Mass Effect 3's ending....

[Eldacar]

BioWare's recent failure could be attributed to anything, though as I've suggested I think a lot of it comes from switching horses midstream. They had an idea, realized two thirds of the way through that it was terrible, and made a correction that wasn't much better. That happens. I'm just not sure what role the fan community has in fixing it. I tend to believe that the mistake should stand, that there should be room for failure.

The ending was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters sitting in a room alone, spitballing ideas at each other. The rest of the writing team wasn't given any chance to provide input on it. You can see their notes in the Final Hours app for ME3, and one of the ME writing team (Weekes) posted about it. The post itself can be found here (it's "allegedly" Weekes and he officially denied it was him, but I'm inclined to believe he was the author, given how closely it matches up to just about everything else).

[Aryel]

Eldy is correct. What he's saying was written from Weeks' account on the Penny Arcades forums, then he had to deny everything.

Now, lets be honest here. The game was awful from the start to end. The silly tutorial while you're escaping earth from a reaper invasion? The awful quest log? the fetch quests for war assets? the obvious McGuffin? the "one key to rule them all" (I mean using spacebar for everything, everything!), the obvious deus ex machina at the end? the never ending cut scenes and conversations where your character do whatever he/she likes, with no input from the player? No to mention the obvious plot holes.

From the story telling aspect, the game and the end was quite awful. My highschool literature teacher would be ashamed.

[VictorK]

'Artistic vision' may be bogus, but I wouldn't be too quick to toss 'narrative structure' onto that pyre. That's what I am wondering about is how the narrative structure put in place throughout the ME installments - which constitute the 'thing ME' that you refer to, a fictio, but not any the less 'real' for being that, say like any other fictio, a state, etc. - was established early on. The weight of the themes, the appeal of the imagery, the emote of the story, were set up with certain expectations in mind. These things were played upon. And so, 'the kicking of the sandcastle' happens when said themes are used poorly. For one reason or another.

I think we're talking about two different things here. Of course Mass Effect exists as a story, what I'm talking about is process. You can certainly judge Mass Effect based on its quality as a story, and I have done so. We can say whether it's good or bad. But I'm talking about the process of how the story is made, and what means for the relationship between the consumer and the creator.

I also think it oversimplifies to say that the primary problem to creativity with the corporate model is risk aversion. That may be one, but I can think of many, many more that would hamper a multi-part, long duration, story like this one. For example, the inertia towards a sequel. This can easily create conflict in what was originally planned as a set, contained story, but for financial reasons is determined to be open and 'available' (for milking!). But there are many others, like I listed before.

I think this is just a problem of serial writing in general. You never know how stable things are going to be, whether there is going to be a sequel, etc. Good serial writers leave themselves hooks that they can pick up later on if they want, or let them slide by. Those hooks exist to create the illusion that everything is originally planned out from beginning to end. I think that very few serial stories in any medium are like that, especially not in television and video games where renewed seasons and sequels are uncertain. So I don't think this is necessarily a problem of the corporate model, though certainly it's the profit motive that creates that uncertainty.

The ending was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters sitting in a room alone, spitballing ideas at each other. The rest of the writing team wasn't given any chance to provide input on it. You can see their notes in the Final Hours app for ME3, and one of the ME writing team (Weekes) posted about it. The post itself can be found here (it's "allegedly" Weekes and he officially denied it was him, but I'm inclined to believe he was the author, given how closely it matches up to just about everything else).

This is certainly good information about why the ending was bad, but I'm not sure it's evidence for the idea that the fanbase is owed a different ending, or that it's justification for the genuinely awful response from fans to ME3. The process was bad, but I think my main point remains.

Now, lets be honest here. The game was awful from the start to end. The silly tutorial while you're escaping earth from a reaper invasion? The awful quest log? the fetch quests for war assets? the obvious McGuffin? the "one key to rule them all" (I mean using spacebar for everything, everything!), the obvious deus ex machina at the end? the never ending cut scenes and conversations where your character do whatever he/she likes, with no input from the player? No to mention the obvious plot holes.

I have to strongly disagree, ME3 was pitch perfect from beginning to end. This is one story where a MacGuffin was used well (remember, just because it's a trope doesn't mean that it's always bad). The fact of vast, vast Reaper superiority had been established throughout the series. I was deathly afraid that the Reapers would be nerfed in ME3, but they were not. They remained as menacing as they were in ME1, all but invincible. The Crucible gives the authors a way out. The "twist" that you learn about the Crucible on Thessia was obvious in advance, the Crucible is just another part of the cycle, it's not a MacGuffin that comes out of nowhere but one that makes sense within the context of the narrative. It was almost, almost used effectively. I wouldn't change a thing about ME3 except for the last five minutes.

Of course there's no way to account for matters of taste. But I can't think of a AAA title that managed a story with ME3's scope in a more effective way. From Palaven, to Tuchanka, to Rannoch, to the monastery, to Thessia, BioWare deftly managed a huge cast of characters and gave as much weight to player choice as could be expected, given that they could no longer let story threads spool out but had to bring them to a close. They really did an incredible job. I want more games like ME3, not less.

[Aryel]

Don't get me wrong Victor, the game wasn't that, so I may be exaggerating. But with the budget EA/Bioware has, it could be better. Those missions you mention where done quite good (especially Tuchanka and Rannoch). But overall, I didn't like how the Reapers went from this mysterious race of "demi-god" machines to simple pawns of this Starbrat... character that appears from nowhere and commits story telling suicide. Remember Sovereign dialogue in Virmire? that was awesome. The dialogue of this Starbrat? not so much.

And I know you know one thing or two when it comes to storytelling, and you can't agree that introducing this type of (literally) god in the machine in the last 5 minutes of the game is a good idea, especially when it gives you this 3 choices, when you spend 3 games fighting two of those reasons (control, in the form of TIM, and synthesis in the form of Reapers), and then the destruction one, you destroy the AI species too, when you spend the whole game defending the AI (geth and the ships AI) self determination and self aware (unless you went full genocide on the geth).

I agree the Crucibile was, while silly in my opinion, something necessary because EA/Bioware put themselves in a corner and didn't know how to escape from that, so it may not be a McGuffin. But it's still lazy IMO.

As cRPG fan, I felt that ME3 was short, simple and just a 3rd Person Shooter. But that's just my opinion, and not a fact.

[VictorK]

Most of your complaints seem to be about the last five minutes of the game. I agree that the ending was bad. All I'm trying to say is that a bad ending doesn't invalidate the rest of the game, which is of extremely high quality.

[Aryel]

Don't make me start about the day 1 DLC, the iOS apps and the multiplayer affecting the single player outcome. The lazy quest log, one single button to control everything, the lack of dialogue choices.

I've the feeling that after Tessia (with that awful space ninja boss) the game went down the hill. Which I think it was due to lack of development time (EA is known to make insane deadlines and force studios to release incomplete games). It's like KotOR 2 all over again. A good game, with a great premise, forced to be released early.

But that's just an opinion.

[The Silly Dragon]

Most of your complaints seem to be about the last five minutes of the game. I agree that the ending was bad. All I'm trying to say is that a bad ending doesn't invalidate the rest of the game, which is of extremely high quality.

In a way the ending is what makes or breaks the last game of a trilogy like here with Mass Effect. Its the last of the 3 so has the responsibility to end it well. The first 2 games made ME great and all the third has to do is close it all neatly and give everyone answers and an ending. But what we find with the general concensus is that the ending is c**p (in which i agree whole heartedly) which makes the LAST game of the promised 3 (trilogy) c**p also as it doesn't do its job in closing the series up.

Now don't get me wrong i really did like the game as a whole and the only problem i do have is the ending and even then its only because of too short cutscenes (opinion) and WTF ending with the said ''starbrat' (love the new term for it). If they changed at least 1 of those things i would happily say the ending was good.

Also it was and is the ending game of the 3 as they have not promised or even rumoured of another game or a 4th so we have to presume that it was the last and if so they didn;t do a good job in wrapping things up and giving it the HOORAH! it deserved. Like someone else here said "Mass Effect became bigger then Bioware".

Look back at KOTOR1. Great game all the way through! The ending was abit predictable or not original but it fitted the story being told and so it was a good ending. If they made it that the player was not Darth Revan but was actually dead all along and you were just a 'normal' Jedi then would that not have been alittle boring?

Bioware should bring back Knights of the old Republic! (i know theres that online one but i don't want to play WOW with lightsabres).

Edit: wait does the multiplayer actually affect the single player story? If so by how much?

[Aryel]

Edit: wait does the multiplayer actually affect the single player story? If so by how much?

Multiplayer and the iOS apps affects your War Readiness (which you start at 50%). If you have 50% of WR your war asssets are affected by that. So if you end the game with 6000 pts of WA, in reality you end with 3000 pts. And that amount of points affects how the game ends, how many choices the starbrat gives you, and a little cutscene at the end.

AFAIK, you can't get the best outcome if you don't play MP.

[Bob of Beleriand]

The difference is negligible. >_>

[The Silly Dragon]

But i hated the multiplayer so i cannot get all the endings! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"111111!!!1!!!

Wait when i completed it i did get access to 3 choices...was there a forth that i am missing? (like shoot the starbrat or say F**k it and kill all organic life instead? kinda like, oops wrong button... ).

[Bob of Beleriand]

No. I had a score of 7000ish with 100% Readiness, the endings are still shit.

[Aryel]

The difference is negligible. >_>

I know, but it's the principle that matters. I hate playing MP games. It's a clever way to fight piracy if you think about it.

@Silly Dragon: No, you get the 3 endings, but if you have more than 5k of total war assets, you get a small cut-scene at the end. It's just an easter egg, if you like, but it's shitty that they link MP to a SP game.

[The Silly Dragon]

Seeing as i had something like 8000 WA points at the end i think i got the cutscene...

(spoiler?)
It was the crashed Normandy with Liara and Joker climbing outside and smiling at the peaceful scene of lush green plants all around them. Or the one after that that was about a 'stargazer' and a child talking about Sheperd as if its in the future and recounting a story "tell another story about the Sheperd! maybe another time". Are these it? If not then i suppose i'll have to just wait for an upload on youtube.

[Aryel]

Seeing as i had something like 8000 WA points at the end i think i got the cutscene...

(spoiler?)
It was the crashed Normandy with Liara and Joker climbing outside and smiling at the peaceful scene of lush green plants all around them. Or the one after that that was about a 'stargazer' and a child talking about Sheperd as if its in the future and recounting a story "tell another story about the Sheperd! maybe another time". Are these it? If not then i suppose i'll have to just wait for an upload on youtube.

I believe it's the stargeezer scene with Buzz Aldrin, and the one with sheppard taking a breath on top of some rubble, if you chose the destruction option.

[The Silly Dragon]

I didn't get a Sheperd taking a breath from some rubble and i chose the 'destroy all AI' option. If i am missing this because i don't want to play a stupid multiplayer for a single player game then i dislike ME3 even more!

[Headshot]

Guys (and Gals, I hope!),

I'm a bit torn by the whole 'ME3 was great, except for the ending' line. At first blush I would agree; I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy to start with so I certainly wouldn't have made much of the story experience if I hadn't have been floored (literally and figuratively) by the ending. I mean, I try to enjoy the game's strengths for the pure enjoyment factor, and to not quibble over the weaknesses. So yes, I wasn't a part of any of the ME2 backlash, or the DA2 explosions. And I certainly wouldn't ask for a romping good ride of space opera to be anything more than... a romping good ride of space opera. Our hero with the flinty gaze kills the bad guy, holds the line, dies heroically, or rides off into the galactic sunset with his/her choice of man, woman, squid, at his side.

All good stuff.

But the more I started to consider ME3 and the ending backlash, the more I started to be dissatisfied with the way the story fit together throughout. I mentioned earlier Kai Leng; the Mary Sue. This new character of such import. How do I know? Because people keep on telling me how important he is. And that's....never a good sign. It means the writers are too rushed (or lazy) to show the character's significance through action or affective dialogue, just author prejudice. But he is only one case. Then there is the whole transformation of cerberus. A very hamfisted shift from enemy to ally back to enemy again, with plot requisite capabilities. And then there were the limited interactions with the fellows of the journey - the greatest strength of ME2 - which were reduced in conversation options, and to cutscenes, here in 3.

Victor mentioned earlier the role of hooks and serialization in story elements. I might be more charitable to this position if the ME stories hadn't have been advertised and so obviously structured around a classic three part narrative arc. In that, hooks have their place (for possible further adventures!), but not at the cost of following the pacing of the arc. action. rising climax. denouement. etc. Everything seemed to be building up to that final points of the diagram here in ME3, and well, it seems to have stumbled. At the ending. But maybe not just there.... It's odd that the emotional strengths of ME3 that people cite (e.g. Mordin's sacrifice) are actually derived from it being in this final position of the three arc cycle (not just from its own merits). Mordin's sacrifice showed a deft hand in writing (one of the guys who apparently was NOT responsible for the ending), but even that deftness only had an emotional punch because of the payoff of characterization that had been set up in ME2. Would * come on, do I have to do a spoiler warning here???* Mordin's death had been nearly as gutwrenching, if he hadn't have been humming that little ditty of Guilbert and Sullivan, harkening back to the fact that in ME2 he confessed that 'he always did the patter songs'?

Thats the strength of the final arc of the storyline. What I am saying is that ME3 had all of that strength on its side, it had us rooting for it, it had an invested characters, and so it is only to be expected that we had some of the most cathartic, and engaged moments in the story. Its the resolution. The redemption. The end. The finale. But those moments are in a sense 'cheap'; they were made by the proceeding; ME3 is all payoff. And so shouldn't be attributed to the strengths of the story writing of the third part in and of itself. It certainly shouldn't blind us to the sloppy scripting in the game (well, unless we are going to be half-glass-full like meself!! ).

And it also means that elements of the resolution for the third act shouldn't all have been conjured up in the third act. Foreshadowing matters. You don't like the dark energy storyline, new authors? Fine! Use it in new ways. (Silly Dragon gave you a couple of examples here). But don't waste that story thread, and wait until the start of the third act to conjure up the 'solution to all problems weapon'. The solution should have been somewhere in act two. At least in its investigation.

Sigh. I kinda get the feeling that the writing was purely 'on the fly' throughout the games. That looks cool! Great scene. Oh, I just saw this in another game; we could do it better! Etc. Which can work. But it needs to be disciplined to a tighter attention to the pacing and needs of the narrative structure. Otherwise. Well, you get ME3.

Ok, and if interested, someone let me know about this fairly severe critical review of the narrative structure of ME3:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8117

Headshot

[VictorK]

I'm sorry, I couldn't finish that review. The person writing it either didn't play the game, or made no effort to listen to what it had to say. I'll provide one example:

or why the Quarians picked the onset of the Reaper invasion to start a galactic war with the Geth (or why the Reaper controlled Geth are staying to fight them).

The Quarians attacked because of a breakthrough by Admiral Xen that allowed them to shut down the Geth, a development that was foreshadowed in ME2's Quarian mission. The Reaper controlled Geth are staying to fight them because the Geth in that state are no different than husks of other races, they're being used as a weapon. Best case scenario, everyone gets wiped out and the Reapers win. This isn't difficult to find out, it's obvious within the narrative, the characters /tell you/ why they've started the war.

That said, I'm not going to make any apologizes for Adam Jen-I mean Kai Leng. I hated Kai Leng. Please don't take my defense of ME3 as a game to mean that I defend all of its elements. I just don't really understand the vitriol. I've noticed that there's a distressing tendency to forget that it is a video game, or to handwave away its strengths. Headshot, why are you docking points from ME3 because it's the last game in the series? You say that it should be able be stand on something other than resolving the plot lines that have been built up over the other games, but what else should it be doing? It's the end. It's the last game in the trilogy. If it's not resolving plot lines it must be starting new ones, and there is precious little space for that. Why doesn't ME3 get credit for resolving these threads in a way that is emotionally satisfying, given what has come before? It is not written that ME3 had to succeed in doing so. I think it did, in almost every respect.

I don't mean to damn ME3 with faint praise by saying that it could have been much worse. I was floored by how well ME3 did in resolving the plots that came before. Tuchanka, as has been noted, was fantastic. Everything came together. Rannoch, too, went out of its way to invest the player in the story. In my own experience, I rushed into Rannoch before I should have, I didn't have enough Paragon to get the choices I wanted. When Tali shot Legion, it was simply unacceptable. That's how powerful the moment was, I backtracked three and a half hours to build up enough Paragon to get the ending to that thread that I wanted. Don't tell me your choices didn't mean anything.

I'll say right here that I think ME2 is the weakest game in the series. ME3, in my mind, rescued it as much as possible by taking characters who were either awful in ME2 (Miranda, Samara, Jack) or just sort of blah (Thane) and gave them each moments that demonstrated actual character growth and an understanding of where they fit into the narrative. Jack at the Academy was a refreshing take on a character who was maybe the most embarrassing in the series in ME2. The Monastery mission was chilling, one of the best designed in the game, made all the more awful by the difficult family at the center of it. It made maybe the second most embarrassing character in the series interesting. Tell me you didn't feel something when Thane was on his deathbed, and the prayer that he recited was not for himself, but for Shepard, bringing into stark relief the fact that even Shepard was slipping away under the weight of the conflict. You'll note I said nothing about Jacob. Well. As good as ME3 was it's only so good, nothing can make Jacob Taylor interesting.

But I want to get back to something I said earlier. ME3 is not a novel, it's not just dialogue or cut scenes. It's a game. The moment that sold me on the game was a simple one, just walking along a cliff on Palaven's moon. But in the background was the battle for Palaven, and the Reaper dreadnought setting down in the distance. This is a quality unique to games, the sort of immersion that I firmly believe is their strongest contribution to entertainment. At that moment I was invested, not because of any turn of phrase or narrative twist, but because the game made its case for occupying my imagination, where it could blossom into a full facsimile of the real. This came again on Thessia, where the situation was so desperate and so well set, it was difficult not to feel something. I felt that all the right choices were made, up until those last five minutes. Someone earlier in this thread lamented the fact that there was no great speech at the end, no gung ho hurrah moment. Yet, I can think of no better way to end the game than to have Shepard, broken and bloody, staggering to the ultimate sacrifice. That was a good call.

And that, for me, is why ME3 succeeded. You can talk about plot holes, but everything on that scale has plot holes. There's always a fridge logic at the end of the day that might turn things on their head. On the whole, BioWare was faithful to what it accomplished in ME1 and ME2. The ending chapter was, on the whole, extremely satisfying. I continue to believe that, once the butthurt wears off, ME3 and the Mass Effect series in general are going to get their due.

And I speak only for the game itself. I recognize that Day One DLC chafes as a business decision. I didn't buy it. I didn't want it. I understand that having things extraneous to the single player experience control the outcomes is unfair. I don't like multiplayer much. These are all legitimate critiques, but they don't overwhelm the good. They're business decisions, meant to move units and generate profits. They are, sadly, the state of the modern industry. I won't tear down a legitimately great game just because of them, though. I'll refrain from buying, and send my money to Valve.

[Headshot]

Victor,

It's precisely that ME3 is a game, telling a story arc, in multiple segments, why I started this thread! And I mean that charitably. I find it a fascinating experiment, and I'd like to consider on its own strength and merits within the medium. I find that problem of medium, interactivity (in the author function, as well as between players and designers), etc., that are the real 'meat' of this story (about ME3's endings, I mean). And why I'm spending so much downtime between grading papers logging on here to chat with you guys!

That being said, I still hold it to the 'story standard'. Narrative demands of narrative structure. Which is why I consider it and its performance within its place in the 'trilogy' structure. It's not to damn it by saying that a lot of its effect (and affect) come from executing this part of the trilogy structure: the ending, culmination. But it is also true to note that this execution is predicated on what was set up before. And set up well. Give credit where credit is due. And my wish is that more elements of ME3, including the ending, had have taken advantage of those strengths in their execution. Not simply relying on rushed cutscenes and 'off camera' explanations....

Oh, and I certainly don't agree with everything that review wrote. But c'mon, it doesn't seem fair to cherry pick a couple comments out of the article and then discard the whole. (Though I wish I could do that with my grad's papers sometimes.... ).

But the point is, I'm certainly not trying to demean your enjoyment of ME3. I wanted to talk about that first paragraph stuff, re the ending, when I started this thread. But now that I think more of it, I realize that actually, I would say it was the 'weakest' of the trilogy. Even more so than ME2. And that is further underscored by my belief that 'endings' are easier to write than the middle act, which tend to lack direction. (ME2 basically turned into a main-plot detour by way of a character/culture study, by way of a 'Seven Samurai' alchemy.)

Headshot

[Headshot]

P.S.

Let me just add that I think the Tuchanka section was great. Or actually, MAGNIFICENT!! And was a real sign of what ME3 could've been in total. I think it was also written primarily by Weekes (spell?), whom I heard has unofficially blogged against the ending.

Headshot

[The Silly Dragon]

What i loved about ME3:

Thane's prayer to Sheperd "why did it say she?" "it was not for him but for you" I mean i very very nearly cried at this point! (actually i did).
Tuchunka where Mordin sacrificed himself for the good of the Krogan Race was awesome and his singing made it perfect for his departure.
Tuchunka again with the fight between the Mother of all Thresher Maws and the Reaper was great and when EDI commented on a 'worm' killing an advanced race like the Reapers was priceless.
Alot of the comments made by EDI and Joker.
All the Homeworlds invasions but probably Palaven is my favourite.
All the new Husks that were representing the different races.
The bad dreams of Sheperd really showing the stress of having the world look up to one person.

What i disliked about ME3:

Kai Leng. Just why how when what and who is this character?
Cerberus not making up their mind whose side they are on.
The Illusive Man following Saren's story in ME1 (you can even talk him into killing himself like Saren!).
The conflict between the Geth and Quarians. I mean really theres a Reaper invasion going on and you still want to resolve your grudge? You know some things are bigger than you and it was just boring to do that fight all over again with the Geth when in ME2 it seemed i 'fixed' them only to have the Reapers 'break' them again...then why did i do that in ME2?
The 'virtual' world of the Geth you enter.
Starbrat coming out of nowhere.
Crucible.
Lack of 'HOORAH!' cutscenes at the end.
Lack of dialogue between Harbinger and Sheperd (think of them being the players of a game of Chess).
Lack of character missions like in ME2.
Too many repetative missions.
1st DLC with the Prothean...really? Though the dialogue between Liara and him was actually good.

As i played the game it just seemed to go from strength to strength and everytime it did get alittle boring the next 'main' mission was starting and i was hooked back into it. But as the game went on and certain things started to repeat (like Quarians and Geth) and then the Rachni not doing much to help when they promised me everything in ME1 and 2 i started to feel let down but was reassuring myself that the ending was going to be brilliant! (i was expecting the big HOORAHS! after all). But when i got to the ending i just felt that all the build up was like a balloon that you pumped all the air into but didn't go bang. I didn't like the Crucible when you first heard of it in game but some of Sheperd's dialogue options (like not trusting it) lead me to believe that i had a choice to use it or not which just wasn't true.

So overall the 'game' was not bad and i certainly would still give it 7/10 but it loses the last 3 points because of the ending not making sense and the whole game seeming to be written by someone with no passion for the story like that of its fans.

Also the 'N7 Program' is complete BS in ME3. Read the codex entries of ME1 about the N7 and it explains about the letter (N here) being the symbol of what branch of the Alliance military the soldier is from (N being spec ops i believe). The number is 1-7 and it is to explain the experience or time spent in the particular branch, 1 being recruit and 7 being veteran. But in ME3 they made the N7 a special kind of training and such like the Alliance had their own Spectres. Its not a big thing but it goes to show the lack of research the new writers did in their own game...

[Aryel]

And I speak only for the game itself. I recognize that Day One DLC chafes as a business decision. I didn't buy it. I didn't want it. I understand that having things extraneous to the single player experience control the outcomes is unfair. I don't like multiplayer much. These are all legitimate critiques, but they don't overwhelm the good. They're business decisions, meant to move units and generate profits. They are, sadly, the state of the modern industry. I won't tear down a legitimately great game just because of them, though. I'll refrain from buying, and send my money to Valve.

I won't argue with you because it would be like me fighting with Mohammad Ali in his prime. But that last part it's actually a deal breaker. Bad business decisions and clear money grabbing schemes are a turn off. In my case, actually lesser the gaming experience. But... I still maintain that the game at the end was rushed, and lots of resources instead of being allocated to the SP game, where used to MP. But I guess we will see in the future if some angered future ex-employee says something about it.

[VictorK]

It's precisely that ME3 is a game, telling a story arc, in multiple segments, why I started this thread! And I mean that charitably. I find it a fascinating experiment, and I'd like to consider on its own strength and merits within the medium. I find that problem of medium, interactivity (in the author function, as well as between players and designers), etc., that are the real 'meat' of this story (about ME3's endings, I mean). And why I'm spending so much downtime between grading papers logging on here to chat with you guys!

No it's an interesting question, certainly. Serials are always difficult, but throw in gameplay and you have a new element. ME1 is a completely different game than ME2. A lot changed in the interim, the series proved that it was popular, and there was a massive overhaul of the gameplay. I think both of those things really did have an impact on how the story was told. Some elements of the universe (omnigel) disappeared and were handwaved away. I think that the popularity lead them down a less open world, less narratively focused path with ME2. I loved ME1, and I still think it has one of the best endings in games, but because of changes after it the series went in another direction.

That being said, I still hold it to the 'story standard'. Narrative demands of narrative structure. Which is why I consider it and its performance within its place in the 'trilogy' structure. It's not to damn it by saying that a lot of its effect (and affect) come from executing this part of the trilogy structure: the ending, culmination. But it is also true to note that this execution is predicated on what was set up before. And set up well. Give credit where credit is due. And my wish is that more elements of ME3, including the ending, had have taken advantage of those strengths in their execution. Not simply relying on rushed cutscenes and 'off camera' explanations....

It goes without saying that there are elements common to all good stories of this type, and that Mass Effect doesn't get a free pass because it's a good video game. I also recognize that credit should be given to the previous games, without them no one would be excited for ME3. But I'm still a little perplexed that you wouldn't give ME3 its due. In the previous post it seemed like you were discounting ME3's resolution of plot threads simply because that's what it was expected to do. It resolves them well, that is to its credit.

I'm also not sure what else you would have wanted. I'm not sure what rushed cutscenes you're talking about, what off camera explanations were at issue.

But the point is, I'm certainly not trying to demean your enjoyment of ME3. I wanted to talk about that first paragraph stuff, re the ending, when I started this thread. But now that I think more of it, I realize that actually, I would say it was the 'weakest' of the trilogy. Even more so than ME2. And that is further underscored by my belief that 'endings' are easier to write than the middle act, which tend to lack direction. (ME2 basically turned into a main-plot detour by way of a character/culture study, by way of a 'Seven Samurai' alchemy.)

I don't think that endings are easier to write, actually. Endings are damned hard, anyone can toss in some filler. Endings are /especially/ hard in a video game setting where you've given people choices. Inevitably, you have to collapse those choices into a coherent outcome, or reduce them to what button to push. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an ending. Doing so in a way that gives validation to those choices is exceedingly difficult. Good endings are really, really hard. A meandering middle act that pads itself out with flat, archetypal characters who for some reason all require that a single errand be done for them is easy. Which isn't to say that ME2 didn't have its moments, or its good ideas. It managed the transformation of Cerberus fairly well, had some real chilling missions like Mnemnosyne (unrelated to loyalty missions), and even had some moments of real emotional power such as Tali's mission. But I don't think it holds a candle, narratively, to what ME3 pulled off.

Let me just add that I think the Tuchanka section was great. Or actually, MAGNIFICENT!! And was a real sign of what ME3 could've been in total. I think it was also written primarily by Weekes (spell?), whom I heard has unofficially blogged against the ending.

Everyone loves Tuchanka, but to me Tuchanka is just an example of what almost every mission pulls off. I'm about to go to bat for ME3 really hard (incorporating some of Silly Dragon's points, don't worry I haven't forgotten you) here, in a way that almost embarrasses me, but I want to make the case for it, mission by mission. Hopefully you find this useful, both in terms of the defense of the game, and in terms of how to do a narrative in a video game setting. As should be abundantly clear by now, spoilers ahead.

First, let's examine why Tuchanka worked.

Tuchanka, or rather the mission thread that begins when Shepard holds a summit on the Normandy with the Turian, Salarian, and Krogan leaders, succeeded because it combined memorable characters, lingering narrative and background threads, and good gameplay. Wrex is a fan favorite, ME1 did a lot of work with him. Mordin gets the same treatment in ME2. ME has also done a lot of work over the past two games to really invest the player in the Krogan backstory. The genophage has been a sort of morality football kicking around since Virmire, brought into stark relief by Mordin's story. So the stage is set well, and ME3 has to resolve them. Let's be clear, ME3 has choices. It could have tossed these threads overboard, and had things resolve with a few dialogue options as the galaxy sensibly rallies to fight the Reapers. It could have used Cerberus as the main villain. Perhaps there was some agreement, but the Illusive Man tries to short circuit the alliance for whatever reason. Ultimately, both of these approaches are used, in small doses. The Turians and the Krogans reconcile in principle, and the Reapers are the main enemy. The Illusive Man does take a shot at short circuiting the alliance. But everyone who has played the mission knows that the real conflict is with the Dalatrass, a completely new character and a new thread that ME3 lays down. ME3 didn't have to do this, but it added a new layer of complexity. There was a new choice, you could stab Wrex in the back without him ever knowing, or so you thought. But, to balance out the Dalatrass (really rather sensible) solution, the new Krogan female is onboard, with the hope that the Krogan could be something more than what they are. Again, ME3 didn't have to do this, but they added these new elements to bring prior conflicts into greater relief, and remind the player of some of the backstory that might have been glossed over in an ending.

Combine this with a frenetic final mission that finds Shepard dodging Reaper blasts to snappy dialogue, a legitimate 'fuck yeah' moment with the Thresher Maw, and Mordin's touching sacrifice and you've got a huge winner. ME3 pulled it off.

So what about the others? I think they all follow Tuchanka's formula, more or less. You don't have a Mordin to kill off in every one, but a lot of the same elements remain.

Take Rannoch. Silly Dragon says that he doesn't like that the Geth and the Quarians are fighting, which seems unrealistic given the greater stakes. But isn't this Shepard's consistent experience throughout Mass Effect? Indeed, it would be strange to find that the centuries old grievances would just disappear, or that moments of opportunity in the present to resolve these grievances would go ignored. In ME1 we only got one side of the Geth-Quarian conflict. We got the Quarian side, through the inexperienced and overzealous eyes of a Quarian teenager (anyone who romanced Tali should feel ashamed of themselves. She's your little sister, goddammit. You deserved what was, BY FAR, the laziest thing anyone did in any Mass Effect game). ME2 complicates that narrative by revealing that, far from being noble refugees, the Quarians are riven through with internal politics and strife, and have been conducting some questionable experiments on the Geth. This is further complicated by Legion, who gives the Geth's side of the story. But even Legion is undermined when Shepard is put in the position of doing some pretty shady things to the Heretics. Kill, or convert. On the whole, ME2's treatment of the Geth-Quarian conflict is its strongest point.

The legitimate criticism is that the decision you make with the heretics doesn't really matter. Either way, the war has resumed. This is a function of actually having to end things. Take your pick, either the conflict is over and you've got two allies, or the problem has resurfaced and you actually get a mission to play through. And the reason why the conflict has resumed makes sense, and draws from the previous narrative. After all, it was only Legion and the Geth who had no interest in hunting down the Quarians. The Quarians start the war because the experiments you uncovered in ME2 lead to the development of a super weapon that temporarily gives them an overwhelming advantage. This is similar to Tuchanka. After all, Wrex could have just sent the Krogan to help the Turians. The Turians are the most important species to the war effort, the threat of the Reapers is obvious, so why not just set things aside? Because Wrex had an opportunity to restore his race, the same as the Quarians did. This is consistent with how every race and almost every character (with the exception of that blessed saint Admiral Hackett) has responded to Shepard. Indeed, wasn't ME2 just a big string of characters taking advantage of Shepard to resolve their personal problems in the face of a much larger and obvious threat? This is what Mass Effect is all about, that unity is hard, and that our parochial concerns, together with an immediate way of resolving them, will always take precedence over nebulous and distant threats.

The Geth turn to the Reapers because otherwise they'll be wiped out. They don't make the same bargain that the Heretics did, so it's not as if the choice didn't matter completely. And again, I suggest that you get a lot more out of having that choice handwaved than you do having it strictly honored. You get some good missions, including the one in Gethspace itself, which provides further insight on the conflict. By the end of ME3 the roles are almost completely reversed from where they stood in ME1. The Quarians are the aggressors, the Geth the victims. At the end, Legion, who is heavily hinted at being a sort of 'first geth' from the Gethspace mission, ends up sacrificing himself (this is in my telling, I know it can happen in a different way) and Tali comes to full maturity. The quest for Rannoch may not have been worth it, for all that has happened. But, there is promise in one breath of fresh, living air that in time wounds might heal. This is the same formula as Tuchanka, ultimately. Characters reach the culmination of their personal arcs with narrative winds at their backs. That's good storytelling.

A sidenote on paragon decisions not paying off. Silly Dragon, and others, have mentioned that the Rachni are a letdown. It's true, that decision in the first game isn't rewarded with hordes of Rachni soldiers singing their songs and saving your ass. But my response to that is, why was the paragon option the correct one? I give ME3 major credit for telling the player that they made a bad decision. The Rachni Queen should have died. Because you let her live, the Reapers get a new weapon, and if you continue to insist on being the Paragon, you almost lose Grunt in the process. You certainly lose his elites. Had ME3 been even bolder the choice would have been between Grunt and a nebulous, feel good victory by saving the Rachni. Paragon choices aren't always the right one. Paragon has costs. The Rachni prove that better than anything.

I feel I've gone on overlong, you can see the same dynamics at work on Thessia where, Adam Jensen aside, long running themes about the dominance of the Asari are answered, and their beautiful world ground down to dust. Together with Samara's monastery mission, which actually made her an interesting character, the Asari get a more full treatment than even the Turians. The monastery mission, though a sidequest, does a fantastic job of marrying together gameplay elements (sound design is the essence of all good video game horror) and Samara's somewhat dopey story in ME2. And this is why I think that Headshot's argument that ME3 shouldn't get full credit because it's dealing with what the other two games gave it falls apart. Because some of what ME3 got could be characterized as turds, turds that ME3 nevertheless polishes to a mirror shine. Samara sucks, but the choices ME3 makes reinvest you in the character. Jack sucks, but ME3 makes the choice to put her in Grissom Academy in the way that rescues her terrible story. The loyalty missions in ME2 were hackneyed in many places, forcing at times immediate shifts in characters that didn't make sense. By allowing some of that to develop off screen, and then showing us the results, ME3 makes good use of what ME2 gave it to make the characters better. Jack teaches children, Samara loves her family.

So I'll leave my analysis there. I'm not sure what should be different. I don't know how ME3 could have made better use of what it got from ME2 and ME1. What it got, those narrative threads, did not demand the outcomes that ME3 chose. But I think Headshot's argument shows how effectively ME3 resolves those endings, because he wants to discount them as obvious! ME3 made endings look easy, which is, perhaps, the greatest praise that it can be given.

One final thing (this is perhaps my third final thing). This is outside of my analysis because I'm doing maybe too much work for ME3 here, but I want to talk about the Crucible. A lot of people don't like it, it's clearly a MacGuffin. But, again, faced with the narrative ME3 had been given, I think it was the best choice. We could have gone the Hoorah route that Silly Dragon wanted, but that ignores the awesome power that Sovereign displayed in ME1. He held off the entire Fifth Fleet, on his own. Hundreds of Reapers could not be defeated conventionally. This is good, because it lent a desperation to ME3 that would have been absent if all you had to do was end a few squabbles. What ME3 decided on very early, and very effectively, was that ending squabbles wasn't enough, the chance of failure was still massive. So that leaves some sort of ploy, or a MacGuffin. I think the MacGuffin is the better choice. This is my own theory as to why, ME3 doesn't tell you this, but I think it's implied. I think there's more evidence for this than for the indoctrination theory that the fans have cobbled together. I believe that the purpose of the cycle is to produce the Crucible. I believe the purpose of the cycle is to produce Shepard. The Catalyst's mission is to prevent organics from going down the self destructive road of creating widespread synthetics. Its chosen solution is to cull organic civilizations. But organics are slippery things. There's no way to account for every variable. After all, the Protheans came within a hair's breadth of shutting down the whole damn thing. So I believe that the seed of the Crucible was planted by the Catalyst so that not only would technology evolve the way that he desired, but so too would resistance to the cycle follow a predictable path, with each civilization uncovering the Crucible handed down to it, and adding a little more, until it was complete. The Crucible is compatible with the Citadel by design, going back to its inception. It seems unlikely that organic species would discover the Crucible/Citadel interface, if no organic had ever stood where Shepard did at the end. Handled in a different way, the Crucible would have called back to the themes of fate and destiny, and called all of Shepard's efforts into question. Sure, the ending did that, but in a way that negated them, not in a way that made the player see their actions in a new light, which is what every good twist does. Ultimately, for reasons we've discussed ad nauseum, the ending failed. But it didn't have to, and I believe that the Crucible was the best option that the writers had available for the exceedingly difficult task of ending Mass Effect.

[Headshot]

I will happily go toe-to-toe with Ali in his prime! It is quite fun, actually. (Though I can see now why many people think these online exercises are not productive in the end. As this comment betrays, and the cherry picking rhetoric indicate. Hmmmmm.....)

But again it is unfair to color a position that states that writing the ending requires a deft hand to put together the prior strengths, with making it 'easy', or worse, something that a chimp banging on his keyboard could slap together. It is a practice of cultivating towards a culmination; again a deft hand, but also, again, an open ear and eye to the proceeding and drawing on those strengths to a satisfying ending. And something which I think is a talent, but much more readily apparent then writing a satisfying middle act.

The other thing is that to hand-wave the 'rushed elements' narrative and otherwise, away. Hmmmmmm this is startling, actually. They don't exist? Or they don't detract? To the former: Kai Leng. Or, ME3's invention of the non-updating quest journal (something that ME1 and ME2 had in abundance). And the whole side quest as being more than 'eavesdrop and scan'. If the latter then, Great! Glass-half-full like me!

But the most worrying is that I think Victor is setting up a false dilemma with the argument to the effect conventional warfare, non-macguffin, OR the crucible. Not at all. The macguffin could've, and should've, been set up in act 2, not trotted out in desperation in act 3. Again the abandonment of the dark energy plotline with all its foreshadowing seems to be a real loss here. It could've provided the asymmetrical warfare, macguffin device to the endings/reapers, without the advent of the crucible.

This is the stuff of fan fiction. I'm sure there is plenty out there. But even just taking some time to reflect on what Silly proposed in this thread could give some really interesting options. Dark energy ages stars to unstable levels. Hmmmm, it is found that reapers run on dark energy. Well then systems with rapidly aging stars could be used to make strategic determinations of the arrivals of significant portions of the reaper fleets. That could then be an interesting mid-game decision of choosing where to assemble the vast resources of the galaxy to tackle a few arriving reapers in tandem. Knowing those other systems are going to be clobbered. But that doesn't solve the full problem. So the Silly route, the reaper fleet must be trapped into a single system, where there combined dark energy output will unstable the star to nova levels. But to give it the final kick, someone (I wonder who!) needs to get aboard a reaper and overload there core. But not just any reaper. It has to be the ancient, giant sized ones, like the oldest (the first?) Harbinger. And it can't be just any system, or the trap won't work. So the choices are Sol, or Thessia, etc. Massive showdown in the heart of the reaper prime-antagonist at hand, with final parting between shepard and harbinger etc. And still using the dark energy foreshadowing, and not insta-kill three switches.

Ah fun!

Headshot

P.S.


By the way, thinking of the synthesis ending, and the whole machines versus organic conjurations at the ending, did the game retcon the ME2 assertion that reapers weren't machines? I remember EDI telling me that they were a hybrid of synthetic and organic at the finale of ME2.

[The Silly Dragon]

The Collectors in ME2 took people to be processed into the 'human' Reaper. EDI says something about the metal used is part organic in design if i remember correctly. The Reapers are made out of organics thats what ME2 taught us.

The whole Sovreign holding off the fifth fleet on his own is a poor arguement that the galaxy couldn't win conventionally. Sovreign was a big badass like Harbinger he wasn't a 'normal' sized Reaper he was a capital class. Also even if the Reapers numbered in hundreds just like him/it then the galazy could still win. Just look at the Quarians and their 50,000 ship fleet! Lets say the Reapers are 5,000 in number. Now the Quarians outnumber them by x10 alone! Add in the Alliance, Turians, Asari, Geth, Salarians and few other ships like the Volus Bombardment fleet you can get as a war asset and hey you now outnumber the Reapers by about 30/1! Thats 30 ships to every Reaper now no matter how strong the Reapers are they could not hold off that many hence why they seperated the galaxies fleets to defend their own homeworlds. Repeating what i said earlier the Reapers were scared of a united galaxy! Thats why their attacks always started at the Citadel and always had control of the Relay network so they could control movement of fleets etc. They didn't want a united galaxy...why? They knew they could lose.

Lets look at the weapons of the Reapers:
Destructive and highly accurate but slow firing compared to the organics own guns.
Each Reaper seemed to only have 1-2 of these lasers.

Now the shields did fail Sovreign and in the final few cutscenes of ME3 you do see some Reapers shields failing in the fight. They were not invincible and they knew this hence (and i repeat again) the attck on the Citadel at the start of every invasion etc etc etc etc...To say they could not be defeated conventionally was Bioware wanting a Crucible (an easy way out).

If it was to build desperation then the Crucible failed. You know of it right after the tutorial and you know you have a whole game to play before it gets used. To add desperation it should have been no Crucible then it would be all like "well their here and we have no weapons of mass destruction that work on them...f**k what do we do?" Story and game wise it would have been better to leave out the Crucible and have a different ending that teaches of 'love thy neighbor' and not to be racist. Which is something that i always thought was the lesson with Mass Effect "doesn't matter where your from the Reapers threaten us all" could be translated to "it doesn't matter if black or white or asain or what beliefs they have we should all work together and learn to get along".

[Bob of Beleriand]

Its also worth noting that more than a few pieces of Reaper tech were reverse engineered (thanix weapons for one).

[VictorK]

But again it is unfair to color a position that states that writing the ending requires a deft hand to put together the prior strengths, with making it 'easy', or worse, something that a chimp banging on his keyboard could slap together. It is a practice of cultivating towards a culmination; again a deft hand, but also, again, an open ear and eye to the proceeding and drawing on those strengths to a satisfying ending. And something which I think is a talent, but much more readily apparent then writing a satisfying middle act.

Your original statement was that it was 'easier' to write an ending than it was to write a middle act. I recognize that easy and easier are not the same thing, but because I was comparing the difficulty of two different tasks I thought it would be appropriate. I did not mean to imply, nor do I think that I did, that we're talking about a chimp banging a keyboard together.

This gets back to the point I made about serial stories. What you say might have some weight if we're talking about a narrative that can be planned wholly in advance. Bringing over the middle sections is important, and everything should bend towards the ending. In that sense it could be said to be easier, because you've been writing the ending all along.

But that's not Mass Effect, indeed it's not the majority of stories that we consume. We often time set out with an idea of what the ending should be, but as with anything that is serial and produced for fans, we don't know what will resonate with people, or how the execution might shift our perception of what we had thought was the way to go. In the realm of the serial the ending is much more difficult than the filler. And ME2 mostly was filler.

The other thing is that to hand-wave the 'rushed elements' narrative and otherwise, away. Hmmmmmm this is startling, actually. They don't exist? Or they don't detract? To the former: Kai Leng. Or, ME3's invention of the non-updating quest journal (something that ME1 and ME2 had in abundance). And the whole side quest as being more than 'eavesdrop and scan'. If the latter then, Great! Glass-half-full like me!

They are outweighed. Adam Jensen sucks, but he's not a game ruiner. You still get to kill him in a satisfying way in the end, and he's not too terribly obtrusive. The non-updating quest journal is, at most, an annoyance. The side quests? Some were better than others. It was interesting to watch them shrivel over the series, but I think that's what the fans seemed to have wanted. ME1 met with a poor reception with regards to its Mako parts, and the entire mineral scanning mechanic in 2 was not very fulfilling. So, they dumbed it down further. Giving the people what they wanted, apparently.

But the most worrying is that I think Victor is setting up a false dilemma with the argument to the effect conventional warfare, non-macguffin, OR the crucible. Not at all. The macguffin could've, and should've, been set up in act 2, not trotted out in desperation in act 3. Again the abandonment of the dark energy plotline with all its foreshadowing seems to be a real loss here. It could've provided the asymmetrical warfare, macguffin device to the endings/reapers, without the advent of the crucible.

I noted from the beginning that the main cause of the problems with the ending was switching the horse in midstream, so you won't get any argument from me. I will demonstrate below why the dark energy approach would have been non-sensical, but it's enough to note here that, yes, while we would have liked to have some inkling of the Crucible in ME2, we didn't have that.

And this, again, gets back to serial writing. The crew discovered that the ending that they had in mind sucked. Perhaps they could've fixed it with a better process, but to actually be faithful to the dilemma that confronted them after ME2, so as to be able to properly evaluate ME3, that has to be understood. The dark energy ending sucked, they had to fix it, and given what they had built so far the Crucible was the best option.

I suppose that there's room for 'pure' critique of Mass Effect. But I would use that critique to demonstrate what should be done next time, not to tear down Mass Effect itself.

This is the stuff of fan fiction.

Good, because I am strictly a fan fiction author.

I'm sure there is plenty out there. But even just taking some time to reflect on what Silly proposed in this thread could give some really interesting options. Dark energy ages stars to unstable levels. Hmmmm, it is found that reapers run on dark energy. Well then systems with rapidly aging stars could be used to make strategic determinations of the arrivals of significant portions of the reaper fleets. That could then be an interesting mid-game decision of choosing where to assemble the vast resources of the galaxy to tackle a few arriving reapers in tandem. Knowing those other systems are going to be clobbered. But that doesn't solve the full problem. So the Silly route, the reaper fleet must be trapped into a single system, where there combined dark energy output will unstable the star to nova levels. But to give it the final kick, someone (I wonder who!) needs to get aboard a reaper and overload there core. But not just any reaper. It has to be the ancient, giant sized ones, like the oldest (the first?) Harbinger. And it can't be just any system, or the trap won't work. So the choices are Sol, or Thessia, etc. Massive showdown in the heart of the reaper prime-antagonist at hand, with final parting between shepard and harbinger etc. And still using the dark energy foreshadowing, and not insta-kill three switches.

There's nothing unique about the Reapers using dark energy. The Normandy runs on dark energy. Every ship in the galaxy and the Mass Relays runs on dark energy. All of the technology is related, because it all comes from the same source. You would need a bigger retcon to make this fit. And this is why the dark energy idea, which was that overuse of the Mass Relays caused the galacy to die, requiring the organics be culled, was a bad one. If you take it on its face, culling doesn't make any sense, why have the Mass Relays at all, why leave organic life? If you add an additional element, that the galaxy is somehow able to heal itself in the interim and the Reapers are the least worst option, you still have to face the question of why you'd build a cycle that /required/ organics to develop dark energy technology. But even if you could somehow make it work logically, I think that the dark energy ending is worse than the organic/synthetics war ending. I begin at the premise that something has to stand behind the Reapers, it was clear from Sovereign onward that they were not in themselves malicious, they were carrying out some higher purpose. If that purpose is something like a scientific law that technology is killing the galaxy, how does that do anything to validate the themes of Mass Effect? It doesn't, it negates them even more, because the big revelation has nothing to do with any prior conflict or value. We can at least say that the organic/synthetic option was a theme developed in Mass Effect, though I would never say it was the central one.

By the way, thinking of the synthesis ending, and the whole machines versus organic conjurations at the ending, did the game retcon the ME2 assertion that reapers weren't machines? I remember EDI telling me that they were a hybrid of synthetic and organic at the finale of ME2.

As Silly Dragon says, the Reapers are built up from organic components. Remember what Sovereign says in ME1, 'we are each of us a nation.' The Reapers store the civilizations they have destroyed in themselves, the civilizations are converted into Reapers. The Reapers are, themselves, a synthesis option, but an incomplete one.

Repeating what i said earlier the Reapers were scared of a united galaxy! Thats why their attacks always started at the Citadel and always had control of the Relay network so they could control movement of fleets etc. They didn't want a united galaxy...why? They knew they could lose.

This is getting more into speculation, but I don't think the Reapers feared a united galaxy for its military might. The series demonstrates that Reapers are nigh unstoppable. Your statement about Sovereign being an outlier isn't correct, if you look at the ME3 codex all the Reaper dreadnoughts are called 'Sovereign' class Reapers. That is, Sovereign is merely an example of a Reaper dreadnought. Harbinger alone stands out. But to get back to the point, it's about control, no fear. Shutting down the mass relays limits the options for organics to collaborate and innovate a new response. They can pool all their weapons together but they won't defeat the Reapers. But, left to their own devices, they could innovate a response not anticipated by the cycle, which introduces uncertainty. The Protheans almost did.

If it was to build desperation then the Crucible failed. You know of it right after the tutorial and you know you have a whole game to play before it gets used. To add desperation it should have been no Crucible then it would be all like "well their here and we have no weapons of mass destruction that work on them...f**k what do we do?"

The same level of desperation was accomplished by requiring that a certain component, the Catalyst, be found before the Crucible could be operational. Just unearthing it would have been more jarring.

[Headshot]

@Victor

Yes, easier is being used in comparison!

Though my main point to the critique of the whole arc of ME3, is that using the 'serial explanation' is not a carte blanche. Because of the three part arc story. Elements should've been taken up and utilized earlier in the set up. To delay is to risk the dreaded 'deus ex machina' critique. The conjuration.

Even retroactive and on-the-fly writing can do this. By using what was already there in a considered fashion. Instead of bringing up new plot elements. The closer these are to the final end point, the more 'broken' or 'arbitrary' they seem. Hence the problems with the ending. But this metric can be applied to the entirety of act 3.

But I like your gentle soul attitude of being forgiving. I would be too. Except for the ending, which we seem to agree on. I'm just now feeling a license to nitpick how the ending wasn't in isolation, and showed some systemic problems throughout the third.

To my five minutes of fanfic off of Silly's idea. Aha! You wouldn't need a bigger retcon! Just a 'special type' of dark energy! That the reapers use. Which explains there massive energy output benefits. But also explains why they need to spend so much time in dark space. (Cause otherwise, they would keep chewing up stars.) But the point of this exercise wasn't to make in one paragraph something that the interwebs couldn't poke up. But to show how much more satisfying the third act can be when it builds its elements from the first two, instead of ushering in new ones.

ts also worth noting that more than a few pieces of Reaper tech were reverse engineered (thanix weapons for one).

Yeah another sadly lost opportunity! We need to punch a hole in Harbinger's shields. How? Well the turians have built a pair of dreadnought sized thanix cannons. Individually, no match for a sovereign-class reaper. But together! Oh no, the problem is that these two dreadnoughts are still in drydock at a secret base. We need someone to escort the skeleton crews there to get them operational.... (I wonder who!). And key a main mission to get assets with tangible uses that can be shown later in the game.

Oops. Gotta work now. Butt heads later over proper narrative structuring!

Headshot

[The Silly Dragon]

I don't understand why you think the Reapers didn't fear a united galaxy? They invade through the Citadel Relay and destroy both the seat of power and the main fleet that was patrolling it at the time in one massive surprise attack. Then they proceed to shut down the Relay network except the ones they want top use so they can overwhelm colonies one at a time. Why would they do this if they were invincible to our weapons? It doesn't make sense unless they did fear a united galaxy.

What happened in the last cycle with the Protheans, they managed to make their own small Mass Relay and block off the signal so the Reapers couldn't do their surprise attack in the next cycle. They found this to be the best possible chance to give the next cycle and not to mention the Beacons to warn about the Reapers too. They couldn't destroy them and i think i know why. They were an Empire that enslaved other races and forced their own culture (you learn this from ME3 1st DLC). They were the only military might in the galaxy in their cycle (of any real strength anyways). This made them easy to fight for the Reapers as all tactics and ships and weapons and shields were the same design and remember Mordin with his explaination about culture of how organics see a problem and make tools to fix it? (ME2 talking about Collectors). With Protheans they were never really challenged and so didn't develop enough (only just so they could maintain their dominance). While with the galaxy full of different races trying and at times failing to keep peace (look at Turians and Krogan making the Genocide and the Quarians ability to eventually weaken the Geth in ME3, problems = organics looking for solutions = able to adapt which the Protheans could not do).

With the (lets call it Sheperd cycle) they were all uniquely prepared for the Reapers. They still had the Citadel, they still had the Relays active, they had prior warning (which only a few believed but still). This is the difference in the cycle. How could the galaxy have used this to their advantage is the question Bioware should have been asking themselves all through the 3 games and i think 1 and 2 did this well but 3 did not as it just seemed like a 'normal' invasion. ME1 was setting the scene so no real problems there. ME2 set to explain the Reapers more and get the player excited about the BIG invasion (3rd game) and feel like Sheperd is doing his/her best to prepare. ME3 should have been the invasion and the big fight where all of Sheperd's adventures and hard work come to fruition but so much of ME3 ignored the other 2 games that most of the hard work the player put ito the game just mean't for nothing. Like the Rachni, i should have been rewarded for my efforts in the final game since it was an option and focus on the other 2! Instead i got a war asset that basically told me that Bioware couldn't be bothered to include them in the final cutscenes (we know they have ships as silhouettes were seen that resembled old Rachni ships around a Relay so where were they in the last fight? as the Queen promised me to "add her song to mine when the time comes" and all that mean't was some workers for the damn Crucible? WTF?!?!? If the idea was not to save them then why put the option to save them if your not going to go through with it?) Points like the Rachni lead me to believe that Bioware just wanted to finish Mass Effect and get on with other games hence rushing it and not delivering what the paying fans wanted.

[Bob of Beleriand]

ts also worth noting that more than a few pieces of Reaper tech were reverse engineered (thanix weapons for one).

Yeah another sadly lost opportunity! We need to punch a hole in Harbinger's shields. How? Well the turians have built a pair of dreadnought sized thanix cannons. Individually, no match for a sovereign-class reaper. But together! Oh no, the problem is that these two dreadnoughts are still in drydock at a secret base. We need someone to escort the skeleton crews there to get them operational.... (I wonder who!). And key a main mission to get assets with tangible uses that can be shown later in the game.

Oops. Gotta work now. Butt heads later over proper narrative structuring!

Headshot

Not even that, the final mission has a rocket battery of Thanix missles that is used to disable a Destroyer class Reaper. Similarly the Quarians outfitted their fleet with Thanix Weapons, the Liveships are mentioned by name. The codex also says that widespread rearmament and upgrades have and are taking place to modernise Alliance weaponry.

[The Silly Dragon]

Heck even the Normandy is equiped with the Thanix Cannons and thats a small ship (if you played ME2 and upgraded it then you get them as a war asset too or at least i did).