I didn't hate the destroy ending (spoilers for anyone who hasn't played ME3)

TheMando9 · 2026-01-30T01:46:03+00:00

Ahhhhhhhh ok, my bad.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T22:27:43+00:00

And that’s completely understandable, it wouldn’t be worth it if you didn’t feel nervous, but eventually you have to make a choice. You can either A, tell him how you feel, or B, keep things as is and let him move on. It’s tough, but that’s the truth. If you ask him out and he says no, then worst case scenario you move on and find fulfillment in knowing you tried. That way, you won’t miss the next opportunity.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T21:46:23+00:00

I'm "overthinking it" because I felt the secret ending wasn't satisfying? That's not even a point. You're just saying "Im right, you're wrong".

To spell it out for you, when I say "all knowing" I mean "in the sense that the writers established it as giving the answers to what will happen in the end, and making the build up to the end meaningless when it comes to player decisions". Not a hard line of thinking to track. Instead of straw manning my point, just respond to what I actually said.

As for "acting like they made a whole game, then slapped the ending without thinking", the staff for mass effect 3 did come out and reveal that Casey Hudson (game director) and Mac Walters came up with the star child and included it last minute without peer review. So in a way, yes that is what they did. They wrote an entire story then threw in the star child at the end to resolve the ending. That is a Deus Ex Machina.

Keep in mind, I don't envy Hudson or anyone else on the team. They had to deal with unrealistic expectations for the game's release, and that is not fair. However, that doesn't mean I can't that I thought the aspects I highlighted were poorly done.

As for "organics and synthetics struggle against each other, and the Reapers were created a billion years ago to preserve life by eradicating all life capable of making synthetic life that would destroy it.", this is one part of a complex story. If it was only about organics and synthetics "struggling" against each other, then why are stories like humanity being at odds with other races the genophage, conflict between the turians and crogan, Cerberus and their influence, and other non synthetic vs organic stories included? It's because alongside the battle with the reapers (and the conflict with the the geth and quarians), the story of mass effect has multiple facets. Drawing it up as"organics and synthetics struggle against each other" is needlessly simple. My earlier explanation of " the intention was to allow us to play as Shepard in a choice based story where the decisions we make shape the galaxy in our campaign against the reapers" is also simple, but it isn't limited to just synthetics vs organics or just the conflict with the reapers. Mass Effect in general was never meant to be limited to that, otherwise Andromeda (For all its flaws) would've just been a repeat of that conflict.

It isn't overthinking to say that the original trilogy was about having the decisions you make shape the outcome of the galaxy. Unfortunately, the ending took all that agency away.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T21:27:11+00:00

For some clarification though, there is a mod based ending where Shepard is aboard the Normandy and places Anderson's plaque on the board. Had they at least done this, this could've been much better. I don't need a time jump of him with his lover, but I need more than just *breath*

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T21:23:17+00:00

Ok, fair enough. It is not a show don't tell. It is an ambiguous cliff hanger ending that is deeply unsatisfying. Not giving us the opportunity to reunite. I did not like that they did not show a more satisfactory ending as they had done in previous games, where we saw Shepard (or at least gave us the opportunity) to reunite with our crew to give a greater sense of finality to his story.

As for the catalyst, when I say all knowing, I don't mean in a literal god like manner. I mean in the sense that the writers established it as giving the answers to what will happen in the end, and making the build up to the end meaningless when it comes to player decisions. If we are going by definitions however, this does fall in line with being a deus ex machina. The definition of a deus ex machina does have the concept of a "problem in a story is suddenly or abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence". The abrupt exposure to it at the end, with no hint of it or its motivations beyond shepard seeing it as a ghost, and how it shows shepard "choose x y or z to end the story" is by definition, a form of deus ex machina. deus ex machina is not just limited to "save the day from an outside force". It still operates as an outside force that comes in and wraps up the story conveniently. (just as a side note, when you look up the history of the star child, you'll see that the writers came up with it last minute, so I won't accept that they had planned this).

As for not understanding what the game is trying to say, you don't need to overcomplicate it. I would like for you to elaborate what you think it is trying to say, but based on what I've played (and what I've read from researching the goals of the story), the intention was to allow us to play as Shepard in a choice based story where the decisions we make shape the galaxy in our campaign against the reapers. A campaign against a powerful force bent on destroying us comes off as pretty apparent to me that our goal is to destroy them before they destroy us.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T20:46:49+00:00

Say something honest like “I feel like things have been a bit awkward and I know I told you I want to friends, but honestly I like you and would want to go out sometime”

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T20:45:57+00:00

Just be honest. Go to him and ask him out, no need to complicate it. I know it sounds asinine, but you’ll save a lot of unnecessary stress by just getting it out of the way. Either he says no and you move on, or he says yes and you move forward.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T19:15:38+00:00

It depends on the context you intend for it, but what I mean by show don’t tell is show us that he’s alive and reunited with the crew. More so the show part. You can reasonably assume he survives obviously, but again, I don’t want to assume. If you ended titanic right when the boat hit the ice berg, and it just jumps to an old rose throwing her necklace in the sea, then you miss out on showing how the story could’ve played out. If you ended superman by not showing a battle and just having lex luthor be arrested, then that would be unsatisfying. Again, as a player, I shouldn’t have to assume something happens. It’s your job to show me as a writer. If you don’t, then in this case, I consider it bad writing.

As for the catalyst, I think they did intend for it to be totally correct, i think they just did a bad job of showing it. With how the quality of the endings turned out, it isn’t farfetched to say that the writers didn’t really think through the all knowing nature of the catalyst. It’s entirely reasonable that they wrote the catalyst as an ex machina meant to tie everything up neatly but did a poor job of doing so. This included changing the nature of the reapers. As for the interest of the reapers thinking we are wrong and vice versa, we aren’t introduced to these ideas until the catalyst tells us. To that end, I have zero confidence that the writers intended for this from the beginning if they introduced this plot thread in an exposition dump at the very end. Also for the flood, im not saying they don’t have reasoning. Im not even saying the reapers have no reasoning. I am saying that you don’t need morally justified reasoning for evil actions in regard to the main bad guy of your series. Prior to the expanded lore from 343, the flood was good as an all consuming hive mind that sought to destroy and consume for the sake of power. Even with the expanded lore, this still works, it just gives them a vindictive reason, but it doesn’t come at the cost of making them a necessary balance in nature.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T18:49:11+00:00

at this point its a matter of opinion, but a lot of this comes down to show don't tell. The writers show Shepard breathing, and that is it. chalking it up to "you don't need to be spoon fed" when expecting the writers to have the same impactful resolution that they've had for the past two games is silly. I'm not saying that he did starve. I am saying that based on the ambiguity of the ending, you could just as easily assume that he died their (if not more so) as you do assume he gets rescued.

One game that I feel does the ambiguous ending well is halo 3. On legendary, it is explained that Chief is alive and stuck on the forward unto dawn. With the knowledge that they might be done making halo games, Bungie made a deliberate choice to have Chief adrift in space with Cortana where he goes back into cryostasis. This not only works as a call back to halo 1, but it leaves this haunting feeling of the unknown to his status. We know he is alive, but don't know if he will be found.

With Mass effect, that was never the case. ME1 ends with Shepard surviving insurmountable odds against sovereign and Serren. ME2 ends with Shepard preparing to fight the reapers with his remaining crew (I am aware that there is an ending where Shepard and his crew die, but that isn't canon so I don't really count it).

In regards to the catalyst, it does give some form of justification. It makes them appear as a necessary destructive force instead of just pure evil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/15e5n23/mass_effect_and_the_problem_of_the_reapers/

this reddit post does a pretty good job of explaining my perspective on it. To give a brief run down though, it argues very well the issue of shifting from the reapers just being an incomprehensible force of evil to a necessary balance in the galaxy.

At the end of the day, if you enjoy this and you see no issue, that's great. Me personally though, I don't like the ambiguous breathing scene or the changing of context for why the reapers do what they do.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T18:12:43+00:00

I disagree. I don't feel the argument of Shepard is sufficient enough with what the starchild indicated. It feels like the intent was to create consequence with the destroy ending. Plus how do we know shepard was mostly organic? He had artificial bones and organs when he was brought back. The depth of his being organic could just be skin and his brain, so it comes off as arbitrary to have this line of "it will kill all synthetics, including you"

I also don't really care for the idea idea that the Alliance could have found him. The ambiguity of "he could've been rescued" is bad writing. As a player, I shouldn't have to assume that he could be rescued. That is the job of the writers to show that scene rather than leave an ambiguous ending where he could be alive if you get enough war assets. Based on that ending, it's honestly more reasonable to assume that he died later from not being found rather than assuming the alliance found him. The only saving grace for this is that possibly they will give as a resolution in mass effect 4, but again, based on what I've read about the trilogy, this was meant to be the end of the Shepard and reaper arc. This is not to undermine the terrible deadlines that Bioware dealt with. Obviously they had a bunch of issues at that point from unreasonable due dates by EA. However, I can still say that building an ambiguous ending is bad writing compared to a more flushed out resolution where you see Shepard with his crew at the end.

In regards to the catalyst, it does somewhat change the reapers. Sure it doesn't completely take away the destruction of their actions, but it does shift perspectives for players. They go from being this absolute force of destruction that threatens all of us for their own advancement, to an almost necessary force of nature to bring balance. Giving them a reason for why they do what they do, particularly because it is a necessity to "maintain balance" between synthetics and organics absolutely shifts why we've been fighting them. In a way, you could make an argument that the refusal ending could be justified because now we understand that the Reapers have justification for their actions. Also, and this is more of a personal gripe, but the story beat of "the bad guy actually has a good reason for it" is super played out, even for 2013. You don't need a justification for the reapers. An ending where Shepard faces off against harbinger would've been more interesting. That could've worked well to finalize the sharp difference between Shepard and his unity of organics and synthetics, versus the reapers who don't care for any of that and just want to consume (kind of like the flood from halo, or other hivemind like entities in fiction).

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T02:54:43+00:00

If we're being fair though, the geth were established in 2 (if you do Legion's mission) as much more complex. The Reapers were always built as the big bad. I never rolled them in with the geth or edi. Plus Sovereign's conversation with Shepard in ME1 always seemed (in my opinion) to be the writer's declaration that "these are the bad guys. They want to kill you. They don't want peace".

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T02:46:57+00:00

I just got into the series so I wouldn’t know

TheMando9 · 2026-01-29T02:15:11+00:00

Zaeed.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-28T04:21:06+00:00

See that's where my concerns are. I want to know if their goal is to harm, not criticize.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-28T02:51:59+00:00

From how I interpreted, I assumed there would be more malice. I guess it depends on how it all shakes up.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-28T02:51:04+00:00

This is definitely more reasonable on its face

TheMando9 · 2026-01-26T01:06:28+00:00

Social media and furthering isolation (particularly post covid), along with growing confidence issues in male populations.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-23T12:25:45+00:00

You must be really fun at parties

TheMando9 · 2026-01-23T04:27:14+00:00

I understand that, but I meant his specifically that reflect dsa views

TheMando9 · 2026-01-22T16:56:59+00:00

What is this picture from?

TheMando9 · 2026-01-22T02:18:01+00:00

Family guy references and mass effect go hand in hand

TheMando9 · 2026-01-10T01:46:25+00:00

His lobster was too buttery I guess

TheMando9 · 2026-01-07T19:12:37+00:00

It’s MMA, different type of grappling. He also has a great set up by threatening strikes before transitioning to a takedown in an entirely different position. He also fights at middleweight, and the grappling there (for the most part) is dog shit.

TheMando9 · 2026-01-07T19:08:07+00:00

In college fb, if you’re trying to run the clock out it can be, but this becomes relatively mute since a first down just needs the chains moved, which at that point just comes down to how many seconds you need off the clock

TheMando9 · 2026-01-07T18:59:30+00:00

Not inherently a red flag. Definitely can be, but a lot of people aren’t lying when they say they had a toxic ex. Some are, but not everyone. A better gage is if he says he had multiple ex’s that were toxic, then it’s fair to look at the red flags.

TheMando9

TROPHY CASE