being caused by organics. It doesn't matter how cool and friendly the post-Reaper war Geth are, they're still going to be viewed with suspicion as they become increasingly more advanced than everyone else.

 

Yet organics can't make any attempt to break the cycle, can they? Or at least try to find ways to compete and advance themselves.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I get this part, but my response is that Shepard as a character, is not a blank slate. He is, if only partially, divorced from the player. The dreams are a testament to this; I'm not concerned about not being able to save that kid, so why is Shepard?

 

Except you decide everything for him from the moment you play ME1, from his background, to his actions - that's not a divorce from the player, that's a link. And with that link you're put into situations for you to act and decide upon, such as the dream sequence (which aren't very good, but that's beside the point). He isn't like any other character with default personality, you're the one making his personality.

 

 

 

So you're suggesting that the addition of Shepard's experience to the Catalyst's makes Shepalyst far more flexible, and more able to solve the problem? That sounds about right, but I have a hard time swallowing that that is enough for him to be able to work out the issue.

 

So you have a god-like AI, and a human's mind absorbed into it allowing it to understand things from a machine and organic perspective, but even despite being "god-like" that still isn't enough to work out an issue to something? Well how much is enough if "god-like" doesn't cut it? 

 

What are these variables, though, and how do they change anything? I've always wondered how the Catalyst determined its solution. Anywho, I'm not saying ParagonShep is equally untrustworthy, I'm more saying that no-one is completely trustworthy. I'm a Murphy's Law kind of guy -- that's why I choose to put no-one in that position of power. Even of there were only a 0.00001% of it going wrong (as it could be in ParagonShep's case) I still wouldn't pick it, because I have terrible luck and such. Again with the variables. Does this get explained in dialogue anywhere, what actually is different this time around? Or is it left aside, because the writing team dropped a ball not explaining why this cycle was special.

 

I don't know. That's part of the shitty writing of the endings that wasn't even bothered to be elaborated. All we know as that the variables have been changed and what we can at the very least assume is that there's more than one way for Shepard to go about controlling the Reapers instead of just turning them on the galaxy he fought for again. But it's not like anything that can go wrong, and will go wrong, can't have a solution to fix it back up for whatever luck anyone has.

 

 

 

 

As long as the tech singularity issue exists, which it will because organics are idiots incapable of peace, a benevolent Shepalyst will be trying to fix the problem. If he's as flexible as you say, which I concede given the concept of adding the intelligences, he could come to any number of conclusions on how to solve it. Some could be worse than the original. If we were to assume that Shepalyst has an infinite lifespan, and will be constantly trying different solutions, then the probability of him coming to a bad conclusion approaches 1. So does the probability of him reaching the optimal solution, or good ones even. In that case, do you trust that the good ones will happen first? While it's true that ParagonShep would affect the initial probabilities (i.e. bad solutions will reach 1 slower), and on an infinite timeline that would mean good would happen first, I still don't like the numbers on that one. I would rather have a 0% chance of a Reaper return than 0.0000000000000000000001%. Maybe that's me being crotchety, but I like to play that safe.

 

Yes, I trust the good ones will happen first, because why would they start with the bad ones first? But this is completely ignoring the idea that their might even be neutral solutions of letting the population deal with their own conflict while keeping the galaxy as a whole safe. But if the Reapers were to hypothetically return because even the neutral solutions didn't work, then I'd actually go so far as to say go right on ahead and wipe everyone out because clearly no one can have nice things such as peace. At the very least it was worth a shot to give them the chance to prove otherwise.

 

 

Honestly I think well-intentioned and malicious 'big brother' Sheps could work from a storytelling point of view, but I would prefer the kind Shep because I play Paragon. I agree about the third way; there is always an optimal, 'best of all worlds' solution, but it often comes with more risk than the the other options. And depending on the scale of that risk, I might not be able to abide it.

 

Yet you'd risk genocide to stop it, even if the other options avoid it but come at a different price. Well it's the "ruthless calculus of war," dude. If you're going to decide to wipe out a species to save the galaxy, why not make room for other extremes if the other options are optimal and make the same kind of sacrifice in order to achieve the "best of all worlds" so that while millions still die, their species still lives on? It's no different from the Reapers liquifying and processing people to do just that, but who's to say you can't find something other than that for a different "best of all worlds?"

 

Again, not black and white. There's more than just two or even three ways to go about it.

 

[Emmett L. Brown]

Oh it was it was certainly dry and sarcastic, but that's also me being honest because it didn't make any sense to me what you were telling me. That doesn't mean I think of you as stupid, but more that you should really really think about what your saying so that it doesn't come off as awkward like that.

Yes, you wouldn't want anyone to write so awkwardly that their intent is misinterpreted.

 

In any case, the whole Catalyst scenario is so mind-numbingly stupid and out of context with the rest of the series that any rationalization is as good as any other. I can't play the game of "What was the writer thinking??" when even the rest of the writing staff had to huddle together to find a way to undo his mess. We had to rely on Twitter messages just to confirm that "No, everybody on the Citadel is not dead" and I don't even want to get into how that makes a lick of sense.

[Candescence]

Once again, the whole thing is just stupid, no matter how you try to rationalize it. It's a sadistic choice of the worst kind, with no method of getting around it like most sadistic choices don't explicitly offer. And that's aside from the fact that it's Human Revolution all over again except worse (which is a surprise, the way that game ended was shitty in and of itself, and the fact it was a prequel made the choices irrelevant).

 

The whole readiness thing was completely worthless, one of the choices is hypocrisy at its finest, and the entire ending sequence was a slap in the face to much of the series' existing themes and much of what you've been fighting for the entire trilogy, and in certain cases, it can render a lot of what you've done completely meaningless. I cannot, in good conscience, consider ME3's ending sequence as a whole valid, nor anything that comes after it.

[ImPantsAtThis]

Well, spit. I had a post typed up, but  70% of it got erased when I hit backspace outside the text box. It hadn't auto-saved, so I won't be able to do your post justice. About 1 hour and 40 minutes of typing got deleted

 

 

Anyways, I'm just going to talk in general terms and reiterate my argument, because you seem to misunderstand my point.

 

I'm not saying that the worst case scenario (Shepalyst goes evil) will happen, or that it's likely to happen. I'm simply saying that that it could happen, and the fact that it could happen is enough to put me off it. I get your point that it's not likely to go wrong but the fact that there's a possibility is enough to discourage me from picking it. I only pick Destroy because it's safe. It is by no means an optimal ending. Were there more than three choices on how to use the Crucible, I'd consider them and, if they were better than Destroy, I'd pick 'em.

 

For the record, I'm not considering things as binary. My argument is based around convincing you that the risk, no matter how small, is not worth it if the stakes are big enough. So I'm obviously going to focus on the worst case scenario -- it's a key factor in my decision-making. I deem the stakes too big to not play it safe in this case, and you don't. I understand that there an infinite number of solutions, and therefore and infinite number of good outcomes, but I don't want to run the risk of Shepalyst going off the deep end.

 

I think that's where our disagreement lies, if only when in general terms: you think the risk is worth it, I don't.

 

And, honestly, I don't think either one of us would be able to convince the other anyway.

 

I'm sure this seems like a cop-out. I can only apologise, because I'm not gonna type all that out again.