[Spoilers!] Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut: We Asked For This

[Shuma]

To be honest, i'm glad Harbinger didn't say shit in this game, he would've just kept embarrassing the reapers with his stupid speeches and rants. Then again, i suppose the star child is worse.

Also, i think i mentioned it before, but i'll mention it again, i'm pissed off that all the Reapers in Mass Effect 3 look the same, when they all looked different from each other in the Mass Effect 2 ending, now the only one that looks different is Harbinger, and that's disappointing.

As for Klendagon, nothing about the weapon in question hitting a Reaper was ever mentioned - is more revealed about that later on in ME3?

Seriously Gorb, reading your posts i question if you even played the games in this series, in Mass Effect 2 you enter the Reaper that was hit by that gun, and TIM mentions that Cerberus has the gun, and then it's never mentioned again.

[Codex]

@ Kirjava

That's what I meant. I'm completely nocturnal.

Thanks for the advice guys. Will hit up youtube.

[Starblade]

Seriously Gorb, reading your posts i question if you even played the games in this series, in Mass Effect 2 you enter the Reaper that was hit by that gun, and TIM mentions that Cerberus has the gun, and then it's never mentioned again.

Apparently, 37 million years really wears on a superweapon.

[Aesaar]

Seriously Gorb, reading your posts i question if you even played the games in this series, in Mass Effect 2 you enter the Reaper that was hit by that gun, and TIM mentions that Cerberus has the gun, and then it's never mentioned again.

When TIM mentions Cerberus found the gun, he also mentions it's completely inoperable.

[Shuma]

So?

[Ewokz]

A 37 million year old alien weapon that managed to kill one reaper and is now no longer functional, yeah seems plausible that you can (and should try and) fix that in 2 years...

I guessing it got dropped when TIM figured he could just take control of a few thousand, Billion year old super weapons.

[Codex]

Are there only 4 endings? Does EMS still matter?

[Shuma]

I never said the gun should be operational, or that it should've been repaired, just that it's existence is mentioned in Mass Effect 2.

[FriendlyFire]

A 37 million year old alien weapon that managed to kill one reaper and is now no longer functional, yeah seems plausible that you can (and should try and) fix that in 2 years...

Yeah, because building a superweapon capable of destroying ALL Reapers (instead of just one) from partial plans that we aren't even sure work or do what we think they do is more plausible.

[Codex]

Impressions:

Destroy: literally feels extended for the sake of being extended. I was almost happier with the original... Because let's be honest, we all expected the galaxy to mourn and grieve and continue on as the EC said they would.

Interesting that they extended one of the pieces of music.
One of the problems is sticking to their original endings. The new endings are guilty of the same thing as the old ones: there's no real effect to be felt, but that's to do with the fact that the endings are merely extended and not changed.

WHY USE THE SAME IMAGES (for the changed original 3 endings, after the credits music kicks in, and indeed, the whole EC endings?)? It makes the images meaningless. Which is sad.

Synthesis: Well I'm glad at least that was slightly different. EDI's commentary seems forced... and what does it mean to say that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully? I thought the whole point is the distinction is GONE.

I'm disappointed. This is the same company that brought us the original 3 games? And this was the best they had in their locker?

[Kirjava]

One of the things I hate most about Mass Effect, I've realised, is the glorification of soldiering and the utter demonisation of politicians. Granted, politicians end up with bad reps for a reason, but the way Bioware tell it you'd think everyone in the military are awesome dudes who just want to do the Right Thing and they could fix the world dammit if it weren't for all the red tape. The politicians meanwhile are pretty universally corrupt, cowardly and unhelpful- the only positive ones you see seem to be soldiers-turned-politicians, like the Turian primarch- and Bioware seem to think that they only ever do things to get in the way and make things harder for the honest troopers.

I know, I know, it's just a computer game but it really winds me up. Garrus is a glaring point. He's pretty cool, but then he's also a devout rule breaker who, in the first game, advocated shooting down a ship full of hostages rather than possibly let a bad guy get away.

[Starblade]

Granted, politicians end up with bad reps for a reason, but the way Bioware tell it you'd think everyone in the military are awesome dudes who just want to do the Right Thing and they could fix the world dammit if it weren't for all the red tape.

I liked the early conversations with Udina in ME3 where it turns out he's in an even shittier mood than usual because literally everyone he interacted with regularly that isn't on the Council just died and he's not sure how to deal with that. A lot of it went a great deal towards making him seem sympathetic instead of Mr. "I'm the Bad Guy Choice" from ME1 and "I'm Still A Dick" in ME2, especially with the turnaround of "Fuck off Shepard I'm being important over here" to "Since I'm apparently the government (since the government space station exploded) now I'm pulling out all the stops to help you Shepard".

Then it turns out he was working with the space terrorists so he could be ruler of the galaxy.

Most sci-fi and action games are unashamedly warporn power trips though, it comes with the audience it caters to.

He's pretty cool, but then he's also a devout rule breaker who, in the first game, advocated shooting down a ship full of hostages rather than possibly let a bad guy get away.

The neat thing about Garrus in 1 is that he's really obviously inspired by Shepard and you can lead him down a renegade, doing more stuff like that or like what a renegade Shepard would do or a paragon path, to play it more by the book. This shows up a bit in 2 as well, when you see his reasons for becoming Archangel (I tried going back to C-Sec, got sick of it/Didn't cut it for Spectre status, didn't want to go back to C-Sec). The Shadow Broker files mention that he probably won't reach his full potential while he's under Shepard because of it. Also with 2, a neat little touch is that for nearly all the main characters, you can tell if what they're about to do would be considered a "paragon" or a "renegade" option because there's a little red or blue gleam in their eyes. To tie it back to Garrus, when on his loyalty mission, when talking about how he's going to kill Sidonis, his non-visor eye gets a red glint, hinting that you're not about to do a good thing.

[Agdune]

Well, talk about dying with a whimper, good job Mass Effect Franchise... ahwell, it isn't actively bad now really, just likely to be something everyone's going to forget about in a year or so. I'll remember you well ME, and maybe fire you up a few times for the hell of it (well, not ME1, I've played that to utter death). Was good while it lasted.

2 things that annoy me though; those bloody unfinished plot threads!

The Keepers. I just can't help but feel sad at how under-utilised these poor little guys were. They're there to act as a storytelling tool for the first ME and then fade into obscurity for the entire remainder of the series. Even though they feature in every single ME. They were boring simply because the story made them boring; as the beings at the centre of it all they screamed for something more than "we pressed the button that made the reapers come, but now someone broke the button so we'll just hang about. Anyone need a bulkhead fixed?". Hell, for that first few seconds arriving at the citadel after the confusing blasting I got from Harbinger I saw that Keeper give me a bit of a look and I thought "Fucker! You know damn well what's going on, don't you?". I really thought they were about to link the keepers into something relevant to the story again when I saw that keeper wandering around in the piles of corpses. Like maybe they're still sentient and simply fairly complicit in what's going on, maybe they need the reapers to continue re-stocking their protein vats, something. There's a whole story there that could've been told and added alot of colour very easily to the background.

Example; at some point the reapers decided they needed someone to look after the citadel. According to the explanations given, the Keepers are an integral part of the reaping process, so it would have to have been at the very start of these cycles (unless the reapers have been modifying their reaping practices over the millions of years, which while sensible, is implicitly ruled out by the catalyst). Why not have the keepers as the creators of the reapers, repurposed like the Collectors were? What about if they had retained sentience of some sort, but due to their re-purposing developed their own sinister little pseudo-culture inside the Citadel's core? In practical terms, adds nothing to the gameplay but by the same token, takes about 5 minutes for a staffer to put it into the codex or something and improve the depth a bit.

Also, I know that the whole 'dark energy' thing was dropped (probably would have been just as dissapointing anyway, given the huge 'we are the unknowable reapers!' thing would have been simply explained with a different stupid 2 line explanation), but they could have at least tried to tie something to the 4-5 very blatant references made to it in ME2. I mean, the Haestrom mission was about dark energy ruining entire star systems and was constantly aluded to being an incredibly important thing. At least a line or two would have been nice. Catalyst; "oh, well since the extermination cycle got buggered up by the protheans Sovereign spent a little bit of time trying some different stuff to get it working again with technobable and dark matter experiments. Didn't work out, screwed up a few stars, he instead went with the Geth plan. Next topic."

Lastly, one plothole no-one ever seems to ask; why were the reapers beaming people up to the citadel if all it did was take then to a corridor with easy access to the catalyst? I mean, "you're the first organic that has ever set foot here" holds less weight when I know it's literally a 5 minute crawl from where hundreds of thousands of people (stated to be both the living and the dead) have been teleported to for the last month or whatever. I know the teleport doesn't take everyone to the same spot (as Anderson pops up somewhere else in time to get to the catalyst before you, despite there being no other access points to that room everyone meets up in) but c'mon, there are bodies right there man. It's hard to think that not one person beamed up wondered what was up the other end of the corridor when they were being beamed all over into unguarded corridors for no clear reason.

Why are the reapers providing an easy access route to the heart of their one weakness if all they seem to be doing it for is to stick corpses into messy piles and give convenient travel to space heroines?

...Unless that keeper is secretly a guard for the Keeper civilisation, eh? eh? Normally processes the filthy humans who are sent to him, stop 'em from disturbing the space child ghost thing, drinks their blood or something. He just decided he didn't want to mess with me, awesome as I am. Went back to his good old 'pretend I'm an automaton, the human will ignore me' routine. Good job Keeper covert guard/surveillance officer #5266456, your lack of initiative cost your cause everything! But I guess, on the bright side, it did free your people from the reaper's control, even though you loved them and wanted them to repair your big "call the reapers to KILL EVERYTHING" button. We won't fault you for your motives, only commend you for your actions. Posthumously, of course, because you blew up when Shepard did the only logical thing and used techno-science to make everything in the galaxy green and circuit-y.

[Gorb]

Synthesis on the other hand has no possible explanation. It really does feel out of place which is why I can never pick it.

Mass Effect fields have no explanation beyond MAGIC SCIENCE.

The Synthesis ending introduces a device built by people that didn't understand it's function which attaches to an AI to make a green energy cloud which somehow changes the genetic chemistry of every being in the galaxy without killing them in a universe which has been generally consistent with it's technological levels and rules... this is fucking stupid.

Mass Effect fields have no explanation beyond MAGIC SCIENCE.

Yeah, you can't have it both ways. Sorry, but I'm calling it as I see it.

Also given a quantum-generated AI of stupid scale and scope, a massive weapon capable of generating gigantic amounts of energy with an AI's precision . . . altering genetics isn't that far-fetched. Certainly we're looking at the same level of ADD DILITHIUM CRYSTALS TO MAGICAL EEZO AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO BREAK PHYSICS.

EDIT:

Seriously Gorb, reading your posts i question if you even played the games in this series, in Mass Effect 2 you enter the Reaper that was hit by that gun, and TIM mentions that Cerberus has the gun, and then it's never mentioned again.

Heaven forbid I forget the association between the derelict Reaper and the shot that scorched Klendagon (which is a Codex/scan entry in ME1, I can't remember how the planet crops up in ME2). I have better things to do with my time than boot up ME2 and play through that mission just to stop you from insulting my presence in the thread (mainly because my computer is in storage).

Honestly Shuma I question if you ever played any DoW game because *insert stupidly specific piece of factual knowledge about the Winter Assault Campaign*. Why so passive-aggressive? I wasn't even debating with you and you haven't seen fit to call me out on my apparent lack of Mass Effect knowledge before now.

[Langy]

I think the issue is that while Mass Effect fields require Magic Science to work, they make some sort of sense. The Synthesis ending makes absolutely no sense. It's not just 'how the hell do they do that?' but also 'why the hell would that matter?' and 'what the fuck does it actually do?'

In any case, for a large number of people the 'mass effect' stuff is something they can accept, but the Synthesis shit is not. You may lump them both together, but you are not the end-all authority on everything, Gorb.

[Gorb]

And yet I am wrong, and they are right.

I lump them together, you may not, but you are not the end-all authority on everything, Langy.

Synthesis requires Magic Science. Mass effect fields require Magic Science. Quantum-driven artificial intelligence requires Magic Science. I did really like EDI's explanation of quantum entanglement and how the communication worked in ME2, but the above three aren't explained in anywhere as much detail (sure, they explain mass effect fields and how they are generated, but quantum entanglement is something that is relatively acceptable by our current understanding of physics. ME fields are, um, not).

Heck, Reapers themselves require metric tonnes of Magic Science, yet I never saw people complaining about them in ME1 and ME2. I don't even see much about them in ME3 barring them being toned down in relative effectiveness.

As I said, just because you something think Synthesis is "too much" Magic Science, doesn't make you right. If you don't like Synthesis because the ME3 ending is rubbish and nothing will ever change that, fine. But don't hypocritically decide what level of Magic Science is somehow "acceptable". Suspension of disbelief doesn't come into this, it's purely a "what we can and cannot be arsed to nitpick about". You are nitpicking about Synthesis. You are conveniently not nitpicking about mass effect fields.

(the "you" is generic, so don't take this to heart)

[Misiok]

Gorb, there are some things that even willing suspension of disbelief won't cover and fix.

[Gorb]

I realise that Misiok (though I dislike people quoting TVTropes as some kind of factual reference ) and I'm not saying that Synthesis isn't "SPESS MAGIC LOL". Nor am I saying that you have to like it.

What I am saying is that there are other large parts of the universe which are also based on SPESS MAGIC LOL and no-one seems to want to nitpick them. As I am demonstrating, it is remarkably easy to do so.

[Fixer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs&feature=plcp
Just watch the first 10 minutes Gorb, has all you need to know.

Meanwhile, you seem to like the Mass Effect 3 endings. Can you give us a breakdown of how you think the final story points were foreshadowed fit into the overall narrative?

[Gorb]

Where do you get the impression that I like the Mass Effect 3 endings?

It's at this point I question if you bother reading anything I type in response to your posts.

[Starblade]

What I am saying is that there are other large parts of the universe which are also based on SPESS MAGIC LOL and no-one seems to want to nitpick them.

This is because they are the setting of the game and have not been thrown in at the last five minutes of the finale. Most people accept mass effect fields, biotics, and all the rest because it's the setting of the game. The conceit is that these are everyday things, and are presented as such. It is shown how they fit in and what they are used for. There are limitations to it. Synthesis isn't because it's thrown on you more or less at the last minute (save for Saren't speech at the end of ME1 and a line or two throughout the rest of the 80 hours of gameplay), and because of the hellish consequences. Seriously, imagine being Skull 14 in a Praetorian's mouth. Or a Cannibal's second head. Imagine a Praetorian trying to go about a regular day at the office. Husks at least still have bodies. At least the EC changed it so Joker's Hat is no longer alive, RIP hat.

Unless of course you accept the idea that Saren was right about everything, merging with machines is great ("The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!") and we just needed to prove ourselves to the Reapers like he said (which we did, according to the Star Child, with the Crucible) and you wasted three games making life worse for the entire galaxy instead of letting Saren do the right thing. Synthesis and Control aren't "fuck yous" entirely because of the actual content, but because it invalidates everything you've been doing. The Illusive Man was right Shepard, good job murdering all the space heroes and cockblocking him every step of the way. Saren was right, good job killing the prophet and nuking your friend. I wonder if Saren actually wasn't indoctrinated after all. Maybe he actually did have a pretty sweet deal going on with Sovereign and you ruined it and convinced him to shoot himself.

[Langy]

I realise that Misiok (though I dislike people quoting TVTropes as some kind of factual reference ) and I'm not saying that Synthesis isn't "SPESS MAGIC LOL". Nor am I saying that you have to like it.

What I am saying is that there are other large parts of the universe which are also based on SPESS MAGIC LOL and no-one seems to want to nitpick them. As I am demonstrating, it is remarkably easy to do so.

It's not hypocritical to be able to suspend disbelief about one part of a piece of fiction but not another. In fact, it's pretty fucking common, and generally the sign of a bad writer when they push the limits too far.

And while the mass effect stuff is space magic, it isn't on anywhere near the level required for the Synthesis ending. The part required for the Synthesis ending not only requires magic technology to do what they claim, it requires completely stupid lopsided thinking in order to explain how it makes any sort of sense. For example, computers do not have DNA. Thus, you can't give people 'computer DNA' or give computer's biological DNA.

The problem with the Synthesis ending isn't just 'how do they change people's DNA with a giant green energy field?' It's also 'their explanation of what that does makes no sense' and 'even if it did make sense, it doesn't solve the claimed problems'.

In other words, the Synthesis ending doesn't just rely on space magic for the technobabble (which all the endings require in one way or another). Instead, it also relies on completely handwaving away the claimed problem and basically just saying 'trust me, this fixes everything even though what I say this does wouldn't actually fix anything and doesn't make any sense to boot'.

[Gorb]

Langy, if the problem isn't "how does that work that's SPACE MAGIC territory" for you then I am not arguing with you (I was arguing with Fixer originally). If you think that it simply doesn't cover what should be explained then fair enough. I think Control is a classic idiot choice, myself. I'd actually prefer Synthesis given that you can then work through whatever in-universe problems arise as a result of it. Control is "muahahaha I am Revan and this is my Star Forge" - which I am not denying can be pretty cool, but yeah, it's a massive dick move in terms of keeping the universe intact (which is also what you spent three games doing).

For me, Synthesis would fix the whole organic/inorganic life issues (how do we co-exist with the Geth barring long-term character development with Legion/Legion II which results in an oddly emotive character choice from Legion which results in peace of some kind with one other race) in-universe and remove the Reapers'/Catalyst's "yeah you can't coexist so VE KEEL YOU" imperative. Racial or ethnic issues? They can be settled afterwards. Saving the galaxy from certain annihilation earns you leeway in the aftermath, or that's how it traditionally goes, no?

That said, Destroy is still the only option I feel is truly "canon" and the one that I would pick over the others (yes, even over the rage shooting choice).

@Starblade: Saren might have doing it for the right reasons, but he was doing it in the wrong way. You, Shepard, are the example of getting the job done in the right way (even if you're a massive Renegade douche, but then aren't you simply making the same mistakes Saren did if you choose Control? Or Synthesis, considering your body is rendered down into shiny green particles?) - would you shoot Nihlus for the effective hell of it? Paragon says "take him on board Sovereign and indoctrinate him", no?

All I see in Saren is someone who tried to save the galaxy in his own way (who happened to be what we call a "Renegade") but came up against the protagonist (Shepard) and thus was kinda doomed to fail. Though it would be nice if there was an ME1 end where you failed to stop Saren and he achieved Synthesis or Control depending on your speech choices in and around the final battle (or perhaps even Destroy, but I prefer Shepard to be the only guy with the MASEEV WILLPOWER to achieve that).

EDIT@Langy: we have genetic computers made from DNA in our time. What's to say that they don't form the basis of at least a few technology types by the time of Mass Effect?

Additionally, a DNA sequence can be represented abstractly by a set of formulae. This can be stored on a computer or transmitted via technology based on traditional computers. If you can take apart something at the molecular level or at the very least, influence it in some way (see: brain chemistry alteration in indoctrination) which the Reapers apparently can why is it so hard to believe that the Crucible allows this to happen? A focusing device and/or power amplifier would be all that's required, no?

Also, by your logic mass effect fields are flawed because they require Element Zero to function. That's about as unlikely as a magic superweapon (the Crucible). What you're asking of the Crucible is akin to asking the atomic makeup of Eezo and then complaining that such an element can't be synthesised.

[Fixer]

Where do you get the impression that I like the Mass Effect 3 endings?

It's at this point I question if you bother reading anything I type in response to your posts.

The only posts you've made in this thread have been criticizing the criticism of Mass Effect 3.

If you're arguing against all the reasons people state that they don't like the ending it logically follows that you have to be taking the counterpoint that you think these reasons are unfounded and that they're well constructed.

Otherwise, why bother?

Speaking of which, you haven't watched the vid. It explains everything there about Genre and why the Synthesis ending is out of place. Make a post arguing against those reasons if you think they unjustified.

Additional reaper motivation junk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaRdcVYTjRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWuF...eature=related
Apart from a handful of things you could possibly link to the 'kill organic life to preserve it' plan they supposedly have. Nothing of this works with the ending.

Harvesting all life. To save us, except only humanity. No other life is considered useful, the Geth are tools to be discarded. Makes sense.

[Langy]

EDIT@Langy: we have genetic computers made from DNA in our time. What's to say that they don't form the basis of at least a few technology types by the time of Mass Effect?

Additionally, a DNA sequence can be represented abstractly by a set of formulae. This can be stored on a computer or transmitted via technology based on traditional computers. If you can take apart something at the molecular level or at the very least, influence it in some way (see: brain chemistry alteration in indoctrination) which the Reapers apparently can why is it so hard to believe that the Crucible allows this to happen? A focusing device and/or power amplifier would be all that's required, no?

Also, by your logic mass effect fields are flawed because they require Element Zero to function. That's about as unlikely as a magic superweapon (the Crucible). What you're asking of the Crucible is akin to asking the atomic makeup of Eezo and then complaining that such an element can't be synthesised.

Just because computers can use DNA doesn't mean that they do. The Synthesis ending makes it so all computers and other electronics get 'biological DNA' and all humans get 'robotic DNA'.

Sure, if all electronics in the Mass Effect universe actually used DNA or something similar this might make some sort of sense, but that's never mentioned and is a stupid idea to begin with.

And no, what I'm saying isn't anywhere near akin to asking for the atomic makeup of eezo (which is just neutronium, or pure neutrons no protons, hence why it's called 'element zero'). What I'm saying is that 'we have toasters now; toasters do not have any sort of DNA and if they did, giving me their DNA would not suddenly make me be friends with my toaster. Claiming that a toaster has DNA and that it's going to get my DNA and I'm going to get its DNA makes no sense and does not solve the conflict that you say exists and have no evidence for and a ton of evidence against'.

[Gorb]

@Fixer: I can't load YouTube videos on this connection - not even joking. Spent five days downloading DoW - Dark Crusade at about 50kb/s

I have been criticising bad criticism when it is founded on arguments that don't necessarily make sense and using logic that can applied to other parts of the game (but mysteriously aren't). Which you may understand if you read and replied to my posts which reply to you, instead of disappearing for a few posts and then starting on something else that is said.

Which is fair enough, if you're bored of all this, but I'm equally bored of the mindless hate where you say someone you've said before and link something you've linked before. As much as you want to vent (get a blog, perhaps?), venting doesn't make for much constructive discussion.

Finally, I'm not arguing against all of the things people don't like. Merely some. Again, Fixer, it's like you're not bothering to read anything I write.

@Langy: but they can use DNA, something that contradicts your initial point on the topic. If Synthesis generates artificial 'DNA' for inorganics and splices the two to create a hybrid entity . . . how is this outside of the realms of science fiction whereby people can break the fundamental laws of physics by playing with a magical unexplained element (bonus points for not calling it Element X, I guess?)?

Also, as I'm not amazing great with chemistry anymore, could you expand on the subject of neutronium? I'm trying to get some kind of constructive discussion out of this as people are still continuing to ignore large swathes of my posts. I thought I had a good thing going with Renegade/Paragon and Destroy/Synthesis (and how Synthesis fixes things in my opinion).

[Langy]

Your criticism of our criticism is what's bad, Gorb. Maybe you should go talk to yourself about that.

[FriendlyFire]

The only thing I'll say is that "space magic" is just about required for every bloody science-fiction book, game or movie, because you know, it's science-fiction. If you were to only use tech we already have, you'd have some fucking boring stuff in your hands.

The fact people seem to use the derogative term "space magic" to talk about any and all occurrence of it is slightly annoying.

[Fixer]

@Fixer: I can't load YouTube videos on this connection - not even joking. Spent five days downloading DoW - Dark Crusade at about 50kb/s

Okay...

So it all starts with universe building.
When you create a universe for your story you impose certain limits on what can or what cannot happen. You set the genre and the tone for everything else.

Mass Effect was set as a fairly hard sci fi universe where it was effectively set in a Universe much like our own but there was one additional element. Element zero, which allowed technology to exploit the Mass Effect. This was the important pivotal point of this universe and how it differs from our own. Important enough that it's the actual name of the series.

In the year 2148, explorers on Mars discovered the remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization.
In the decades that followed, these mysterious artifacts revealed startling new technologies, enabling travel to the furthest stars.
The basis for this incredible technology was a force that controlled the very fabric of space and time.
They called it the greatest discovery in human history.
The civilizations of the galaxy call it...
MASS EFFECT

It was well though out, explained in depth and connected. All of the technology in the game follows through these rules laid down when the Universe was built. Mass Effect fields explain how the guns work, how ships can cheat the speed of light limit imposed on the galaxy. Why ship barriers only function against physical weapons, how some advanced materials are made.

The rest of the technology that's in the universe is realistic extrapolation from our current existing technology. Artificial intelligence, entanglement communication, quantum computing. All based in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Look at the Thanix Cannon. This is a reverse engineered weapon from Reaper tech, basically a scaled down version of Sovereign's gun. It still obeys all the rules:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Thanix
Even the Reapers as advanced as they are, are not so advanced that they can break the universe and others can copy/use their technology because they follow the same laws.

Throughout the entire series the only things that stand out as pushing the limits were Biotics, which were kinda weakly explained on how they worked but still obeyed the rules of mass effect fields. They dealt with manipulating force. And Indoctrination which is performed by various insidious means. They were still handled well enough that this doesn't push the audience's willing suspension of belief.

The Synthesis ending is on an entirely different level.
Apparently this device can let out a cloud of green energy which changes DNA. Not only that but apparently it's intelligent enough to change the DNA of trillions of different species without destroying them, but also to integrate biology into machines. Somehow it can alter DNA in such a way that it gives organics the benefits of machines and machines now get something that makes them alive and this solves a problem which is only introduced by a hologram kid which contradicts everything you've seen before...

If you've heard about radiation sickness you should know why changing DNA on any level is dangerous. DNA is basically programming for chemistry, there's no code for an arm or a leg. You can't just cut and past a gene for wings from a bird and graft them onto a human being because there are no codes for wings. DNA has a massive amount of information but cannot account for the location of every blood vessel or muscle strand in a creature. Screwing up the genetic code of a bunch of cells can cause them to replicate out of control, or genetic diseases can be passed onto the next generation which can lead to horrible malformations. Google image search radiation malformation. Not pretty.

A machine that changes the genetic makeup and chemistry of every being in the galaxy will have to physically transmute matter which is an ability nothing has shown before, then do it in a smart enough way that it can change everything in the galaxy then give them the supposed advantages that there's no more distinction between machine and man. The technology, processing power and knowledge to do this to a single individual, let alone a species, is staggering. Not only that but the problem it solves and the way it supposedly solves it is nonsensical.

How is it explained? It isn't. It simply does it.

Into Mass Effect's hard science fiction, well documented, explained and in depth universe you have just thrown a device which can do pretty much anything for no reason to solve a supposed problem in a way that makes no sense. It breaks the rules of the universe that have been laid down beforehand and it's a cheat created by poor writing.

It's a Genre busting device. It's as out of place in Mass Effect as some guy pulling out a cell phone in Lord of the Rings.

This is why we can accept Mass Effect based tech, they're science fiction because they obey the rules of the Universe. The Synthesis ending is magic because it breaks all of them.

[JAL-18]

Finished the game last night with the Extended Cut, chose Synthesis, I am satisfied. Spent nearly 100 hours of my life with these people, by the end I didn't care what happened to the rest of the galaxy, I wanted Garrus, Miranda, Joker, EDI, Vega, and Wrex to live and be happy. I'm glad I saved the galaxy and stopped the cycle. Be at peace, Javik the Last Prothean. I miss Tali, Mordin, Thane, and Legion. Rest in peace my friends.

Fly, Normandy!

[Starblade]

Paragon says "take him on board Sovereign and indoctrinate him", no?

Are you still sure he's indoctrinated and Shepard isn't full of shit? It seems less clear to me now, since he was right about basically everything. Shoot Nihilus? Yeah, a renegade would do that. They shoot loads of people for less.

[Kirjava]

Correction: they electrocute people for less.

"You're workin' too hard."

[Lautaro]

If they wanted to explain Synthesis better they could have said that the green cloud were trillions and trillions of nanomachines that could adapt to every sentient being they found, study it and transform it.

[Gorb]

Indeed Lautaro Heck, I'm extrapolating (i.e. offering my own interpretation) with rewriting DNA and whatnot.

Your criticism of our criticism is what's bad, Gorb. Maybe you should go talk to yourself about that.

Oh how I wish I could ignore what people post and try and bait them instead. Quality discussion Langy, let's do it again sometime.

Okay...

So it all starts with universe building.
When you create a universe for your story you impose certain limits on what can or what cannot happen. You set the genre and the tone for everything else.

Mass Effect was set as a fairly hard sci fi universe where it was effectively set in a Universe much like our own but there was one additional element. Element zero, which allowed technology to exploit the Mass Effect. This was the important pivotal point of this universe and how it differs from our own. Important enough that it's the actual name of the series.

It was well though out, explained in depth and connected. All of the technology in the game follows through these rules laid down when the Universe was built. Mass Effect fields explain how the guns work, how ships can cheat the speed of light limit imposed on the galaxy. Why ship barriers only function against physical weapons, how some advanced materials are made.

The rest of the technology that's in the universe is realistic extrapolation from our current existing technology. Artificial intelligence, entanglement communication, quantum computing. All based in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Look at the Thanix Cannon. This is a reverse engineered weapon from Reaper tech, basically a scaled down version of Sovereign's gun. It still obeys all the rules:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Thanix
Even the Reapers as advanced as they are, are not so advanced that they can break the universe and others can copy/use their technology because they follow the same laws.

Throughout the entire series the only things that stand out as pushing the limits were Biotics, which were kinda weakly explained on how they worked but still obeyed the rules of mass effect fields. They dealt with manipulating force. And Indoctrination which is performed by various insidious means. They were still handled well enough that this doesn't push the audience's willing suspension of belief.

The Synthesis ending is on an entirely different level.
Apparently this device can let out a cloud of green energy which changes DNA. Not only that but apparently it's intelligent enough to change the DNA of trillions of different species without destroying them, but also to integrate biology into machines. Somehow it can alter DNA in such a way that it gives organics the benefits of machines and machines now get something that makes them alive and this solves a problem which is only introduced by a hologram kid which contradicts everything you've seen before...

If you've heard about radiation sickness you should know why changing DNA on any level is dangerous. DNA is basically programming for chemistry, there's no code for an arm or a leg. You can't just cut and past a gene for wings from a bird and graft them onto a human being because there are no codes for wings. DNA has a massive amount of information but cannot account for the location of every blood vessel or muscle strand in a creature. Screwing up the genetic code of a bunch of cells can cause them to replicate out of control, or genetic diseases can be passed onto the next generation which can lead to horrible malformations. Google image search radiation malformation. Not pretty.

A machine that changes the genetic makeup and chemistry of every being in the galaxy will have to physically transmute matter which is an ability nothing has shown before, then do it in a smart enough way that it can change everything in the galaxy then give them the supposed advantages that there's no more distinction between machine and man. The technology, processing power and knowledge to do this to a single individual, let alone a species, is staggering. Not only that but the problem it solves and the way it supposedly solves it is nonsensical.

How is it explained? It isn't. It simply does it.

Into Mass Effect's hard science fiction, well documented, explained and in depth universe you have just thrown a device which can do pretty much anything for no reason to solve a supposed problem in a way that makes no sense. It breaks the rules of the universe that have been laid down beforehand and it's a cheat created by poor writing.

It's a Genre busting device. It's as out of place in Mass Effect as some guy pulling out a cell phone in Lord of the Rings.

This is why we can accept Mass Effect based tech, they're science fiction because they obey the rules of the Universe. The Synthesis ending is magic because it breaks all of them.

Barring the minor disagreements with the scale of science fiction and how realistic/'hard' it is (honestly I think there's a lot of handwaving), you are attempting to explain DNA manipulation using current technology and human understanding. It's like explaining 'blue box' AIs with our current understanding of quantum mechanics and hardware knowledge. It simply isn't possible (and I don't think we're near quantum computing yet).

Sure, they extrapolate a bit (but not a lot. How did they break through into the field of applying quantum physics? How did they refactor hardware progression to account for this?). Sure, Synthesis kinda just 'happens'. Would you be happier if Synthesis got a Codex entry that was automatically unlocked after your first successful playthrough of the game (for all subsequent careers)? This is an honest question, I'm simply trying to gauge what annoys you about it.

Also, mass effect fields do not obey the laws of the Universe. They break physics. You generate energy out of nothing. An Adept doesn't (apparently) require to be hooked up to an IV of liquid Eezo to function. He or she simply manipulates the existing fields of reality using whatever implants have been given to him or her (L2 through to L5, as I recall - how on earth do they work again?).

Also, a small point. We're not grafting arms and legs here. We're recombining different forms of DNA to create a being that is wholly infused with another type of matter. It's probably actually easier than going "grow a leg in this specific point". It's recreating an individual from the ground up, using their existing template, but with D+ZNA instead of DNA or ZNA ('ZNA' being inorganic 'DNA'. I would use 'XNA' but I swear that exists already ).

I'm not disagreeing that the Catalyst's arguments are apparently stupid or contradictary. I'm not saying stuff couldn't have been explained better. But given the lengths you are going to to explain the setting of Mass Effect and how ME fields are "acceptable" . . . could you see how I'm approaching this from the other side?

EDIT: apologies Fixer, wanted to thank you for replying. As much of a collosal ass people must be thinking I am, I just want to create some kind of constructive discussion about the subject (even if it's done before, because imo it's better than bitching that's been done before ).

[FriendlyFire]

Not trying to argue either for or against here, but I have to say that sometimes attempting to ground things in reality just ends up making things looking more absurd. As someone who knows a bit about quantum computing, all the handwaving surrounding quantum computing and QM is making me cringe in Mass Effect. I'd rather have had a brand new technology/discovery/thingy (like, off the top of my head, Stargate's ZPM) that's totally and unconditionally science-fiction, but at least doesn't go against everything we know so far.

For instance, quantum entanglement does NOT allow communication at FTL speeds. The only way to transmit information with entanglement is through teleportation, but teleportation requires classical information to be transmitted (at the speed of light, ideally) in order for the resulting data to be even usable. It's no better, for the purpose of communication as seen in the game, than a radio. For the use of entanglement to be logical, you'd either have to make up more and more detailed explanations that devolve into absurdly complicated theories (since, after all, we don't know how to do it!) or you need to go against what we know.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but as I said, I'd rather have something unashamedly sci-fi than something that just throws science-y words around and prays it looks convincing. That's not to say I find the idea of Synthesis any better, since that goes a little too far into space magic for my tastes and doesn't really fit into the rest of the universe.

[Rivy]

Finished it (again) half an hour ago. I chose control this time, because of the extra explanations the starchild gives you. I'm a lot more satisfied, but it is still not good enough :<
Plot holes the size of star systems are still abundant, and the starchild's explanation now makes even less sense than before.

(And it's still not "a thing beyond your comprehension").

[Gorb]

Not trying to argue either for or against here, but I have to say that sometimes attempting to ground things in reality just ends up making things looking more absurd. As someone who knows a bit about quantum computing, all the handwaving surrounding quantum computing and QM is making me cringe in Mass Effect. I'd rather have had a brand new technology/discovery/thingy (like, off the top of my head, Stargate's ZPM) that's totally and unconditionally science-fiction, but at least doesn't go against everything we know so far.

For instance, quantum entanglement does NOT allow communication at FTL speeds. The only way to transmit information with entanglement is through teleportation, but teleportation requires classical information to be transmitted (at the speed of light, ideally) in order for the resulting data to be even usable. It's no better, for the purpose of communication as seen in the game, than a radio. For the use of entanglement to be logical, you'd either have to make up more and more detailed explanations that devolve into absurdly complicated theories (since, after all, we don't know how to do it!) or you need to go against what we know.

It's a pet peeve of mine, but as I said, I'd rather have something unashamedly sci-fi than something that just throws science-y words around and prays it looks convincing. That's not to say I find the idea of Synthesis any better, since that goes a little too far into space magic for my tastes and doesn't really fit into the rest of the universe.

Agreed. I don't know nearly enough about quantum computing, but for example artificial intelligence is something I'd like to think I knew a bit about. The only difference between an AI in Mass Effect and what people do with regards to building 'AI' systems these days (for the Turing prize, among other things) is this magical quantum computing device that generates a magical new personality based on the same data set every time it's instantiated.

That is perhaps why I get so annoyed at Synthesis being called "too much" with regards to Space Magic when there are plenty of other things that are, in my opinion, just as bad (but are required for the game to exist).

EDIT: this is not me shoehorning FF's post into a "LOOK HE AGREES WITH ME". Was just explaining what (I think) this pet peeve of mine apparently is.

[Langy]

Other people obviously have different definitions of what is 'too bad', Gorb. You should stop trying to force everyone to accept your opinion and accept that we differ.

[Master Chief]

Biotics are cool because they're the Force and I just slam-dunked a dude off a cliff with my mind. Zipping around the galaxy with our superspeed spaceship and blowing up bad guys is a fun adventure and we get to talk to our pals Anderson and Hackett. A big green zappy field that turned all Husks alive and made Joker's hat the new president of Earth is a bit lower on the list of "cool stuff Mass Effect would suffer from not having." At least the red field blows shit up. I'm not personally a fan of Control and it's also pretty weird.

[Gorb]

Where am I forcing anyone to accept anything, Langy?

Some of us are trying for a constructive debate here; try not to derail.

[Langy]

Your method of 'constructive debate' is very similar to saying 'you are doing it wrong!', Gorb. See, for example, your comments about it being hypocritical to have a problem with the Synthesis ending while accepting mass effect fields. Refusing to believe that other people have different limits on their suspension of disbelief than you do is not at all conducive to a constructive debate.

[Starblade]

While I'm thinking about it, Synthesis is also dumb because there's nothing stopping Brute Everyscientist from getting sick of his spaceship talking shit about him behind his back when they go to the new giant space nightclubs that need to be built to account for all the newly alive and newly bored spaceships and just building entirely electronic VIs again (maybe Spaceship Everyscientist would do this, actually. Let's not be racist here.). Or are VI's now essentially brain damaged shells? It would also suck to be one of the several billion Geth that are now organic but can't inhabit a body, because there aren't enough to go around and won't be for a while. They only had several million platforms for the billions to trillions of Geth there were (before the Quarians started genociding). How would that even work for the Geth anyway? Are the platforms organic? Are the Geth themselves entirely unchanged? This is getting more fucked up the more I think about it.

[Gorb]

Your method of 'constructive debate' is very similar to saying 'you are doing it wrong!', Gorb. See, for example, your comments about it being hypocritical to have a problem with the Synthesis ending while accepting mass effect fields. Refusing to believe that other people have different limits on their suspension of disbelief than you do is not at all conducive to a constructive debate.

If you are basing your arguments on flawed assumptions, then yes, you are doing it wrong.

As am I if I do the same.

For example, assuming that the Synthesis ending is Bad because your suspension of disbelief is lower than someone elses' is, well, petty. But fine. Calling it Bad because Bioware are Bad Writers and your suspension of disbelief should be adhered to because other people are expected to know what your personal limit is is rather far-fetched and not indicative of the issues with the Synthesis ending or even indicative of peoples' issues with the ending(s) in general.

EDIT@Starblade: stuff to be explored "post-ending", no? Assuming the universe continues to exist (in the absence of "Shepard's story" that was Mass Effect), that is.

[Kirjava]

This debate is going around in circles, and has been since the original thread. Any chance we can make closing arguments and find another game with an ending to argue endlessly about?

[Starblade]

EDIT@Starblade: stuff to be explored "post-ending", no? Assuming the universe continues to exist (in the absence of "Shepard's story" that was Mass Effect), that is.

I don't think I ever said otherwise, though Bioware's stated repeatedly they aren't doing anything that takes place after ME3 (this will last until they decide they want more money, I'm sure). I said it was dumb, horrifying and pretty messed up the more you think about that ending. Kind of want to see a Brute in a lab coat with a pair of glasses now though.

[FriendlyFire]

After thinking about it some more, I believe I've isolated what made the Synthesis ending bad for me personally.

I'd been introduced to all the concepts within Mass Effect early on. I'd come to accept the possible incongruities of the universe thanks to the interesting characters and storyline. I had assimilated it and was willing to believe in a universe based off these initial flawed concepts.

The problem with the Synthesis ending was that it introduced new concepts *in the ending* which could not be tied back to what we knew before. That is what made it jarring, for me.

[Jonny]

Also, mass effect fields do not obey the laws of the Universe. They break physics. You generate energy out of nothing. An Adept doesn't (apparently) require to be hooked up to an IV of liquid Eezo to function. He or she simply manipulates the existing fields of reality using whatever implants have been given to him or her (L2 through to L5, as I recall - how on earth do they work again?).

I believe he meant that they obey the laws of the Mass Effect Universe, not the real universe. In the ME universe if you run a positive charge through a chunk of Element Zero it generates a field increasing the mass of it's surroundings, if you run a negative charge through it that field decreases the mass of it's surroundings. All of the ME technological mumbo jumbo follows those rules as if they were actual physical laws, even the handwavy biotics only stretch incredulity without breaking it, they don't read minds or generate ice out of nothing, they create and manipulate fields of differing mass. This is following the consistent laws of the Mass Effect universe as laid down throughout the series.

The Synthesis ending, on the other hand, follows no known laws set down during the series. The very concept of fusing organic and artificial "DNA" was never mentioned before, unless you count mulching people down into Reapers. It's not just a case of suspension of disbelief, quantum entanglement, FTL, Quantum AIs and Mass Effect fields are all "real" and grounded in the series. In contrast a green field fusing organic and synthetic DNA into a new organism is completely alien to the setting with no prior groundwork laid for it's existence.

To steal an analogy from before, at the end of Lord of the Rings no-one bats an eyelid at Frodo being rescued by a wizard flying on a giant eagle because even though it's completely impossible it fits in the universe the story is set. If, however, Frodo had used a quantum entanglement communicator to call in a shuttle and extract him to his orbiting mothership it would have been completely ridiculous, despite both being equal in terms of suspension of disbelief.

[Codex]

Nice analogy.

TL;DR: Introducing plot elements and explanations out of the blue at the end of anything will result in a jarring effect. That's what they're guilty of, not that they were coming up with something that can only be explained by Space Magic.

(And it's still not "a thing beyond your comprehension").

That would kinda defeat the point of giving it an explanation and trying to explain the Reaper's presence. So let's just take it as a given that it isn't beyond our comprehension.

[Rivy]

I know. But then they should have kept that line out of ME3.

[Codex]

Agreed.