The ending failed to do the reapers justice (Destiny)

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 11:34 (3303 days ago) @ Durandal

The reapers were defeated because of a cut scene, a deus ex machina. The monstrosities presented in ME1 and 2 are horrifying creatures of near supernatural power that farm sentient life in the universe as part of their life cycle. The idea that mankind is nothing more then livestock awaiting the slaughter, just as all life before them is a powerful plot point.

Up to ME3, humanity has bought some breathing room. You delay the invasion by defeating Sovereign, you further delay it when you defeat the collectors. While individually powerful, the Reaper's plan in part relies on surprise and domination of easy interstellar travel and communication. Without those things they can be fought. You've proved they are mortal, still bound by physics in the prior series.

ME3 pissed everyone off because you have in theory united the forces of the galaxy (paragon) or forged humanity into a shield (renegade) in preparation for this conflict. They add in this mysterious weapon that has been passed down by the generations of races before you, each iteration improving it before succumbing. Humanity is the Dune "supreme being", fulfilling a darwinian struggle against the implacable machine foe.

Except they really weren't, which was kind of the point. What I personally find unfulfilling is that kind of ethnocentrism-- the idea that there are all these interesting life forms in the galaxy, but humanity is the important one. Human supremacism is also a big theme in the games as well, and I think it would be kind of weird, especially given the events of ME2 and ME3, to expect that all you needed was the right kind of human supremacism and everything would be OK.

Except a wizard did it. The computer just kind of says "oh, everything everyone's done up to this point is part of my plan. I will now allow you to press an easy button to select one of my 3 chosen paths. Oh, and those paths really only differ in the color people glow at the end."

From a technical and aesthetic viewpoint, yes, all that changed was "the color of the people". If you think about all the conflicts presented in Mass Effect as being racial conflicts, that statement means something else. The conflicts in ME are presented as irresolvable at least in part because they are based on membership in groups, and that membership is static and unchanging. Geth are Geth; Quarians are Quarians; Turians are Turians, Asari are Asari, Krogan are Krogan, and Humans are Humans. As long as the members of each group align their interests with members of their group and solely with the members of that group, conflict is inevitable.

People keep complaining that the game didn't let them solve it another way because the game is there to tell you that there isn't. That's what it was leading up to all along. That was the point of it. The only way the problem is solved-- the only ways those problems have ever been solved, historically, is by one side so defeating the other that only the victors exist, or have any autonomy. Problem solved; there is no conflict between Group A and Group B because Group B no longer exists in a meaningful way.

You can create this scenario either by genocide or by complete assimilation; whether you view the Reaper solution as one or the other depends largely on your perspective. The ending where humanity takes the place of the Reapers is just a modification of this.

ME1 and 2 had spot on endings. ME3's is a joke, a last ditch attempt to be artsy and hip because they felt they had written themselves into a cliche corner. Shepard might as well have asked Tali to reverse the polarity of the Citadel's deflector dish. That's why people hated it.

I really don't know what to say to you. What would you have liked? What kind of ending would have satisfied you, but also been true to the exploration of the themes all three games were trying to explore?

Because this complaint sounds a lot to me like someone who watches Evangelion until the end and then wants to know why the final episodes didn't show you what happened to the giant robots. The point is that it was never about the giant robots (yes I know they aren't robots, I'm being reductionist on purpose).

If you haven't seen the show this comparison won't mean much, but the parallels are there: a popular story that plays with a lot of standard narrative tropes, and then the ending reveals that the surface layer wasn't the important thing, the underlying themes were-- and that's where the resolution needed to happen.

ME3's fusion ending suggests that the only way to eliminate perpetual conflict between synthetic and organic life was to disallow any member of the group "life" from siding entirely with one side or the other. This also ends up solving the conflict between different species of organic life, since presumably they also now have something in common, something they could never have in common outside of that ending-- the synthetic side of their natures.

Lots of choices in Mass Effect take their effect contextually. They're not on-screen, it's the information you're given through other channels that contextualizes what you see.

Bioware didn't screw up. They didn't paint themselves into a corner, they didn't screw the pooch. They executed on a plan people didn't like because they got so caught up in the surface nature of the story-- pew pew and robots and aliens-- that they didn't care about the real ending when it came.

I not only liked ME3's ending, I sort of can't imagine that story ending any other way that wouldn't feel like cheating.

Failed to do the Reapers justice? Quite the contrary. To suggest that they could have been placated or defeated if you had just shot a few more in the face-- you know, to give the player agency-- is not doing them justice.

That's how I felt about it, anyway.