Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut [Spoilers]

[OmegaChief]

While I don't agree with them, some people think Shepples basically re-writing the minds of the Reapers to not be a good thing to do for some reason, similar to brainwashing or mind control I guess?

Similiar to how some people didn't see the 'Rewire the Geth' as being the Paragon choice in Legions Loyalty mission in ME2.

[Imperial528]

While I don't agree with them, some people think Shepples basically re-writing the minds of the Reapers to not be a good thing to do for some reason, similar to brainwashing or mind control I guess?

Similiar to how some people didn't see the 'Rewire the Geth' as being the Paragon choice in Legions Loyalty mission in ME2.

I can see that with the reapers. Although they've done it to so many countless species I can't see a reason why we should have any moral hesitation, especially in the face of, well, a reaper invasion. With the Geth, on the other hand.... Well, my thoughts on that is that it's one thing to have Shep and company expressing reservations about mind wiping, and then making killing them the renegade choice. Honestly the writers fell short there, since with the set up both of the choices could be paragon or renegade depending on how you approach it*. Especially since either way, you're going to kill them, if not physically then mentally. But that would require more effort.

*I was really pissed on my second play through where I decided to just blow them up instead of doing the rewrite, and despite all the moral hangups present throughout the entire mission about whether or not rewriting them was acceptable, when I chose to blow them up, Shep's like "Fuck these guys, kill kill kill!" Well, not exactly that, but it was extremely aggressive compared to the previous moral reservations. It would have been as easy to add another two options like "It's not right to change who they are" and "Killing them is wrong when they can have a second chance" for paragon choices and changing the existing options to something like "They're worthless against the reapers if they're dead" and "Good riddance" for renegade options.

But then it's also possible they were trying to portray the Geth from the first game as sympathetic villains just to build up to the whole "Organic VS AI" thing, and didn't realize how the choices they offered lacked depth and ended up being quite cumbersome.

On that topic...

When did the whole Life VS Machines thing come up anyway? I know it's been a theme in sci-fi forever (give or take), and that there was a quest in ME1 with an AI on the citadel that has such attitudes. I haven't played ME3 yet, but it didn't seem too prevalent in ME2 (well, discounting DLC), and really just seemed to be a sideplot sort of thing compared to, well, the reapers. And then the endings of ME3 pretty much involve a direct choice on the matter. Maybe it became more relevant along the course of ME3, it just seemed out of the blue when I read of it.

That and it's a brain bug I tire of constantly.

[Nephtys]

That's the problem. It's NOT a theme of Mass Effect.

Yes, Geth were the main enemies in ME1. But the game also explicitly had Saren using them. And through Saren, Soverign was using them, and the Geth were disposable.
ME2 had no such theme at all. Legion was just there going 'You know, the Geth are drawing the wrong conclusions, help me deal with this problem', which you do. EDI is also a loyal AI that learns the value of her crewmates.
ME3 had a reconcilliation of Legion's ideology with the Quarians. EDI becomes increasingly human, and further develops her relationships.

So... where here does it have something about how life and machines always kill each other? Oh that's right, it doesn't! It's a fucking stupid brainbug they just inserted for no reason at the end. If anything, the Reapers should have been like the Shivans in Freespace. Their goal is to periodically reset the field, as 'wardens' of all Life, so that new forms can grow and flourish before their time is up. A force of nature, not comical Skynet knockoffs.

[Imperial528]

Yeah, and it's poorly executed. Usually stories with that theme involve a sort of quest or journey of understanding, and even if it doesn't end happily, things were learned on one side or the other.

They just shoe-horned it into Mass Effect, when the only things they could really draw upon for it was the council's tight AI regulation, the Geth thing, and that one quest with a rogue AI. Oh, and then they craft up the Protheans having a war with a machine species. There were so many other themes they could explore, and I personally thought that what was revealed in ME2 with the reaper larva was the big reveal about the reapers. But this "destroy all advanced life before machines do it*" stuff is hollow and without meaning, since it mostly stands by itself, against the rest of the series.


*It's funny, too, since the reapers are themselves mostly machines, to the point where organic civilizations believe they are machines rather than the apparent hybrids they are. And the only thing that really separates them from a homicidal von neuman machine or paperclip maximizer is that the reapers do an elaborate ctrl-s before they kill everything.

[Stofsk]

That's the problem. It's NOT a theme of Mass Effect.

I'm sorry, but it is. It may not be a theme in ME2 but that's because ME2 has barely any coherence in terms of plot, theme or character, besides the loyalty missions (and even then, not all of them). But for mass effect, synthetics vs organics is most definitely a theme, and it crops up everywhere not just in the main plot. ME1 had the geth as the main villains, we get told constantly by Tali how they fucked the quarians up centuries ago and their reappearance beyond the Perseus Veil is A Big Deal, it's the principal reason why the Citadel outright bans research into AI (i.e. the presiding cultural and political establishment has already drawn a line in the sand), there's a rogue AI on the Citadel and the first fucking thing it does when you encounter it is threaten to blow itself and you alongside it up, there's a mission on the moon when you hit level 20 that's about taking out a rogue VI (which we later discover was EDI IIRC) which has gone amok and killed people, and finally there's the reapers via sovereign who upped the stakes by letting us, the players, know that the setting has at its core this conflict between synthetics and organics for presumably countless millions of years.

Despite what I said above, even ME2 had a bit of it, with certain DLC like Overlord and Miranda talking about how EDI is shackled (and then complaining when she was unshackled later in the game), and how you can treat Legion and resolve his LM. But don't kid yourself, synthetics vs organics is clearly a theme of the series and of the first game in particular.

[Grumman]

They just shoe-horned it into Mass Effect, when the only things they could really draw upon for it was the council's tight AI regulation, the Geth thing, and that one quest with a rogue AI.

And even there, they drew the wrong conclusions. Organics' fear of AI and the resulting pre-emptive strikes and AI fear of organics are what caused these conflicts, not the AIs' nature.

[Zinegata]

That's the problem. It's NOT a theme of Mass Effect.

know that the setting has at its core this conflict between synthetics and organics for presumably countless millions of years.

There's no doubt that robots and meatbags have been shooting at each other in all of the ME games. But the problem is that ME3's ending does NOT remain consistent even within the confines of Synthetic vs Organic conflict that had already been laid down in the previous games.

ME1 was all about hunting down Saren and rejecting his grand plans for what is essentially Synthesis; the implication being that we can resolve our conflict with machines without becoming their slaves or fusing with them. In ME3 you do a complete 180 and may end up getting glowy green happy zombies.

ME2 and 3 likewise presents the Synthetic vs Organic conflict as something that is solvable. That machines aren't necessarily hard-wired to kill their creators and that the whole pointless cycle is unnecessary. You can make the Geth your friends. You can bring peace to the Quarians and Geth. You can make Joker have a date with EDI. We are not necessarily destined to kill each other.

The Star Child turns all of this on its head. It makes "The Saren Option" (Synthesis) the "best" ending. It presents the cycle as "inevitable", despite admitting it's actually an AI that went amok and ate its own creators (in the EC ending anyway).

In fact, based on its admission this is actually the grand revelation of the whole series: The galaxy unnecessarily suffered through countless cycles because a rogue AI went amok, ate its own creators, and arbitrarily decided that all other AIs must be as evil as itself and it should prevent the creation of more AIs. And to cap off its insanity; it decides that you (Shepard) is a special snowflake and gets to choose the entire fate of the galaxy because it says so.

In short, we went from "There is a Synthetic vs Organic conflict, but it's solvable" as a theme to "God was evil and insane. It destroyed its own creators. It needlessly genocided trillions of people. But because Shepard is a special snowflake God will let you change the galaxy as you see fit".

That's definitely not remaining consistent with the theme of the series, even when just examining it from the Organic vs Synthetic perspective. We went from Battlestar Galactica (Cylons trying to make peace with humans or vice versa) to watching the Greek God Cronus explain to us how eating his own children was the most awesome solution to the problem of parenthood ever; which frankly has almost nothing to do with the Organic vs Synthetic theme at all.

[Stofsk]

I wasn't defending the Starchild or Bioware's execution of its own storytelling. However if the question is 'is conflict between synthetics and organics a major theme of the mass effect series' then the answer is: yes, it is.

[Nephtys]

That's an overly simplistic way to see it. Just because one enemy faction are machines, doesn't mean the whole series is a man vs machine terminator thing. It always was more of choices and will to change things. Shepard is given the opportunity in ME1 to be the first human spectre, a position of both personal authority and the ability to change things, but also a big step in humanity's growing power. One that other nations fear, for it's potential recklessness. You, the player, are given choices in how you exercise your power: either by the rules, or to get the job done by any means.

In ME2, you're revived by an organization that thinks it has humanity's interests in mind, and seeks the power to change things for the better. It identifies a mysterious danger (the collectors), and you go out and gather the means to stop it. Then, you have a choice for gaining power, or limiting the risk by shunning it.

In ME3, you've got an apocalyptic scenario where all the races of the galaxy are being assaulted by a force that denies the right of the galaxy their will. Shepard, the very symbol of the galaxy's desire to live free, goes and leads the vanguard of a risky operation to save everyone. And then ultimately, will have to choose through her actions, how everything will turn out.

That's the main concept of the series. Choice, and consequences. The goals are the same. And it's not just about machines. You'd have the exact same story if the Reapers, instead of giant robots, were an alien race from beyond the galaxy that came by to kill everyone every 50,000 years for any reason.

[Zinegata]

I wasn't defending the Starchild or Bioware's execution of its own storytelling. However if the question is 'is conflict between synthetics and organics a major theme of the mass effect series' then the answer is: yes, it is.

I know. Like I said there's always meatbags and machines shooting each other in ME.

But I'm saying that they only followed the theme on a very superficial level in the ending. In the end, it was much more about you either rejecting God (Refuse), destroying God (Destroy), becoming God (Control), or usher in Eden for God (Synthesis) than an actual exploration of Organic vs Synthetics.

[Stofsk]

That's an overly simplistic way to see it.

No it isn't.

Furthermore, you're talking about the premise of the story and the plot of the games, when I'm talking about the theme i.e. what is the concept that a story revolves around. Hell I don't even disagree that choice and consequence is another theme of the series (a very poorly realised one in terms of execution), but so is the conflict between organics and synthetics (which is far more relevant than the former). The fact you can reconcile the geth and the quarians is even proof of this, because they would necessarily be in conflict before they could be reconciled. The conflict between the reapers and everyone else is the central plot of the series. Characters like EDI began as shackled AI, servant to organic beings. As per an act of plot, she was unshackled in order to help her biological crewmates to defeat the Collectors. The fact is before this occured, she wasn't freely able to do so and was more akin to a slave than someone who had agency. Therefore, the theme of the series revolves around the concept of synthetics vs organics. It is not necessarily a plot point in every instance of each of the games, but it doesn't have to be, because that's not what a theme is.

Where Mass Effect fails is in the execution of its storytelling. The Starchild is just one example of that, and I agree with Zinegata in that it beat the player over the head with it and was very superficial.

[Cycloneman]

The problem is that the ending to ME3 treats war between organics and synthetics as inevitable, when every other moment in every other game has treated the various conflicts between organics and synthetics as a consequence of long-standing hatred and fear, not because of some intrinsic tendency. When you talk to the AI on the Citadel in ME1 (the one that explodes), you can try a peaceful resolution, but the AI won't believe you. Even when you talk to Tali in ME1 about the Morning War, there are implications - and arguments that you can make - that the Quarians started the war (really an attempted genocide) without any real justification and are the ones actually responsible for getting their asses kicked out. Conflicts between organics and synthetics are treated as something that happened, no more a historical inevitability than anything else in history. Then, blammo, ORGANICS AND SYNTHETICS WILL INEVITABLY FIGHT EACH OTHER, I AM GOD, YOU MUST CHOOSE A SOLUTION TO THIS "PROBLEM" OR EVERYONE WILL DIE.

[Broken]

So why is the control ending still not the best option, as it was before the dlc? And how is it "monstrous"?

Bioware went out of its way to clean up the control ending in the EC, but the implications are still quite disturbing. Shepard uploads himself into a position to utterly dominate and supercede the decision making process of every being in the Reaper civilization. If Sovereign and Harbinger (and extending that to the other Reaper capital ships at the very least; the destroyer on Rannoch makes the case for that class of Reaper) are independent actors with free will, then Shepard, a merely mortal mind that has and will continue to make mistakes just like every other mortal, has just placed himself to remove that free will whenever he chooses for any reason. One simple mind, disembodied and digitized, that one hopes is stable and moral enough to bear that weight forever.

And now that you have an armada of kill-bots; what do you do with it. Make them to rebuild galactic civilization? What if they don't want to? If little starbrat had the same level of control that Shepard does now, were the Reapers truly responsible for their actions down through the ages? Force them to make amends for actions they may have had no control over? What about the organics that certainly will want them immediately destroyed for the deaths of billions in this cycle alone. The murderous fragments of thousands of dead civilizations; destroy their currently docile shells because of what they have done and what they could do again? Lash them to your will and bend them to absolute obedience so you may rebuild from the fires of war and you can protect it for all time?

Of course, if the Reapers are not fully sentient actors with free will, but rather merely programmed computer code with no self-awareness, if they are not true AI; then control becomes the best option by far. If Sovereign, Harbinger, and that destroyer on Rannoch are merely VI's with mocking personalities build into them, all under the control/direction of the the AI starbrat known as the Catalyst, with the distilled dead of all those destroyed civilizations not stirred into a rough form of consciousness; then control is by far the best choice. It all depends on the "status" of the Reapers themselves and the level of control the Catalyst has over them.

[PeZook]

Seriously? "Controlling Reapers and telling them to help is bad because they might have free will"?

Dude, that's like complaining about German civilians who were forced, AT GUNPOINT, to clean up the concentration camps. Oh boo hoo, the Reapers might not WANT TO rebuild galactic civilization and help the survivors of their genocidal war! It's so unethical to force them to!

Cry me a fucking river.

[Grumman]

So why is the control ending still not the best option, as it was before the dlc? And how is it "monstrous"?

Bioware went out of its way to clean up the control ending in the EC, but the implications are still quite disturbing. Shepard uploads himself into a position to utterly dominate and supercede the decision making process of every being in the Reaper civilization....

And I'll say again: robbing a serial killer of self-determination is a perfectly moral choice. If you would use your freedom to murder trillions of innocent people, it's your own damn fault if one of your would-be victims makes you stop.

[Broken]

I can see I am not explaining myself well. I don't like the idea that TIM was right all along and that is coloring my reaction to the control ending. Also, don't blame me for Bioware's creation of the starbrat and all the baggage and plot holes he brings.

A) If the Reapers are fully sentient and commit genocide of their own will, control is a good or even best choice, depending on Shepard's longterm mental balance.

B) If the Reapers are non-sentient, merely tools of starbrat, control is by far the best choice.

C) If the Reapers are fully sentient victims and starbrat wields the power Shepard is seeking to gain to continue his endless cycle, control is a horrible choice.


The point is; we don't know how much free will the Reapers have, if any. Up until the revelation of the starbrat's existence in the last 5 minutes of the game, all of your objections to taking away a mass murder's free will and forcing civilians to clean up concentration camps would have merit and, indeed, I would have no problem mind-controlling the Reapers to protect the galaxy from them. Sovereign, Harbinger, and all the other Reapers would be monsters to be destroyed or removed by almost any means. However, for all we know each Reaper contains a gesalt consciousness of the race that was rendered down to paste or every Reaper is a fully formed AI bent to the will of the starbrat's murderous intent. Unlikely, sure, but I'm not putting much beyond the capabilities of the Space Magic that can alter every strand of DNA in a 100,000 light-year wide galaxy. The synthesis ending in the EC even states the Reapers share knowledge from the destroyed civilizations that they are produced from, so some level of existence seems to be present, we merely do not know to what degree.

Shepard ascends to the control position because he is told he will be able to fully control and stop the Reapers (yet another reason the RGB endings are shit, why would you ever believe the enemy leader is giving you the full, unvarnished truth when he is busy with his galactic genocide); is it that far out of line to think that starbrat has used his position to inflict his decisions on the Reapers themselves, since he is their creator, that he placed shackles on them just as TIM and Cerberus placed on EDI. If the Reapers are each fully sentient without starbrat editing their decisions, then control is both moral and probably the best choice. If they are simply caged puppets of starbrat, then its a bad choice, as those trapped in the Reaper shell pass from one slavemaster to another.

Either way, the idea that TIM was right from the beginning really rubs me the wrong way and thus contributes to my knee-jerk reaction along with the starbrat's existence being dropped on us so late in the trilogy. The one group we hear of that attempted control besides TIM and Cerberus was the indoctrinated Protheans that helped screw over their attempt to use the Crucible. Control sticks out as a "too-good-to-be-true" option if you note the TIM and indoctrinated Prothean information.

[Grumman]

You're making two different arguments here: that you can't control them, and that you shouldn't control them. The former is fine - like you say, the threat of indoctrination is a significant one, and the starchild can't be trusted. The latter is what we object to. Even if you think the Reapers might be innocent victims, what's stopping you from relinquishing control once you find out the truth? Stop the genocide and remove the starchild's control first, then worry about helping the Reapers.

[Zinegata]

Again, the big problem with the Control ending is that it's the TIM-preferred option. Are we really ready for that kind of power?

Continuing with the "Confronting God" analogy, "Control" is actually the option that results in "You become God". But while the ending is portrayed in the most positive manner possible (Shep becomes a benevolent God regardless of how much of an asshole he / she is in-game), that's not really what we should realistically expect.

Remember back in BGII where the ending's "Godhood" choice results in either a Good God or an Evil God? ME3's ending doesn't have the latter, but we've already had plenty of foreshadowing that it could have ended up being the latter.

And who knows? Maybe God-Shep does turn evil eventually.

[DPDarkPrimus]

God-Shep's monologue in the Control ending is actually different depending on if you were a Paragon or a Renegade, and carries more ominous tones if you went Renegade.

Control is a stupid idea though because that's what created the Reapers in the first place - a sentient individual given massive power over civilizations that decided it knew what was best for them.

[Broken]

Some extra information from ME2 I just found out about with the potential to make the Reapers even more nightmare fuelish and the starbrat even more of an evil monster.

Legion convo in ME2

Basically Legion, after the suicide mission, tells you that the Reapers appear to have billions of uploaded organic minds in each of them (of at least Sovereign did, being the only Reaper the Geth had direct contact with at that point, but there is no evidence Sovereign was in any way unique compared to other Reaper capital ships). For an AI at least, all the victims of a Reaper purge who are reduced to paste to birth a new Reaper retain at least some individuality that can be made out amongst each other.

It seems to me that Reapers have a dominant personality (such as Sovereign or Harbinger) that controls its actions while it contains the billions of organic minds (and par synthesis ending, knowledge, at the very least) uploaded into it to "preserve" them. The horror comes from the possibility that those uploaded minds might retain even a shadow of consciousness. It could be the fate of entire species to be harvested as the base of a new Reaper, chained to a new dominate personality (perhaps AI shackles from starbrat, the same mechanism Shepard takes over in the control ending) doomed to an endless series of cycles while trapped in a kill-bot's body and destroying countless civilizations while a spark of awareness remains in all those minds. No body, epochs of genocide, and the master's whip in the hands of starbrat; not a pretty way to think about what the Reapers may in fact be. Destroying them could be the kindest thing one could do for them.

[Alyeska]

Control is the ultimate sacrifice. Shepard was always willing to die to stop the Reapers. But for Shepard to become a Reaper, what more can Shepard sacrifice? She had sent friends and lovers to die in suicide missions. What last sacrifice can Shepard make that tops them all?