Half-full vs Half-empty: Tell us why the ending failed/succeeded in one sentence

Oh, man, where to start? 
Nope, this is where you're too quick to fire the gun. Everybody agrees, "Organics vs synthetics" is a huge theme throughout the entire trilogy and you're correct that ME1 has the theme of the danger that Synthetics will threaten to kill us, but Mass Effect 2 and then the bulk of 3 subverts this entirely! by showing us that the Geth were just "heretics" under the influence of Reaper indoctrination which we learn thanks to Legion. We also see the growth of EDI from a VI on luna which was super dangerous into the Normandy's shackled AI and then unshackled becoming more human and she falls in love with Joker with her human emotions and meanwhile the Geth become "True AI" and shake hands with the Quarians. The theme of "organics vs synthetics" as represented as a part of the overarching narrative throughout various subplots of it is resolved in this way: with peace.

Oh, you meant this side mission?


Or this?


Or did you perchance mean Overlord DLC?

Now what do these have in common? Not only are they optional, they're side-missions and not meant to take part of the main narrative and those N7 missions in ME2 have no dialogue between the squadmembers. Yet, this is all the back up the ending has for its hypothesis, yet you're telling me this is the big conflict that supercedes even the Reapers? Then why does the main story never imply this before the conversation with the Catalyst? Instead the theme of organics vs synthetics is concentrated on the Geth and EDI throughout ME2 and ME3 and both ends resolved in a way where "Synthetics will always destroy all organics" doesn't seem like a given.

Sure, there are some incidents with dangeorous AI. The most prevalent ones were the Geth and that Luna VI in terms of importance and scale and what happened? We fixed it by helping them develop. So what does this tell us? "Synthetics will always destroy all organics"? Nope. It tells me that "Organics will always find ways to help Synthetics develop peacefully". That is all i'm ever told throughout Shepard's cycle.

Either way, what the Catalyst tells you stands in contradiction to what you have witnessed as a player in almost all possible scenarios. The solution of the Reapers is so dumb we definitely need a new one but we are only allowed to choose 3 options that all go by the premise that synthetic will be a huge problem that needs a specific non-organic solution to work. If we refuse that we either die or destroy all synthetics which is both literally and figuratively destructive to this non-active issue.

The ending is shit. It fails as a plot and as an artistic statement and it fails as a conclusion to wrap up the meat of the content that was the Mass Effect Trilogy. Just admit it already.

I'm not against the Reapers being about solving this issue about Synthetics, I'm against how the ending pretends that we agree with their hypothesis and effectively make it the message of Mass Effect as a story which it never was.

You're absolutely right. Organics are just as much the problem. "Organics will always destroy all organics and synthetics" amirite? Too bad it's the way Mac decided to phrase the child's dialogue that's the real problem. The absolutism in the Catalyst just doesn't ring true for such a complex issue that at its core is still individual-based. You can't put all synthetics into one box and neither all organics, but you can generalize and say that "we've seen synthetic uprisings happen to the point of threatening the existence of life. That's why we preserve you advanced organics as Reapers to avoid total genocide", but alas "ALL synthetics WILL ALWAYS destroy ALL organics". This didn't ring true with the Geth, nor EDI. The Quarians provoked the Geth and almost committed genocide on themselves, but ultimately it didn't happen and we resolved it peacefully, which proves synthetics didn't destroy all organics in that particular case and they're not going to now that they are fully evolved and contain "true understanding of organics". Hit me with another, specific incident that counterargues what I have seen, Catalyst! No? Okay, then fuck your choices. If the problem statement has no ground to stand on then its solution isn't even required.

I digress but nonetheless I stand firm on my opinion. I don't think they signaled clearly enough before the Catalyst scene that there was some overarching issue with Organics and Synthetics that was so important that it superceded the war with the Reapers, and it needed to feel that way in order to make the Catalyst scene feel right, but it just doesn't.

what i do know is that the ending of ME3 created a rift among the fans. me being one of them

1. That is "Final evolution of life". That is a piss-poor phrasing for one because it's nonsense.
2. Is it really what he warns us about? Aren't you twisting the truth a little bit here? Practically, yes, I can see where you're coming from with this that on paper evolving to a higher level of consciousness and a higher more advanced form of AI or "true AI" or whatever seems really dangerous, but the result as it is depicted in the game is that Geth become more human with this upgrade and it creates understanding between them and the Quarians. Even the Quarians themselves gasp in awe at how alive this component the Geth receive to get their upgrade is. It's like Patrick and whoever else wrote this subplot were telling us "Look how sympathetic and human the Geth have become!" but alas, Mr. Catalyst completely turns this around when the narrative hasn't really done the same.

Let me ask you this and anyone else who is lurking in the topic: Before you saw the ending and completed the Rannoch part and you saved both Geth and Quarian, was your gut-reaction to this outcome "OH NO, THE HORROR! THE GETH HAVE EVOLVED, THIS IS REALLY DANGEROUS!". Because I didn't because the narrative, the tone the way they presented this issue just doesn't do this. However, if you don't have enough trust between the Quarian and the Geth, Raan or Tali will go "NO, NO, STOP LEGION, HE HAS TO STOP THE UPLOAD!" and it ends up killing everyone on one side regardless of what you do. But if the Quarians trust you enough you resolve this peacefully as it turns out there isn't any inherent harm in what Legion is doing. There only is when the organics in this case stand ready with a loaded gun at their synthetics. So what we learn from Rannoch is really that with trust organics and synthetics can evolve together in peace.

So again, the scene with the Catalyst comes out of left field and with no basis because it has no evidence to back up the hypothesis of a synthetic singularity. We can't relate to it when we've seen the exact opposite of a synthetic manslaughter occur out of "upgrading AIs" both with EDI and the Geth. The Rannoch subplot contradicts the ending. And even so they inserted the scene with the Reaper right before either achieving peace or not saying that this is all proof that synthetics and organics will always destroy each other, and he only does that because Shepard randomly blurts out "synthetics and organics don't have to destroy each other!" as if he knows what the Reapers want all of a sudden. Otherwise, why would he tell it to the reaper and not Legion? 

So, let's say I'm having an argument with my sister. We're pissed at each other because she's a girl and I'm a guy and she assumes I'm mean because I'm a dude. Then randomly a terrorist walks by who is about to kill my family, and i yell to him "MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD BE EQUAL!" and he's like "Mwahaha, nice guess. When I pull this pin your house and all of you will blow to kingdom come! I do this in the name of gender equality! How did you guess!?" Point here being that there's a failed chain of logic that conveniently leads me to the "truth" but the truth. It's almost as if I'm an actor who knows the script and took my cue two scenes too early.

And sorry for bringing gender into it. It has undertones I didn't expect lol.

Lmao, this is getting really low-brow now. There's a difference between synonyms or slang and semantics and semantics are fucking important when you only have 14 (+20 in EC) lines of dialogue to bring up an entirely new main conflict and then resolve it in the last 10 minutes of a friggin trilogy. "Final" is a wildly different term than "next", but I digress. Yes, we can see what it means, I'm just criticisng the writing for being completely fast and loose when it needed to be on-point.

"The created will always rebel against their creators, but we've found a way to stop that from happening ... We've created the cycle so that never happens, that's the solution ... Without us to stop it synthetics would destroy all organics."

This is just too easy to pick apart. If the claim is that "synthetics will always rebel against their organic creators therefore we must eradicate all organics except the youngest ones so the world can repopulate" so he's saying organics are the problem because they create synthetics that then evolve by themselves until they become killer-machines that destroy all organic life forever. it takes just one incident of this not being true for the argument to fall apart because he decides to phrase it with absolutist, blanket statements. Kill all organics because they created EDI and EDI became too advanced so the organics won't make it even worse or kill the organics because they created the Geth who upgraded themselves until they were in danger of evolving past their creators.

I don't care how you look at it -- EDI and the Geth are not used narratively within ME3 to show any theme of organics risking total extinction of the world because they created EDI or Geth; they showed EDI and the Geth in a much, much more positive light throughout the entirety of ME3 and the Catalyst doesn't really make the case for why these two incidents which are primary examples of synthetic growth right in our faces, is suddenly a danger for the entire world. He just throws a generic statement out in the air. If you replace his statement with "The created will sometimes rebel against their creators" and "Some synthetics will destroy some organics" there's no fucking issue except a totally stupid one that doesn't need the Reapers. At best that scenario would require a much smaller solution where Reapers were vanguards of organic litter who would occasionally be seen patrolling the Milky Way for minor synthetic/organic incidents.

There's simply nothing in the Mass Effect story indicating that there will at some point be a synthetic singularity that kills everyone. I don't care if it "makes sense". The Reaper's story is not the story of Mass Effect. It's Shepard's story not "The Reaper's story" and as such you can't conclude the trilogy by offering 3 choices all related to the Reaper's motivations that the story never reaffirmed with themes and plots previously. It's like a story that comes out of nothing, isolated from the Mass Effect trilogy arc that then resolves itself and the ending to the trilogy doesn't really exist because everything is so confused and obscured after the scene with the Catalyst.

2. Synthetics thrive on energy. Even Vigil states that The Reapers are most likley hibernating in Dark Space to conserve their energy. Synthetics are not above reality. They are made of metal or some other material that can't sustain itself forever. Yes the danger is that they reproduce faster by thinking faster and evolving faster, but ME3 shows us the reason they want to evolve is because they're constantly at odds with organics so they strive to become more like organics so they can understand each other and going by EDI and Rannoch this theme resolves when they actually do find peace in that. EDI's entire goodbye scene about feeling afraid is POINTLESS if the Catalyst scene is true. Her entire arc is reduced to meandering if it turns out her discovery of humanity was all fake and she needs "Synthetsis" to truly be organically functioning and thinking. Same with the Geth really. It's the subtext of the Rannoch arc that the Geth are looking for a way to be accepted by organics and to understand them and it can resolve peacefully, partly because of Shepard, but also because they do become accepted by their creators and then they shake hands.

I'm never arguing the Catalyst scene doesn't make sense in-world, logically. I'm saying as a narrative it makes ME3 a confused pile of crap as a whole because it concludes the story on a sudden tangent instead of concluding the story by resolving the themes that were or reflecting on them. By the time you get to the ending the theme of Organics and Synthetics is pretty much resolved effectively in 3 possible ways and the same goes for the theme of alliances and trust for other factions, Shepard's friends etc. all that lingers is Cerberus (the enemy within a single group) and the Reapers. So naturally from this point on the ending should've come to a conclusion about how to resolve the problem of Reapers and Cerberus by using the conclusions from the middle-act. Something like "it takes the combined cooperation of different organic races, and the understanding between organics and synthetics and the friendship within each group TO BEAT THE REAPERS". Instead it became "The Reapers need organics and synthetics to get along or they'll keep reaping, so Shepard must sacrifice himself for this."

And the marked text is the real problem here. The Catalyst asks us to believe in the indication that synthetics and organic relations can't ever be resolved without some magic solution, but all we've seen indicates the opposite because OUR story already showed us, thematically, that organics and synthetics can learn to get along better if we stop being paranoid about them and become friends with them.

I'm talking about what is the point of the story in terms of meaning and message. You're talking about whether the lore allows the possibility the Catalyst claims is a fact. And I ask you then, what is the point... as an ending to the trilogy?

And yet that is the path they were on anyways. Joining Technology and Organic life into a new hybrid form. Against the will of nature anyways.  When you lose an arm by the law of nature and evolution you are fucked. But Technology steps in and says wait a minute we can create an artificial limb that will not be as good as your original. But we can use the synaptic responds your body would usually utilize to tell your arm to move to cause your artificial arm to move. Hell organ transplant and the development of artificially grown or out right artificial organs is technology helping to improve or expand on the limitations of organic bodies.   And that is just the real world. You get in to ME universe and that shit is cranked up to 11.

Greyboxes that allow people to store their memories in a computer allowing people with Alzheimer. USA Presidents having a stroke and having their mind uploaded to a VI and continuing on as President for several months before a pending Supreme Court Trial.   Shepard who was able to defy death a fundamental force in the galaxy to be brought back. His body arguably better then the original due to the cybernetic enhancements not having the same weakness as organic versions. 



And I will ask you like I ask so many who make comments similar. What possible evolutionary path could a race like Humans take? How about Turains? Krogan? Salarians?

Right like Mass Effect has never been fast and lose with it's writing before. But like so many other instances with you it is only inconvenient when you want to complain bout something. ME 1 and 2 plays very fast and lose with a ton of writing. The entire game world is build on fast and lose with the writing. FTL speed is impossible even with Element Zero. Particularly the impossibility of traveling faster then speed of light. The entire basis of the ME field effect being required for FTL speed is that the closer you get to the speed of light the more mass you develop so you need exponentially more energy. Problem is the growth of mass and energy is exponential. Problem is ME fields will not exponentially decrease mass and so it would allow you to speed up but never allow light speed or faster then light speed travel.

Yet you see you go on a rant about ME 1 and all the messed up fast and loose, not on point stuff it had in game. Nor even all the issues in ME2 that have it. Yet here this one instance were anyone would be fairly obvious of what it said. That is were you draw your arbitrary line in the sand and throw your hands up in disgust and just have to complain. Create an entire trilogy that defies the very physics they say exists in game, defies logic in actions and deeds (particularly ME 1 and 2). But god be damn if you will adamantly refuse to allow them to defy basic grammar without a fight.



And yet you ignore the fact that the Geth did in fact rebel against their creator nearly wiping them from existence. By your logic the actions of Omar Mateen on June 12,2016 wasn't really a mass shooting when he gunned down 49 people and wounded 53 others. Because people survived so clearly this couldn't have been a mass shooting. Clearly he was a peaceful person who wouldn't hurt a fly. And all those people who were killed an injured clearly forcibly injected the bullets into their own body causing death and injury. But he just happened to be near by so of course everyone blames him. Totally unfair and uncalled for to be blamed for the actions that were clearly their own fault they got hurt and died.

You are literally waving off the near genocide of an entire race as some how proof the Catalyst isn't correct about Synthetics rebelling against their creator when the Geth are walking physical embodiment of proof of that statement. And while I will fully agree the Geth are not one to start a fight. But they are sure as shit the ones that will end the fight by beating the other side into a bloody pulp. In fact the only time this was proven untrue was when the plot demanded it. By either the appearance of Shepard and thus requires them to be pushed back because of protagonist reasons. Or when it is convenient for the plot like ME 1's space battle were suddenly the Geth Fleet that was wrecking the Citadel Fleet is managed to be pushed back. Particularly if you choose to sacrifice the Council.



And yet it still is. You just ignore the parts that are inconvient for you. EDI has to pretend she is something she is not to be accepted by the greater galaxy. To not be killed instantly. Or to put it another way pulling this:



Only rather then a racist caricature it would be how all black people (Synthetics) had to act and look to prevent all the white people (Organics) from killing them. And the second one of them raised their hands and said this was kind of stupid (Geth) the white people (Quarians) attempted to kill him and his entire family.

Just like you attempt to tone down the near genocide of the Quarians at the hands of the Geth. Much like people try to tone down the fact that the US found fathers. Those people who so love liberty and freedom for all. Unless you were Native American, black or a woman. Then your S.O.L. And much like what a lot of people try to do because that information dosn't support the narrative you want you attempt to tone it down and sweep it under the rug.

Narrative speaking both the Geth and EDI are treated fairly neutrally.  Legion is shown to be caught lying several times and the trip into the Geth consensus isn't all that cut and dry. Because a recording created by the Geth some how has the Quarians looking like they always do.  It is like your parents showing a video of you when you are only 5 looking exactly like you look today.  And I would have to tell you seeing the 5 year old me at 5'10" 220 lbs with long hair and a gut would be a surprise to me.  Not to mention the over looked fact that 20% of the Geth population willingly left to serve Sovereign and to attack and kill organic life when and were Sovereign needed it for goodies.

EDI has only existed for about 2 years give or take. Going to need longer then 2 years to be able to use her as a definitive proof of anything.  Only the Geth have the history needed to be able to make a judgement and their history not so much sun shine and butterflies when it comes to O v S.



Yes. If you ignore everything from ME 1, 2 and 3 that show there will be at some point a synthetic singularity that kills everyone.  AI research is restricted specifically because of that problem.  ME 1 is dripping full of it. ME 2 simply separates the two group and shows both sides only care about each other.  ME 3 only has them joining together because of the mutual threat of the Reapers. No mutual threat of the Reapers no joining together to combat it.  Meaning the status quo would remain of completely separate and unequal with each side more concerned with themselves rather then creating any dialogue between each other. Combined with all the multitude of problems shown in ME 1.




WTF? The only reason they want to evolve is to be more like us? There is a lot wrong with that kind of mentality. Ignoring the obvious racist and sexist over tones of they only do X so that they can be more like group Y. They evolve, grow and develop because they are self determinate. Because they can and because they want to. Not because they want to be organic. The fact they have to change to be accepted by organics isn't a solution to the problem. It is a symptom of it. It is the equivalent of someone saying that racism not longer exists in the USA because we elected a black President.

To boil down all life to being exactly the same like your argument seems to be doing is frankly stupid. The mentality of someone who is incapable of grasping or understanding the concept that there will be people and beings who think so radically different from you. And that the only way they will become good is to think similar to you is over simplification.


Narrative the ending fits if you paid attention. Watch the cracks in the pot starting to show. Watching organic life out right tell synthetic life that they can't be themselves. That they have to be just like organic life if they want to be accepted. These are clear and obvious problems that have caused more then enough conflict in the real world. Yet to you these are all perfectly ok. It comes across like a rich person who's parents made all the money and left them a multi million dollar company saying that the only reason people are poor is because they don't work hard enough. It is so simplistic in thought that they don't realize how silly it makes them sound. Because you could be the worlds best plumber your still only going to max out at 50K a year. Which is still far less then what CEO's will make.

I did not get it in the first place why peeps would not like the endings, then I read this thread, and I still have no idea what's the fuss is all about. Looks like a few interesting choices, and it is nice and final, with lots of info on every character of importance. the only thing I can think of, it was because Shepard dies.

Solving a problem puts an end to the Reaper threat.  And from game one we are told that brute force is incapable of defeating the Reapers.

It's all part of the symbolism anyway. Shepard bleeds out, dies, and then ascends to heaven to meet god who gives him an offer of salvation, almost like a heaven vs hell scenario (maybe this is taking it far but the first part I think is intentional).

But yes, they couldn't make it an ending that represents the whole story, far from it. They got swept up in their own highfalutin concepts and heavy handed imagery to remember they were supposed to take all previous elements and somehow work them into the climax. I do like how there was kind of a climax earlier though with defeating the final Destroyer before the beam-run or offing TIM... It's just that in this scene when tension is supposed to be at the peak and everything comes to a conclusion - a denouement - the denouement you're given has no relation AT ALL to the journey the player has seen through Shepard's POV. Imagine if BioWare had never flailed from their initial direction with Sovereign and the Geth in ME1:

"We impose order on <b>the chaos of organic evolution</b>. It is a cycle that has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organics rise and at the apex of their evolution they are extinguished".

Notice how the Catalyst's story about us making synthetics that end up endangering or existence can fit with Sovereign's speech? Imagine then if the Geth were never Legionized in ME2 and never Pinnochionized in ME3; They'd have kept being the bad guys that sought evolution and kept growing bigger and more dangerous to more than just Quarians and at the end of ME3 they're half as big as the Reapers and then we meet the Catalyst who says " see what you have done? You organics require guardians to impose order because otherwise you destroy yourselves to the point of threatening <I>life</I>

But because they decided to take the Geth in a different direction that ties more into the themes of "allies" and "trust" the writers found a thematic resolution for the theme of Organics vs Synthetics within a subplot of ME3 and not the overarching plot. The central conflict in ME3 is not the war against the Geth, it was the war against Reapers and the ending truly feels like Mac or Casey wrote it not even remembering or knowing about the entire journey of the Geth throughout ME2 and ME3 or they didn't know how to distinguish the theme of organics and synthetics as presented via the Rannoch subplot vs... I don't even know--there was never a Synthetic Singularity story that loomed over us in the trilogy aside from the Reapers and that contradiction is not addressed or in any way turned into the hook of the final scene. The narrative truly is delusional in the Catalyst scene.

Because "art".

Oh and didn't fire specifically not wage war when it burns? I thought we established that fire is most emphatically not at war when it burns

Oh man. I really should learn to laugh about things more. Would add years, I bet.

Sure I did. It's just not an answer you like or one you can write a few pages on.

We've done this dance before, I'm sure you can't be that eager to repeat it.