Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread

Higgledy wrote:
Duoae wrote:

So... how the hell did i get all three endings without playing multiplayer before the extended edition?

As far as I know you got all the endings without multiplayer. The tiny snippet tacked on the end of the ending was what you didn't get.

I think there was some background score requirements for the conversation with the Illusive Man that determined the effectiveness of Charm/Intimidate options too.

Basically a certain level of GR was necessary to get the third option (green), and then your GR after that effected some of the bits of the scenes shown afterward (who survived, etc...). It was NOT possible, to my understanding, to get the very best endings for those three options without multiplayer before, now it is.

Higgledy wrote:
Duoae wrote:

So... how the hell did i get all three endings without playing multiplayer before the extended edition?

As far as I know you got all the endings without multiplayer. The tiny snippet tacked on the end of the ending was what you didn't get.

Yeah, but that's only in one ending, right?

This whole ending shindig was so f**ked up.... not that it's not been said a million times already!

Before the Extended Cut I think you could get all the endings without playing MP but you couldn't get the extra bit for the Destroy ending:

Spoiler:

Shepard taking a breath.

It wasn't really anything special but I have no idea how the extended endings are effected.

Rykin wrote:

Before the Extended Cut I think you could get all the endings without playing MP but you couldn't get the extra bit for the Destroy ending:

Spoiler:

Shepard taking a breath.

It wasn't really anything special but I have no idea how the extended endings are effected.

I just remember a lot of people saying that they never got the choice of all "three" endings - despite doing a lot of in-game stuff (but no MP). I think that the extra bit is a bit pointless though... Since we most probably won't play this character again anyway.

So if I remember right there are two numbers. There is the in-game GR that is affected by quests, side missions, etc. On the menu screen at the start of the game, there is a map of the galaxy divided into sectors with each sector labeled(at the start of the game)50%. That percentage seemed to modify the overall in-game GR score and was raised by playing multiplayer.

My understanding is that before the EE addition you couldn't get the in-game GR high enough for the bonus scene or a couple of dialog options. The extended ending gives you everything without needing to touch the multiplayer.

I played with EE installed as well as Leviathan and it was brain dead easy to make the galactic readiness sky high.

Agent 86 wrote:

So if I remember right there are two numbers. There is the in-game GR that is affected by quests, side missions, etc. On the menu screen at the start of the game, there is a map of the galaxy divided into sectors with each sector labeled(at the start of the game)50%. That percentage seemed to modify the overall in-game GR score and was raised by playing multiplayer.

My understanding is that before the EE addition you couldn't get the in-game GR high enough for the bonus scene or a couple of dialog options. The extended ending gives you everything without needing to touch the multiplayer.

I played with EE installed as well as Leviathan and it was brain dead easy to make the galactic readiness sky high.

More or less. The numbers work as such:

You have your War Assets, which is just the raw number of assets you have. You raise this by doing the side missions and main quests (i.e. get Conrad Verner to help build the crucible).

The percentage you are referring to is the Galactic Readiness. You can increase this by multiplayer or by using the ME3 Datapad app on an iOS device. This number acts as a multiplier for your War Assets. So if you are at 75% readiness, and have 1000 War Assets, your overall readiness for the final showdown will be 750.

The Extended Cut lowered the requirements for overall readiness as alot of folks were 'refusing' to play multiplayer 'just to get the "best" ending'.

Yea when I finished it the first time I had all three ending options but not enough for the extra scene without playing any MP, but it was an imported character which I think also gives you a point boost. Only DLC I had was From Ashes.

I finished the game (finally) over the weekend. I had the Brad Shoemaker play through (i.e. with Leviathan and the Extended Cut), and the story made much more sense than the original commentary on the ending from the fans.

Spoiler:

I am inclined to believe that Shepard is indoctrinated, and making the Control choice is really the bad decision, which would lead to the Reapers gaining sentience over the star child, and breaking the cycle in a bad way. I chose Control, mostly because I played as a Paragon, and that choice was in blue. I didn't remember where Anderson went, but that's what I wanted to do. When I was inadvertently tricked into Control, party by my not paying close enough attention, I took that as a sign that the Reapers won in the end.

I'm ok with that. All in all, I thought Mass Effect 3 was a good final third of the trilogy, and some of the character finales were excellent. I also really enjoyed the Final Hours iOS app, though I wish Geoff Kieghley would have gone back and asked Casey and the team to comment on the original ending.

It's disappointing to me that Leviathan and Extended Cuts were necessary to make the story understandable to so many gamers, but I guess that just boils down to differences in perspective. If more people understand it with those additions, then I'm okay with having them be so bluntly explicit about the whole thing.

I've watched maybe half of the indoctrination argument and while some of it seems really compelling, other parts don't. For example, at one point he mentions stuff about the Mass Relays and Normandy's escape at the end. My point of disagreement is that this portion of the story was told in the third person and so it shouldn't be skewed by anything going on in Shepherd's head. We must take it at face value. Also, I don't think the choices at the end make sense for a story where Shepherd is indoctrinated unless we can assume that Shepherd is able to resist indoctrination long enough at the crucial moment to achieve a victory for the galaxy. There's grounds for this anyway, since Sarin has a moment of clarity near the end as well. If this were really what the writers were going for though, I'd love to hear it. This game is dying for a postmortem.

The actor who voiced Zaeed (and in GalaxyQuest, the villain Sarris), has passed away.

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

That was what BW claimed, but I believe forumgoers pretty conclusively showed that that last tier of ending unlock was in fact impossible to reach with only 50% readiness. You could get just about everything else if you minmaxed SP though, yeah.

They never did give a straight response to that except perhaps "we're looking into it," but they did indeed lower it drastically with the Extended Cut anyhow.

CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

You had to do EVERYTHING I think including importing a character all the way from ME1.

Not quite a spoiler, but I'm afraid to say that whatever the next adventures are in the ME universe, Zaeed won't be part of them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainm...

Spoiler:

Still, at least in one of the enhanced endings you see him lying on a deckchair with a drink in his hand..

Kloreep wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

That was what BW claimed, but I believe forumgoers pretty conclusively showed that that last tier of ending unlock was in fact impossible to reach with only 50% readiness. You could get just about everything else if you minmaxed SP though, yeah.

They never did give a straight response to that except perhaps "we're looking into it," but they did indeed lower it drastically with the Extended Cut anyhow.

Yeah, you could get everything EXCEPT that short post-credit cut-scene for the Destroy option. The War Assets were very much like the minerals in 2: there were more than enough of them in the main game proper, so if you missed/skipped a couple of side missions (or made choices were you got the lesser amount of War Assets for any particular mission), it would still unlock all 3 main choices. I know I had way more than I needed and that was doing almost all sidequests.

nel e nel wrote:
Kloreep wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

That was what BW claimed, but I believe forumgoers pretty conclusively showed that that last tier of ending unlock was in fact impossible to reach with only 50% readiness. You could get just about everything else if you minmaxed SP though, yeah.

They never did give a straight response to that except perhaps "we're looking into it," but they did indeed lower it drastically with the Extended Cut anyhow.

Yeah, you could get everything EXCEPT that short post-credit cut-scene for the Destroy option. The War Assets were very much like the minerals in 2: there were more than enough of them in the main game proper, so if you missed/skipped a couple of side missions (or made choices were you got the lesser amount of War Assets for any particular mission), it would still unlock all 3 main choices. I know I had way more than I needed and that was doing almost all sidequests.

Unlocking the three options was only part of the War Assets use. There were several tiers of how well the universe (and especially Earth) survived the end of days, along with some changes for your team as well. Having just enough war assets for the third option still left Earth in kind of the crapper for a few decades. Having maxed out assets (which did require multiplayer without min/maxing story choices) did not get you into those higher tiers. Not big differences but you did pretty much need the multiplayer to get the best ending without min/maxing through three whole games.

Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Kloreep wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

That was what BW claimed, but I believe forumgoers pretty conclusively showed that that last tier of ending unlock was in fact impossible to reach with only 50% readiness. You could get just about everything else if you minmaxed SP though, yeah.

They never did give a straight response to that except perhaps "we're looking into it," but they did indeed lower it drastically with the Extended Cut anyhow.

Yeah, you could get everything EXCEPT that short post-credit cut-scene for the Destroy option. The War Assets were very much like the minerals in 2: there were more than enough of them in the main game proper, so if you missed/skipped a couple of side missions (or made choices were you got the lesser amount of War Assets for any particular mission), it would still unlock all 3 main choices. I know I had way more than I needed and that was doing almost all sidequests.

Unlocking the three options was only part of the War Assets use. There were several tiers of how well the universe (and especially Earth) survived the end of days, along with some changes for your team as well. Having just enough war assets for the third option still left Earth in kind of the crapper for a few decades. Having maxed out assets (which did require multiplayer without min/maxing story choices) did not get you into those higher tiers. Not big differences but you did pretty much need the multiplayer to get the best ending without min/maxing through three whole games.

Yeah, I remember that, but were these different survival states reflected in the endings at all? I was under the impression that the game didn't really give any indication of what shape Earth was in after it was all said and done, thus leading to all the hubub about the ending.

Here's a chart that breaks it all down:

http://www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect...

Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Kloreep wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

That was what BW claimed, but I believe forumgoers pretty conclusively showed that that last tier of ending unlock was in fact impossible to reach with only 50% readiness. You could get just about everything else if you minmaxed SP though, yeah.

They never did give a straight response to that except perhaps "we're looking into it," but they did indeed lower it drastically with the Extended Cut anyhow.

Yeah, you could get everything EXCEPT that short post-credit cut-scene for the Destroy option. The War Assets were very much like the minerals in 2: there were more than enough of them in the main game proper, so if you missed/skipped a couple of side missions (or made choices were you got the lesser amount of War Assets for any particular mission), it would still unlock all 3 main choices. I know I had way more than I needed and that was doing almost all sidequests.

Unlocking the three options was only part of the War Assets use. There were several tiers of how well the universe (and especially Earth) survived the end of days, along with some changes for your team as well. Having just enough war assets for the third option still left Earth in kind of the crapper for a few decades. Having maxed out assets (which did require multiplayer without min/maxing story choices) did not get you into those higher tiers. Not big differences but you did pretty much need the multiplayer to get the best ending without min/maxing through three whole games.

Not really - if you used the iOS app, you could get your war preparedness to 100% without touching MP. I've just finished my first run with the Omega and Leviathan DLC's and I ended up with a derived score of over 7000.

davet010 wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Kloreep wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

The way I remember it, you could get the best ending in the at-launch version of the game without doing MP. You had to do everything else in SP to do it, though. I might be misremembering, but I thought that was BW's response to the "you're forcing us all into MP" argument.

That was what BW claimed, but I believe forumgoers pretty conclusively showed that that last tier of ending unlock was in fact impossible to reach with only 50% readiness. You could get just about everything else if you minmaxed SP though, yeah.

They never did give a straight response to that except perhaps "we're looking into it," but they did indeed lower it drastically with the Extended Cut anyhow.

Yeah, you could get everything EXCEPT that short post-credit cut-scene for the Destroy option. The War Assets were very much like the minerals in 2: there were more than enough of them in the main game proper, so if you missed/skipped a couple of side missions (or made choices were you got the lesser amount of War Assets for any particular mission), it would still unlock all 3 main choices. I know I had way more than I needed and that was doing almost all sidequests.

Unlocking the three options was only part of the War Assets use. There were several tiers of how well the universe (and especially Earth) survived the end of days, along with some changes for your team as well. Having just enough war assets for the third option still left Earth in kind of the crapper for a few decades. Having maxed out assets (which did require multiplayer without min/maxing story choices) did not get you into those higher tiers. Not big differences but you did pretty much need the multiplayer to get the best ending without min/maxing through three whole games.

Not really - if you used the iOS app, you could get your war preparedness to 100% without touching MP. I've just finished my first run with the Omega and Leviathan DLC's and I ended up with a derived score of over 7000.

Multiplayer or an App, either way, before the Extended Cut was released, you needed to get that that extra percentage from something that was not the single player, which the series had been built on.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the game, was really not that bothered by the ending other than wondering about what was going to happen to galactic civilization when the gates blew up (which the extended cut seems to rewrite saying they didn't).

But it just seemed so pointless that I had to get into something that was not part of the series to finish it in the "best" way.

I played with the extended cut installed, didn't play multi but finished with a 5800 effective military rating and though I chose the Destroy ending I don't recall seeing the clip that indicates Shepherd survives. But that part is so quick I may have just missed it.

Moved over from the non-spoiler thread:

LarryC wrote:

The Luna incident is. That's a depiction of what happens when an AI has to choose between its own survival and that of organics.

Well then that's not inevitable because not inevitable that the AI is going to have to make that choice. That's not even an issue of AI: that's Ashley Williams' logic when it comes to organic-but-alien species.

Grossly, I would say that the Geth incident says the same thing. It's mired in a lot of cultural baggage referring to US slavery and such, but the heart of conflict is a survival one - the Geth had to kill their Quarian masters to survive, and so they did. Applying that principle to all such conflicts is the logical offshoot. Likewise, it is logical that if Shepard were to be shot in the head, she would die, though ME lore doesn't exactly say so.

That the Geth had to kill some Quarians along the way to making coexistence possible isn't an argument against coexistence being possible.

CheezePavilion:

Well then that's not inevitable because not inevitable that the AI is going to have to make that choice. That's not even an issue of AI: that's Ashley Williams' logic when it comes to organic-but-alien species.

I would say that it is. Sooner or later, the AI will have to make a choice, and it's clear that it chooses its own survival every time.

That the Geth had to kill some Quarians along the way to making coexistence possible isn't an argument against coexistence being possible.

Let's say that the universe is just composed of Rannoch. Then the Geth just exterminated the Quarians. Well, we don't have to say that, really. Eventually, the universe will be "just Rannoch." This was why the Geth-Quarian conflict being decided was, one or another, inevitable. There's only so much energy in the universe. At some point, the AI will have to choose between itself and organics. Geth chose themselves. Note that they did not leave any Quarians on Rannoch - not even Quarians who were friendly. They killed every one.

LarryC wrote:

CheezePavilion:

Well then that's not inevitable because not inevitable that the AI is going to have to make that choice. That's not even an issue of AI: that's Ashley Williams' logic when it comes to organic-but-alien species.

I would say that it is. Sooner or later, the AI will have to make a choice, and it's clear that it chooses its own survival every time.

That the Geth had to kill some Quarians along the way to making coexistence possible isn't an argument against coexistence being possible.

Let's say that the universe is just composed of Rannoch. Then the Geth just exterminated the Quarians. Well, we don't have to say that, really. Eventually, the universe will be "just Rannoch." This was why the Geth-Quarian conflict being decided was, one or another, inevitable. There's only so much energy in the universe. At some point, the AI will have to choose between itself and organics. Geth chose themselves. Note that they did not leave any Quarians on Rannoch - not even Quarians who were friendly. They killed every one.

Well that has nothing to do with organic vs. synthetic. At some point, humans will have to choose between humans and some other intelligent species, whether that species is organic or synthetic. At the point you're talking about, maybe the Geth don't decide between organic and synthetic. Maybe they decide between Rannoch-ians and Everybody Else.

maybe some tool in Mass Effect 17-2 plugs in the overlord, and when the universe reaches Peak Element Zero, the Geth decide to stick with the Quarians against the Pi-eaters of Earth.

It's not like that. The Geth are sentient but they are not a form of organic life. Likewise, we view ourselves as sentient and alive, but the Geth may not. The two are too different in that way to really be as alike as two AI or two organics.

LarryC wrote:

It's not like that. The Geth are sentient but they are not a form of organic life. Likewise, we view ourselves as sentient and alive, but the Geth may not. The two are too different in that way to really be as alike as two AI or two organics.

I don't see how any of that would change anything.

In the sense that the Geth are AI and do not consider the "platform" important, they may not consider organic bodies all that important. If "human-like" consciousness (AI) is preserved and continues to replicate, what further purpose does the platform (human species) serve?

The distinction between purely mental and mind-body creatures is fairly important. It is not at all similar to two organic species interacting.

LarryC wrote:

In the sense that the Geth are AI and do not consider the "platform" important, they may not consider organic bodies all that important. If "human-like" consciousness (AI) is preserved and continues to replicate, what further purpose does the platform (human species) serve?

The distinction between purely mental and mind-body creatures is fairly important. It is not at all similar to two organic species interacting.

For purposes of your scenario where there's only enough energy for one species, it's identical. Heck, if you're talking about a point that far in the future, who knows if synthetics will be capable of attacking organics--maybe they'll all just be sitting around in their Dyson spheres having lost their capacity for offensive combat thousands of centuries ago. Maybe all the organics die out due to acute space herpes long before that point.

If your going to base the idea of an inevitable conflict so far in the future we're talking about the heat-death of the universe, it loses any relevance to the events of the game.

Maybe the robots at the end of the universe is traveling back in time to harvest much needed resources!

That could be a totally legit episode on Doctor Who actually.

Yes but if the robot needs to do that, they're just hastening the end of availability of that research at their own point in time. Worse, by harvesting the past, they could be working to prevent the creation of their own future, maybe even themselves. That assumes purely linear time of course and not harvesting another timestream in the multiverse. Man, talk about the ethical dilemma (chrono-cide? time-icide? universe-icide?) that could cause!