The controversial ending from Mass Effect 3 with the much-hated "God Child" may have been planned as early as Mass Effect 1.
In the first game, you can fly the Kepler Verge and then the Newton System. In the Newton System, there's a planet called Klencory. It has the following description...
"Klencory is a rock and ice planet with an atmosphere composed of chlorine and argon. The frozen surface is mainly composed of potassium with deposits of iron.
Klencory is famously claimed by the eccentric volus billionare Kumum Shol. He claims that a vision of a higher being told him to seek on Klencory the “lost crypts of beings of light”. These entities were supposedly created at the dawn of time to protect organic life from synthetic “machine devils”.
Shol has been excavating on Klencory’s toxic surface for two decades, at great expense. No government has valued the world enough to evict his small army of mercenaries."
Thanks to RPS for the story. And the real thanks goes to HunterX6 on the Bioware forums who discovered this juicy tidbit. Hopefully his dreams weren't crushed either.
Maybe this article should be labeled a spoiler? Because (possible spoiler) The whole god child thing is sort of a secret.
Interesting. If this is true then I'll be eating a lot of crow. However (minor spoilor): it still doesn't explain the circular logic in the ending. Plus there isn't any indication that the god child was a manufactured being... the implication is that they just... are.
Bioware can only redeem themselves by releasing the 'true' ending for free. And it must be epic, and it must be a couple more hours of playtime at least.
If they pulled that off, that would make them the ultimate trolls that converted themselves into heroes. If they planned to release ending A, thinking that they could really surprise you by revealing a lot more through a future DLC, that is a certain kind of brilliant.
But, if they charge, then the whole thing becomes a cynical piece of F-U to the fans, and I for one will not buy a 'real ending' to a game. Ever. I expect every game to come with the real ending.
Well, two problems with that. First off, there's only one being and it is Reaper-aligned, and second of all it might just be a tidbit left in there in preparation for another race they wanted to add. Or indoctrination.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintBlitzkrieg
Also, Telltale signed with xbox, with fear that if they released Jurassic Park on the PS3, the dinosaurs would get loose.
This is not news. All this tidbit of info offers what we knew all along, what Bioware has discussed since the beginning: that one of the overarching themes of Mass Effect is the tension between synthetics and organics. It in no way predicts the ending whatsoever, the tension began the moment the geth placed a spike to turn a human into a husk.
Meh. I haven't finished the game yet but my involvement with the gaming community brought about the ending "idea" a long while ago.
If you frequent a site as gaming-centric as this then you sure as shit better know what all the buzz is about by now.
The ending of this game is gaming news. The drama around it's being potentially rewritten is gaming news.
Sack the fuck up casual gamers.
I'm annoyed by the ending like you people but I just watched this Indoctrination theory video and my god, it has some good points. Not sure if I'm 100% sold but we shall see once the new dlc comes.
I don't get the text in the pic (it's not from that episode), is it a reference to something I missed?
I'm a little dubious about this myself. IF this was the case, and the ending had been there since game 1, then why hasn't Bioware pointed this out themselves? I would think that would back up their justification of the ending greatly.
__________________ "If I want to say [George Washington] didn't [have slaves] that's my right, and now, thanks to Wikipedia *taps keyboard* it's also a fact."
-Stephen Colbert
I'm not a huge fan of the ending, (I felt the ideas at the core were solid, they were just poorly explained, and the whole garden of eden planet the Normandy crashes on is a bit heavy-handed), but I don't get why people are so butt-hurt over it.
And yeah, I totally believe that this is what they always intended. This is a story about the end of the galaxy - an apocolypse on a truely grand scale. The whole series has been making a point of how immensely powerful the Reapers are... you can't just kill these guys; they've been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years, (at least!). They are the ultimate death sentence - the unbeatable villians. I'm sure the last thing anybody really wanted was "now that we've finished the super-weapon, the Reapers all die and the galaxy lives happily ever after".
Also, it's not really circular logic; the Crucible, (or God-child if you like), wants to preserve all organic life, but every cycle, higher level organic life develops synthetics, who are destined to wipe out all organic life. So the Crucible built the Reapers, to harvest the higher level organics at their peek, but allow the developing organics to survive. The Crucible is tending a field, (the galaxy), just as a farmer would, ensuring that it continues to remain healthy. If the Crucible didn't harvest the high-level organics, a war with synthetics would completely sterilize the galaxy.
And there's no saying that there's only one Crucible - it could well be that each member of their race tends it's own galaxy. Perhaps each tries to find it's own solution to the organic/synthetic problem.
It's actually a pretty cool idea, they just didn't articulate it as well as they should have.
I'm annoyed by the ending like you people but I just watched this Indoctrination theory video and my god, it has some good points. Not sure if I'm 100% sold but we shall see once the new dlc comes.
Screw the indoctrination ending as well. Give me the endings you wanted to give us in the first place and the ending all those millions of gamers that purchased your game deserve. Dont deviate from the path because of deadlines and what not. Or become lazy and let the community decided to decipher a potential plot twist that may or may not have been there...
Bioware, do it now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockwoodx
Why the fuck do people care about guns anyways? Oh right... they equal a penis.
It doesn't matter what the ending is. What truly blows about it is, that aside from making sure Shepard survives the Collector base in ME2, every other thing you do in the series, aside from your readiness score in ME3 that gives you the up to 3 options in the end, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. The people you save, the people you kill, the friends you gather, the fleets and races you gather, all of THEM are universally fucked by all your decisions at the end. Sure you can argue, gotta do whatever to "break the cycle" but the way you play the whole series, you are trying to save THIS cycle, not fuck it over in favor of whoever comes along next that can work with a galaxy without the stuff you've just blown up, including the millions that lived on the cannon you just used lol.
Same. Often times the simplest answer is the correct one. While I see a lot of people who dismiss it, it really does make the most sense. Indoctrination has been in all the games, and while I've only read the first Mass Effect book, it's in there too.
Spoiler warning:
Also, it's not really circular logic; the Crucible, (or God-child if you like), wants to preserve all organic life, but every cycle, higher level organic life develops synthetics, who are destined to wipe out all organic life. So the Crucible built the Reapers, to harvest the higher level organics at their peek, but allow the developing organics to survive.
SPOILER: The Geth make peace removing the need to call in the reapers. That said, maybe peace wasn't made quickly enough and there was too much momentum to stop the reapers, but I'd expect the god child making the reaper puppets dance could have seen to that.
