If you still have your ME1 playthrough or a completed ME2 playthrough, you can keep all of the choices from 1 and make different decisions in 2.

Speaking of importing, do any of the N7 missions in ME 2 have any effect at all on ME 3?

Nope. They're completely irrelevant.

I at least expected those three or so sidequests where you save entire colonies from dying to matter.

If just replacing the entire ending sequence isn't an option, I'd like one simple dialogue option with the Catalyst: "How do you explain your own existence if synthetics and organics will always kill each other?". I'd also like to say to the Catalyst "Synthetics. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think you it means." and an option to be a total dick to Joker for leaving me to die. Other than those, I agree with lrrose's choices.

edited 15th Dec '12 2:20:25 PM by CPFMfan

Hey look, I found an article that isn't insulting fans or worshiping game writers.

http://www.gamefront.com/the-mass-effect-3-ending-dlc-probably-wont-fix-anything/

I pretty much had the same opinion listening to the interview.

I agree. There's a difference between a story encouraging the player to think and reflect and a story that demands it in order to fill plotholes and other storytelling flaws.

In that interview they seem to be going with "people are upset because ME 3 didn't have a happy ending, and I don't know why this happened, we didn't want to imply that everyone starves to death!", which is offensive since a lot of us (us: people that criticize the ending) don't believe that downer or bittersweet endings are inherently bad (this is a common and useful tactic, at the face of a lot of criticism, address the weaker one and the one that depends on personal taste). Incidentally I like the idea of defeating the Reapers but Shepard dying, or everyone dying and flinging a light into the future.

I think this is born of the desire to be artsy (which is not wrong) and a misconception (which is wrong). This misconception is the belief that if the work makes you think then it means that it doesn't spell everything out for the player and thus it's deeper. The problem is that there are different types of "thinking about the work", and not all of them are positive. Speculation from everyone is not good if it's the result of bad storytelling.

Unrelated: I hope the EC introduces an ending where the Reapers win, like it was promised

edited 23rd Jun '12 11:49:44 AM by Anfauglith

Synthesis.

Heheheheh

Yep, this is what happens when one allows their ego to get the best of them.

It is also, I repeat, not the job of the player to fill in holes in the story. If the writer can't be bothered to answer any of the plot failures, and expects the player to make up their own answers, than that truly says something about the quality of the writing.

There is a fine line between making an ambiguous ending, and just not caring to have it make sense. Sadly, ME 3 falls into the latter.

There's so much wrong with this.

1. The Reapers weren't attacking the Citadel, so Shepard was in no risk of being "blown to shit".
2. "Blow us to shit"? Really? So the Catalyst is suddenly in danger now? Da fuk?
3. Yeah, none of what you're saying there matters. If I'm going to press a button that's going to wipe out galactic civilization, I need a little more than "Everything's gonna be fine, I think. Nevermind that my logic is demonstrably flawed."

Seriously, please build better strawmen.

To play Devil's Advocate, the Reapers were trying to destroy the Crucible. If you take like 5 minutes to choose, you get a game over screen that says "the Crucible has been destroyed" instead of the usual crap. The rest of your arguments still stand. Just pointing this out so lilyx's answer does not focus on this.

---

I have a loosely related question, if the Reapers were able to destroy the Crucible, why did the Catalyst rescue Shepard via the elevator and made him choose? Why does the presence of Shepard prove that his solution does not work? If the Catalyst didn't interact with Shepard, Shep would have died next to Anderson and the fleet and the Crucible would have been destroyed, thus the Cycles would be allowed to continue.

I never understood this.

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:04:39 PM by Anfauglith

If you feel that way, try standing around for a few minutes and see what happens.

Also, you may want to consider that people can be right about some things and wrong about others. Obviously none of the choices would wipe out galatic civilization, as neither the Crucible or the Catalyst were created to do so.

I didn't come up with my opinion that the majority of the ending hatedom is based on ignorance out of nowhere.

edited 24th Jun '12 3:52:33 PM by lilyxlightning

I could say the same about the fan dumb, because 99% of your arguments use flawed logic and are outright wrong, and the other great exponent of your opinion is a vandal. Please try not to shift this into personal attacks, and please try not to show hypocrisy.

You keep stubbornly insisting about this point. First, the Catalyst lists the 3 options as "solutions", therefore the story itself acknowledges that it will affect organics vs synthetics somehow. Secondly, we use common sense and realize that if an organic has the immensely powerful Reaper Armada under his power, organics won't be so easily wiped out. Do I have to refute this every time it comes up? You invoked this argument about 6 times in the last 2 days. The game itself proves you wrong.

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:16:41 PM by Anfauglith

Really looking forward to our third (fourth?) thread lock.

Yay, I finally did it. Look at this quote of lilyx's

I won. This is wrong. If you believe this, it explains your thoughts about this and other parts of the endings.

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:22:06 PM by Anfauglith

I'm kind of upset that Grunt's bait-and-switch "death" made me cry more than Mordin's.

Maybe Grunt's had sadder music playing.

Continued from

Look:

---

Catalyst: "I control the Reapers. They are my solution"

Shepard: "Solution to what?"

C: "Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."

S: "By wiping out organic life?"

C: "No. We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive when we were here"

S: "But you killed the rest"

C: "We helped them ascend, so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form"

S: "I think we'd rather keep our own form".

C: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We created the Cycles so that never happens. That's the solution".

S: "But you are taking away our future. Without a future, we have no hope. Without hope, we may as well be machines, programmed to do what we are told"

C: "You have hope. More than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. It also proves my solution won't work anymore".

---

See, you misunderstood the entire thing, and this is the core of the problems in your arguments, and perhaps the reason you have such arguments.

Now I have demonstrated my points. The whole quote

is objectively wrong, like I always said.

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:34:59 PM by Anfauglith

I just watched that video you linked to yesterday, Anfa.

For all of the arguing that the choices you're given are the Catalyst's solutions, it completely ignores the fact that the Catalyst says that Destroy wouldn't stop its "problem" permanently—it believes that the next generation would create new synthetics.

So clearly, there's an option that the Catalyst does not consider a solution to its "problem" of organics vs. synthetics.

So, in other words, ignoring key parts of the story in order to have a reason to condemn it.

(Didn't remember the exact words that the Catalyst used. Which is a good thing, because those words say a lot.)

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:36:31 PM by lilyxlightning

Welcome to our ranks, lilyx. You have just indirectly criticized the Catalyst's logic.

---

Catalyst: "I control the Reapers. They are my solution"

Shepard: "Solution to what?"

C: "Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."

S: "By wiping out organic life?"

C: "No. We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive when we were here"

S: "But you killed the rest"

C: "We helped them ascend, so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form"

S: "I think we'd rather keep our own form".

C: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We created the Cycles so that never happens. That's the solution".

S: "But you are taking away our future. Without a future, we have no hope. Without hope, we may as well be machines, programmed to do what we are told"

C: "You have hope. More than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. It also proves my solution won't work anymore".

S: "So now what?"

C: "We find a new solution"

---

'Tis clear by the above conversation how the Catalyst still believes the problem is organics vs synthetics and lists the 3 options as "new solutions". If you believe one of them is not a solution, then you have criticized the ending.

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:43:30 PM by Anfauglith

Can you two just shut up and screw eachother already?

Or the Catalyst is allowing Shepard to make the choice they want to make, regardless of whether or not the Catalyst agrees with it.

The Catalyst is allowing Shepard to choose their solution.

You misunderstand... The Catalyst accepts that the Reapers won't work, so something must happen. It gives Shepard the Destroy option, but then says all responsibility of new synthetics being built and destroying the galaxy is all on Shepard(and it believes such a thing will happen).

The catalyst gives Shepard an option it is adamant won't work because Shepard can think of no other solutions(From what I gathered from the conversation, the Catalyst can read minds)... It offers two other options as well. In one, the Catalyst claims the result will eventually be Shepard coming around to the Catalyst's way of thinking, and the Reapers being ordered by Shepard to return and continue the cycle... And the other is Synthesis.

The Catalyst literally tells Shepard that the first two options (Control and Destroy) aren't solutions, but offers them because they are the only known solutions Shepard's mind can come up with... The Catalyst comes up with Synthesis on its own, and implies it's the only way to solve the problems forever(because everything would be synthetic and organic at the same time)... But ultimately leaves the decision to Shepard because *insert reason here*...

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:46:01 PM by Swish

He clearly states how the Cycles are the solution to the "synthetics wiping out organics" problem, and then says they need to find a new solution [to the synthetics wiping out organis problem].

Your thoughts do not fit with what happens in the game, as shown by the quote. Let me demonstrate:

---

Catalyst: "I control the Reapers. They are my solution"

Shepard: "Solution to what?" [here Shepard asks what this solution a solution of]

C: "Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."

S: "By wiping out organic life?"

C: "No. We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive when we were here"

S: "But you killed the rest"

C: "We helped them ascend, so they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form"

S: "I think we'd rather keep our own form".

C: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We created the Cycles so that never happens. That's the solution". [Here the Catalyst explains leaving no room for doubt]

S: "But you are taking away our future. Without a future, we have no hope. Without hope, we may as well be machines, programmed to do what we are told"

C: "You have hope. More than you think. The fact that you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. It also proves my solution won't work anymore".

S: "So now what?"

C: "We find a new solution" [Here the Catalyst says they need a new solution, and like it was explained above leaving no room for doubt, the solution is about the synthetic vs organic problem]

---

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:48:59 PM by Anfauglith

One could interpret that as saying "there's a problem, we need to fix it". Merely because the Catalyst uses the word "solution" in one context does not mean that every usage of the word "solution" applies exclusively to its "problem". That would explain why the Catalyst presents you with one option that it says will not work and another that does nothing to alter the balance between organic and synthetic life.

Only one of the options is a permanent solution to its "problem". The Catalyst tells you that it feels that Synthesis is the best choice.

And then the Catalyst leaves you free to disagree with it.

edited 23rd Jun '12 12:50:54 PM by lilyxlightning