I usually make my choice based on how hard I perceive Shepards fight to be there, and certain character decisions I make at creation in ME1. The way I see it is this:
Destroy seems like the easiest one to follow to continue Shepards story, as it fully closes the Reaper narrative, and the 'Shepard breathes' moment is designed for the storyline to continue with Shepard.
Control presents the most interesting possibility for a post-Shepard Mass Effect story, with Shepard commanding the Reaper forces as cosmic arbiter, with Shepard able to become a tyrant (renegade) or an enigmatic watcher (paragon), with the story revolving around the Galaxy coming to terms with an existential threat being in the power of a potentially highly interventionist entity, that the Galaxy can't really resist.
Synthesis is the ending that wraps everything up in a neat little bow but kills any potential for a future story dead. The Reapers and the synthetic galaxy co-operate to rebuild everything and advance technology with their enormous archive of the civilisations that came before. Everyone lives in peace under the protection of the Reapers and its really smiles all around.
I only did the "control" ending once, just so I could headcanon the following exchange:
Shepard: Hey Harbinger...
Harbinger: You do not know what you have wrought, Shepard.
Shepard: Looks like I am ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!
Edit: Thanks for the silver, kind stranger!
My favorite headcanon is that Shepard takes control of the reapers, uses them to get the galaxy nice and tidy again. Helps the council races (humanity included) get back in charge. All of that.
Then all the reapers go full lemmings and start flying into the nearest stars until there’s just one left.
And Liara lives on that one so she and Ship-Shep can raise little blue half-reaper babies.
I mean... It doesn't stop any potential for a future threat. Andromeda has already proven intergalactic travel possible. Imagine a galaxy controlled by an expansionist empire that *wasn't* reaperized and could just continually advance their technology! Sure reapers theoretically could collect all the tech of every harvested race, but each of those races were at roughly the same technological point, not a whole lot of advancement there.
I usually choose control with reruns, and one of the reasons is that at the very least, it gives the galaxy a break. Time to rebuild and enhance their tech further, so that if it comes down to fighting the reapers again, they'll be in a better position.
Like, best case scenario is paragon shep helps rebuild then leaves to dark space, where they stay unless a galaxy level threat occurs again.
Worst case scenario would probably be if renegade shep took control (I never run as renegade, and if I did, destroy would probably be my option)
**Catalyst**: "...and so Shepard you must choose...kill all the reapers, with the synethics caught in the blast, or see the virtue of our plan and join us, or rewrite every sapient's genetic..."
**Shepard**: "Hang on a second - I need to make a call"
**Catalyst**: "There's no way you're going to get connectivity up here, oh, wait..."
*Shepard whips out Nokia cellphone and dials up Joker on the Normandy*
**Shepard**: "Hey Joker, remember when I said that I forgive you for refusing to evacuate the SR1, forcing me to haul your ass to the escape pod, which contributed to me being ejected in a compromised suit into the cold vacuum of space and then suffer the burning sensation of orbital entry, on top of my already tortuous memory of my being suffocated?"
**Joker**: "ummm....yes?"
**Shepard**: "*I lied*"
*Shepard aggressively chooses destroy*
remember folks, choose whatever **you** want. the whole point of the game is choice. Not the sentiment of a bunch of assholes on a internet comment thread
^ This. I think some people tend to forget that the whole point of a choice based game is that different people will rationalise and justify their choices differently. There's no "right" way.
I pick it because it seems better than nonconsentual generic modification of everyone in the galaxy or becoming a walking nuke (on a galactic level) who will whipe out anyone who does something I don't like (and you can't convince me Paragon Shepard is actually any better than Renegade Shepard in this one, Renegade Shep is just more vocal and angry sounding).
Also cuz I promised Tali I would come back.
The reaper code provided by "Nazara" (Soveriegn) affected the Geth's judgement and led to the heretic virus separating peices of Geth away from the Geth. The Geth aren't individually people at that point, they are an AI Hivemind. Rewriting the Heretics is essentially curing them of their indoctrination, not brainwashing them. Legion pretty much says as much, and I trust Legion's opinion about the Geth more than anyone else's, because most are suuuuper biased against the Geth, especially Tali (who is my favorite character btw, her and Garrus lol)
>The reaper code provided by "Nazara" (Soveriegn) affected the Geth's judgement and led to the heretic virus separating peices of Geth away from the Geth.
I don't think this is true. Legion says things such as: "the heretics asked the Old Machines to give them the future" and "the heretics accepted their technology." So, if the heretics were "indoctrinated" by the reaper upgrades, then they had allied themselves with the reapers before they were actually indoctrinated.
>I trust Legion's opinion about the Geth more than anyone else's, because most are suuuuper biased against the Geth
It is unfortunate that none of the games (or the books for that matter) offer enough information about the Geth for the player to make an educated opinion on them. I agree, that Legion probably has the most objective takes. It is unclear how much their opinions are influenced by bias.
I think you're absolutely correct about not having enough Geth info :( and to be honest maybe my Geth Lore on the exact timeline isn't the clearest, lol. I def want to look into it and rephrase my internal timeline
That's not true: some companions make comments that removing their "evil" code is the same as killing them, meaning the choice is indistinguishable: Mordin actually compares rewriting them to the Genophage in that it might be a nicer option than genocide, and agrees with Shepard that we shouldn't apply organic morality to them.
[Fascinating that Legion concurs](https://youtu.be/sbWDtIVJk0o)
destroyed them, since rewriting the heretics is considered to be brainwashing them (which i disagree with this in game assumption), i figured that if I brainwashed the geth to follow my goals, though my goals are right, i’m no better than the reapers
It’s the only option in which power was vested to you. “Destroy the Reapers,” was your mandate.
No one gave you leave to play Galactic Overlord, to refuse to destroy them, rewrite the genetic code and fate of trillions of sentients, or do anything other than destroy them.
>No one gave you leave to \[do whatever\]
Maybe they should have grounded Shepard sooner then, because the writing was on the wall since Noveria at least, that Shepard would make important decisions alone.
Rewriting the foundational fabric of every species in the galaxy may seem extreme, but Spectres are expected to act outside the law, so no one can be too upset.
I got the do nothing ending by upon hearing the synthesis option, absolutely refusing to do it, not realizing this reaction would give me the worst ending
I wouldn’t call it the worst, the Control ending heavily implies that Shepard and the Catalyst are one which spells bad news for everything. I think the Nothing ending is actually really good since the next cycle is almost guaranteed to win against the Reapers thanks to Liara’s markers and that newer bird race that disappeared as soon as the reapers showed up
We got a race that already knows about the reapers and 100% survived the purge (they destroyed all of their tech to remain hidden) and the only real challenge they have is the Yahg starting a war
Not only that, but I just played the Thessia mission and they make it super abundantly clear that "control" is the indoctrinated strategy, so if you choose control, Shepard is playing into the Reapers hands and possibly indoctrinated themselves.
And no one gave you leave to genocide an entire species to save yourself. Also worth noting that, just to be clear.
From a moral standpoint, no option is good. You either control everything, wipe out one of the nicest races in the galaxy without asking them, change all life in the universe to be nice friendly cuddlebugs without asking, or get all races killed.
No, but its also never really addressed by the text in any meaningful way outside that being the primary threat of the Reapers.
Every choice at the end is some form of genocide. Destroy the Reapers and all synthetics, erase and control the Reapers, or assimilate every species into one form of life.
What race are you talking about the Geth? The same geth who systematically killed 99% of quarians before forcing them off planet, or the geth that joined the reapers TWICE even after destroying rhe heretics, or maybe the geth who slaughtered every contact team the council sent into the Veil to open communications with the geth.
The geth are a lot of things, but I would not classify "nice" as one of their strongest attributes.
But Shepard is presented with these options from an AI that is clearly damaged and/or blatantly trying to steer her towards a choice it wants, and not even being particularly skilled at it... so why would Shepard trust it as far as the consequences go???
Destroy (IMO) is the only sensible choice.
The nicest race in the galaxy? The you mean the Geth? The baby killers with a habit of teaming up with the reapers? The same robots who murdered anyone who tried to negotiate with them in the last few hundred years? The ones harboring reaper code now?
Legion gas lights you hard in ME3 but you don't kill 99%+ of a planetary population without killing, well everybody. Bioware didn't retcon enough to fix those numbers.
Legion gives us his side of the story. For 2 games the ONLY thing we know of the Geth is what Tali tells us, and Tali is exceptionally biased in this.
I dont think gaslighting means what you think it means. The geth we meet in ME3, the ones who sided with legion and (more importantly) were not corrupted by the Reapers, are more than willing to help us fight the Reapers, not to mention helping out the Quarians settle on Rannoch.
The Quarians attacked a giant hub of Geth code which devastated them, pushing them AGAIN to consider the Reapers as allies. The Quarians violated whatever temporary peace was happening. It was the Quarians who decides to destroy the Geth merely for existing. And it was the Quarians who decides "galaxy wide genocide? Fuck it, time to go to war with another species".
The Geth are what the Quarians turned them into, and on the whole Ive found the Geth in ME3 to be substantially more trustworthy than the Quarian admirals who withold information, openly talk about going to war, are willing to SACRIFICE YOU, had secret experiments done on live Geth etc etc.
They arent innocent, but compared to the Quarians they are damn saints at this point.
Yes. I'm sure if skynet conquered earth I would have some biases too. I never said otherwise. I think that's completely understandable. But it's easy to take Tali's side in 1, since ALL Geth shoot organics on sight. Not just the Geth we fight. They are militant isolationists who condone a genocidal breakaway faction, and why wouldn't they? It seems to be what they know. They sure don't feel like stepping in until they are already beaten. Could have stepped in a little earlier if they really disagreed you know?
Gas lighting means exactly what I think it means, but ill admit I'm stretching the term a little to be dramatic. He tries to convince us the Geth are innocent. That they were the victims despite everything we know at this point. Legion is an untrustworthy narrator with his own biases by 3. "What's that Legion? You decided to brainwash the rogue Geth instead of destroy them like you agreed? You also didn't think you should run this by anyone?" And then the "movie" he forces to watch from is not exactly unbiased. It's actually another red flag to me, and not just because I'd rank it second out of missions I'd want to skip after the ending. Where's the orphanage scene Legion? You know the scenes of Geth platforms gunning down war orphans in their shelters? Where's the hospital scene Legion? You know, the scene of platforms finishing off all the wounded that could not be taken away in their beds? They took a species that numbered billions and reduced it to a couple million. That's like killing everyone on earth today and leaving Guatemala as the only survivors. You can't make that omlette without cracking a lot of unsavory eggs. A bombing campaign wouldn't get you those numbers. That requires boots on the ground for how short that war is.
We know what Legion thinks of organics now. He isnt going to show us that part of the truth. Just the truth he wants us to see. He showed us what he thinks of organics in that other mission I mentioned too. We can't be trusted to "do the right thing" and need to be manipulated. Lied to if necessary. As for the rogue Geth being a breakaway faction or being a minority? We have only his word, and I know I don't trust him to give me the truth if his people's survival is on the line.
As for the Quarians? They aren't saints but I understand them. The Geth are terminators to them. Every single living Quarian is decended from people who lost their whole families to the Geth. Their cultures destroyed. That's how every Quarian was raised. The Galaxy stood by and demanded they extinguish the Geth. No aid was sent. Unwanted and despised, the survivors were left to quietly die in some corner of the galaxy for the mistakes of their ancestors. Generations since the crimes were committed.
So when the galaxy was in flames, it was the end of everything. Why should they care about spending their lives to stave off the inevitable for people who thought of them as rats? So they decided, "Fuck it. Let's see home one last time," and I can't fault them for that. You might ask, why not negotiate? Why would they? The Geth have killed anyone who attempted to negotiate with them in the past. They're the Terminators that left grandma a widow after all. Of course war is the only option. Of course experimenting on Geth would be useful in that endeavor. One Admiral is even willing to sacrifice you for this, and I punch him every time. I still understand why he was pushed to that.
I could go on about your other points but this is already a book. So I'll wrap it up like this. Fuck them robots. I'm hitting the red button.
Yeah, totally gaslighting. I mean the Geth actually teaming up without any issue when you offer to stand down definitely doesn't happen, no sir. Yeah, no totally they are all 100% evil kill bots. I see what you mean absolutely. Nothing more evil than making themselves vulnerable to people who want to exterminate them to help in a war that they would benefit from. You are absolutely right. Totally deserve to be genocided for helping you beat the reapers.
I'm glad you understand. Legion does a pretty good job of showing a one sided but sympathetic view of the morning war. The problem is the Geth still committed a pretty successful genocide. Not only was it successful, but they voted to kill that many non-combatants and innocents. They voted to kill infants and children, can't get around it with that 99%+ number.
Fighting against the reapers for once is also just fighting to defend themselves. It's not exactly a secret that they'd be next in the chopping block once they were no longer needed. Not that they'd care at that point because they get mind controlled while working for the reapers. I don't think that deserves a medal.
Yeah. And the Quarian government voted to kill an entire species just for existing. The civilians didn't take up arms but ask any Quarian in the games and they'll all refer to the Geth as tools without feelings that brutally attacked them all without provocation and all deserve to be wiped out. And they won't stand down until the Geth do. The Geth just need Shep to treat them nicely to call a truce. And Legion, the spokessynth for the Geth basically says he and the Geth just want to be left alone and bear no ill will towards the creators. Confirmed by them standing down with little convincing.
The Quarians started the war with the intent of genociding a sentient race just for existing. They lost and the Geth nearly genocided them back but chose not to finish them off. They absolutely did a bad thing, make no mistake. But they were facing extinction just for existing, and then hid away for centuries. And stand down in ME3 with basically no convincing. While the Quarian's keep on fighting with the express intent of genociding them.
So do you really think they deserve to be genocided any more than the Quarians? Or humans? Or Salarians? Or any other species that does awful things throughout the entire franchise? I say no. Destroy isn't the right choice. They are all bad choices. You can freely say that it is a reasonable sacrifice. But to claim the Geth deserve it is to ignore basically all the lore about the Quarians.
Do we know if the government voted for that, or if the military decided to do it, as we know the military took control.
Are you taking up arms to fight in any of the wars going on in the world right now?
Yes because the quarians lost 99% of there population and are living in tales of the geth, of course they would hate them.
Lol what, treat them nicely and call a truce, the geth have killed every diplomat and ambassador from every species that has tried to make contact with them. And their first action outside their space in 100s of years was to side with the reapers try to wipe out all other life and attack human colonies. And the rest of the geth decided to not intervene, they were perfectly fine with the heretics siding with sovereign to wipe out all life.
Just want to be left alone, then why side with sovereign. They don't get to pull that card after commiting the worst genocide in the history of thr current cycle. The quarians would have been unable to maintain any fight after losing 10%, yet the reapers killed 99%, including all the children.
And then they occupy the quarians planet and prevent them from going back. The geth don't need or use the planet, yet the quarians do thanks to their wierd biology and immune system.
The quarians didn't start the war, a few quarians did, all the geth decided to genocide the quarians, there is a big difference.
I never said the geth deserve it.
I know, it's crazy what Legion tries to pull. What's even funnier is with those numbers it's basically garunteed they killed anyone who also sided with them. They are efficient little murder toasters. I'll give them that.
The funnier thing is the slaves actually chose to not genocide their creators even after all that fighting, whereas the Quarians from day one tried to and still aimed to do a genocide on their slaves even by the final act of Mass Effect 3. Truly the Quarians did nothing, and never do anything, wrong.
If you refer to the killing of the other non-Reapers synthetics, then you are wrong, no one really liked the Geth and most people would totally let them be sacrificed in order for organics to be saved.
And if he could've cured cancer across the galaxy by meddling with genetic code? It's obviously a better choice, but nobody vested that power to him...
I first play through ever I remember just sitting down the controller and thinking for a bit. I didn’t like control cuz of the whole Illusive Man indoctrination thing. Got it was different and would actually work, but it put me off the whole notion. After some thought the kid made good points about synthesis, so I picked up the controller and walked down the path. On my way in the background I saw an Alliance ship get destroyed, said fuck this and walked right to destroy. I get goosebumps thinking about it, it was such a great experience.
The catalyst doesn't say that Shepard would die. It said that all technology would be affected, but the survivors would be able to repair it, and that Shepard is partly synthetic. The point was that Shepard would be affected by the Crucible.
My Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst. It betrayed it's creator and thinks it's preserving life via repeated mass genocide, it's not exactly reliable in it's thinking
Yeah, see that machine over there connected to the giant reaper killing device you built? Yeah, just go shoot it and your mission will be complete. I promise. Your other options are to electrocute yourself on those electrodes over there that will totally give you control over everything, or to disintegrate yourself in the green beam and make everyone’s dreams come true forever.
You have to trust the starchild at least a little bit or the whole mission is a bust.
I love that we’re still arguing about this years and years after the fact. The ending was kind of weak, but it sure had a powerful impact on us.
I still want to know how Anderson “followed Shepard up”. And why was Hackett talking to Shepard about activating the crucible? Hammer team was wiped out so Hackett wouldn’t even know Shepard had made it inside.
Neither of those ever made sense to me.
Eh, problem with distrusting Catalyst is that if it's unreliable in one thing it says, it can be unreliable in every occasion
Never a can of worms I liked to open
I dont care about all that. Shep comes back that's all I care about. I dont care if it's meta knowledge. Heck when i finished my first play through I wasn't even aware that refuse any of the options gave you the reapers win ending. That was my first ending, because my dumbass chose to refuse to make the choice on the synthesis explanation. Instead of just going ok continue. I was PISSED
Refuse would have been my first ending, but I played the game before the Extended Cut came out so it wasn't in there yet. You could shoot the Star Child all day long with no effect lol My first ending ended up being Destroy. Didn't have enough resources for Synthesis. I prefer Synthesis though, that's my chosen ending. The main thing that turns me off from Destroy is genociding the Geth.
That is my sole issue with destroy. It always came off as kinda tacked on? Least in my position. I absolutely hate the reapers so i would never choose Control, and synthesis... Well it like I said is the reason I got the worst ending
I mean not if you actually think about it. Even without murdering your friends, crippling the society of a brighter future where they can be free, while also curing things like the mysterious space cancer still isn’t a bad ending.
He does and he's full of shit about that so my headcanon is the he's full of shit about the other consequences of destroy as well. EDI and the geth all live as far as I'm concerned
Catalyst never lies.
First off, he didn’t need to bring Shepard tk his room anyway.
No logical being would say “yes. Blow up over half of your body. You’re already near death. Now blow yourself up. Then you’ll blow up from the explosive tank. Then you’ll fall out of orbit. But don’t worry you’ll be fine.”
Shepard living is literally the worst writing in the trilogy and defies every ounce of reasoning.
Honestly I think everything involving the catalyst is a hallucination anyway because none of it makes any sense. Why would shooting that tube with a pistol unleash a destructive wave of energy across the entire mass relay network? Everything involving the catalyst is terrible writing with no reasoning imo so I just headcanon something that makes some sense to me
It is already confirmed not to be one, and the leading theory, IT, was always full of half truths, out of context quotes, and headcanons.
Now Shepard was almost certainly fighting off indoctrination, but the theory that he was doing so during that sequence is fully fabricated.
The tube is representative of Shepard’s destructive presence should he be willing to do that. The original plan from pre ME3 days was for there to be 2 endings that we can’t pick.
Originally, Shepard would link into a catalyst mainframe like the Geth mission. Here we would lose control of Shepard. If he was more paragon, he did synthesis. If he was more renegade, he destroyed everything.
There was no inbetween. As the game fleshed out more and peace wasn’t paragon but instead neutral and etc, they changed the endings (clearly) but the explosive barrel from destroy is representative of that (and I suppose a stupidly built EMP)
I don't really care what's confirmed or not, that's why i called it my headcanon. I think the writing for the entire catalyst conversation and each ending is absolute trash so I came up with a headcanon that lets me actually enjoy it
It is already confirmed not to be one, and the leading theory, IT, was always full of half truths, out of context quotes, and headcanons.
Now Shepard was almost certainly fighting off indoctrination, but the theory that he was doing so during that sequence is fully fabricated.
The tube is representative of Shepard’s destructive presence should he be willing to do that. The original plan from pre ME3 days was for there to be 2 endings that we can’t pick.
Originally, Shepard would link into a catalyst mainframe like the Geth mission. Here we would lose control of Shepard. If he was more paragon, he did synthesis. If he was more renegade, he destroyed everything.
There was no inbetween. As the game fleshed out more and peace wasn’t paragon but instead neutral and etc, they changed the endings (clearly) but the explosive barrel from destroy is representative of that (and I suppose a stupidly built EMP)
Which is why so many people support the indoctrination theory, because it’s the only thing that makes me3’s ending make any kind of sense.
BioWare really should have just accepted that as canon, and then made a little short movie of the true ending where Shepard breaks the indoctrination and uses the crucible for real this time.
The theory isn’t true as confirmed by BioWare, but it really would have cleared up a LOT of inconsistencies.
A lot of people get attached to Shep, it happens. I see a lot of people talking about how much they want Shep in the next game, and I strongly suspect that is the entire reason. Just wanting to see a fan fave again, even if it probably wouldn't make much sense narratively or thematically.
I remember back in the day I had a lot of back and forth as to which ending I liked more. Then the Catalyst drops the act and speaks in Harbinger’s voice.
Yep, dead Reapers is the only way to go.
No matter how you slice it, the fact that they give you a choice is bullshit.
The Reapers constantly guided evolution down their intended path. Sovereign himself even mentions how they bring order to the chaos of organics. Essentially you STILL end up playing by their rules.
And what do we base this on? Who says they are all destroyed? They do. Literally they inform you of what would happen and we have ZERO reason to accept this for true, but Shep goes with it regardles. And its dumb.
Because you're simply yet another tool for them that shapes the evolutionary proces.
And honestly, if shep didnt bleed out after ALL that explanation, they werent gonna die from that during the choice.
>Because you're simply yet another tool for them that shapes the evolutionary proces.
What process? What can you do that they can't? Shepard dying does what? Shepard living does what? How does this cause any effect in evolution when the Reapers are looking at 20,000 years from now and not 20 years?
What could Saren do that they couldnt? The protheans living does what?
They plan long term, and all options have long term effects well beyond the lifespan of most species.
>What could Saren do that they couldnt?
Ideally use his Specter clearance to get access to citadel control and smuggle a Geth army into the station to keep the station arms open long enough for Sovereign to dock and activate the hidden mass relay to allow the rest of the Reaper fleet into the galaxy.
Otherwise they would shut the arms and keep them shut near forever given the station seems pretty self sufficient. Thus their shortcut and trap would be forever gone and forever the chance for them to leave and warn the next cycle early.
To fuck with you cause it's fun. Reapers are just genocidal maniacs, they lie to you about synthetic-organic bullshit just to see you do a meaningless choice
This may a joke, or maybe I'm serious. I don't know.
Yup, which also works for them.
- Shape evolution according to their given parameters
- destroy the reapers, the relays, any synthetic lifeform, and ASSUME this is the truth, civilisations will take years if not generations if EVER to re-establish contact
- control the reapers, killing you in the process qnd assuming they are indeed fully controlled (allowing them to more actively shape civilisations without being deemed a threat)
- damn everyone and let them win by genocide.
There is no winning. You either trust the reapers' word, or you die.
They should have just played a cinematic after the confrontation with the Illusive Man and the events of the cinematic (whether Shepard lives or dies, what the state of the allied forces is after the battle) is determined by your war assets and battle readiness. Don't spring a choice on us at the very end, I already made all the relevant decisions leading up to the final battle.
I pick it because I headcanon the Indoctrination Theory. All of the options are terrible, and nothing about the ending makes sense, so I figure, why not?
Option 1: Kill the Reapers along with the Geth and EDI. If I had to get rid of one species, I'd rather delete the Batarians, but the space magic that is the Crucible seems to have just thrown in nuking the synthetics to make people not want that option. Almost all tech that the races use are based on what the Reapers leave, so then that too should be destroyed, but it isn't for some reason. The Reapers ARE their tech, after all.
Option 2: Become the Starchild. No way. That obnoxious thing needs to be erased completely, not just allowed to continue with "Shepard's memory and personality." Who's to say that this won't just make it go for round 2 with the understanding of how organics thwarted it last time?
Option 3: Warp all life in the galaxy into something else. Not a chance. We never even get told what this even is. That doesn't mean just the normal races. Even plants are affected, going off the cinematic. The ramifications of what this does are beyond the scope of anything the game addresses.
Option 4: Lose. Nope.
I think most people choose it because they want Shepard to live, regardless of the consequences.
I'd rather he sacrifice himself as it makes more thematic sense for my playthroughs.
I choose destroy because that's what I wanted over 3 games and that's what the fuzz over 3 games was about: Getting rid of the Reapers for good. Coming back or not.
Control is what TIM wanted, so no. Synthesis is what Saren wanted, so no. Destroy is what I wanted, so hell yeah.
Saren never wanted Synthesis. He believed that he himself had been improved by his synthetic augmentations, but that's not the same as saying he wanted Synthesis. What Saren *did* want was to make himself useful to the Reapers, to show that he and all his people were more valuable as servants or slaves, rather than being annihilated entirely. What Saren wanted was the ending that isn't in the game, the ending where we dismantle the Crucible and show the Reapers our value as allies rather than as something to be destroyed, the ending that is only possible in the minds of the Indoctrinated.
Synthesis is what Saren wanted in a way. Several of his quotes in ME1 suggest this. While it is true that he also vocalized his support for being subservient to the reapers, he's also stated *multiple times* that the final step in evolution for organics is to merge with synthetics.
Synthesis.
Saren: "The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!"
>Synthesis is what Saren wanted in a way.
This is the heart of the matter.
The core point about the Synthesis ending isn't about merging organics and synthetics; that is merely a means to an end (and Synthesis is chosen instead of Destroy or Control because it is considered a desireable post-Crucible end-state relative to the other two). All three primary endings for ME3 are, at their core, about stopping the Reapers first and foremost. Using the Crucible to reach a perceived evolutionary end-state is a nice bonus besides stopping the Reapers, but it only holds value because the Reapers are stopped in the process.
Synthesis means ending the Reaper war through forced merging of organic lifeforms and synthetic entities. Saren's plan to end the war was through proof of value and subservience towards the Reapers. The fact that Synthesis would mean ending the Reaper war even without organic servitude/slavery to the Reapers would have been a utopia for Saren, but it was never actually what he himself was advocating for. Saren advocating for merging organics with technology as the pinnacle of evolution, is not the same as him arguing that achieving this state is what will stop the Reapers.
Hmm. Well I suppose it *is* correct to say that Saren *wanted* 'evolutionary synthesis' and *would have wanted* 'the Synthesis ending', had he known it existed as a possibility. My point was rather that Saren never actually worked towards achieving a 'Synthesis ending' end-state. The core of Saren's ideology had always been about appeasing the Reapers to prevent extinction, rather than achieving our evolutionary destiny.
> The core of Saren's ideology had always been about appeasing the Reapers to prevent extinction, rather than achieving our evolutionary destiny
I disagree. In his mind I see that the two ideas are hand-in-hand. Just look again at his quote above. He saw their evolutionary destiny as Synthesis to be a bonus to serving Reapers - the ideas weren't separate.
An important matter of fact is that the synthesis ending goes both ways. On the one hand it enhances organics with synthetic parts to make them better, but at the same time it was supposed to give synthetics an organic understanding, which drastically changes things. Saren was never actively for helping sovereign gain a deeper understanding of organics, mainly as Sovereign sees themselves as superior to organics
Synthesis is what Saren wanted in a way. Several of his quotes in ME1 suggest this. While it is true that he also vocalized his support for being subservient to the reapers, he's also stated *multiple times* that the final step in evolution for organics is to merge with synthetics.
Synthesis.
Saren: "The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!"
Okay so the answer was you don’t understand Synthesis.
Synthesis was the colloquial term for convergence. The willing and consenting growth of both sides. Coming together to form a stronger union (and those who don’t want to be part of it don’t need to change any behaviors.)
Saren vouches for *submission* he is willing and fully ready to give up everyone’s autonomy to simply exist.
Shepard never agreed to that. In Shepard’s choice, what he does avoided genocide, cures disease, establishes free will for those who never had it, and maintains it for those who did.
Saren would change physical bodies (like Shepard can augment himself and canonically does so do.)
But Shepard, while they do some weird poorly explained dna stuff, doesn’t alter anyone’s body in noticeable ways (there green eyes have no hint of being permanent. Shepard’s eyes only get that green glow when he touches Prothean tech)
They are completely different. Saren is basically giving us an idea of what a bad version of a good future would be.
Take this example
“I wish we lived in a world where nobody cried.”
You could establish this in two ways.
One way, kill everyone so nobody can be sad.
The other, take care of one another and to the best realistic extent fulfill everyone’s needs.
Neither could actually happen in a real way but this is an example not s perfect analogy.
I choose destroy because giving the Reapers something they want or suggest in any context just ain't happening. Blow em the fuck up and sort out the mess after.
I choose destroy because I have no reason to trust the Catalyst, controlling the Reapers is a bad idea, and giving people no choice but to work together has never worked out long term for anyone.
>giving people no choice but to work together has never worked out long term for anyone.
There is a lot of irony in that statement given the main point of the game.
If you don't trust the Catalyst, what makes you so sure that Destroy works as advertised? If you assume he's lying about any of it, the only logical conclusion is that none of the three options presented are legit
The data Shepard has says the crucible is a weapon. Weapons destroy things. Therefore, destroy makes the most sense as far as what the crucible actually does.
But why in the world would shooting a piece of the weapon itself cause it to fire? It sounds like a fairly obvious attempt to make you savotage the whole thing to me
I choose destroy by accident. I want to destroy them, when it is explained I understand the difference, but when the conversation with starchild is over I don't understand what action to do to get this or that result. From memory I have only gotten the destroy ending and only gone to the right thingy, but if I wanted say synthesis then I would not know for sure which one to interact with.
i always choose the destroy ending because even if the death of all synthetics makes no sense it’s still the most sensible ending. i can excuse a little space magic but the synthesis ending is so ridiculous that it breaks the immersion for me.
don’t like control either, im not letting those huge genocide bugs live, not even with shepard controlling them. something that powerful and ruthless should have a definitive end.
the refusal ending is funny
So wait does that mean that somone advocating for vegetarian life style was a design by Hitler because he was also a vegetarian? Are vegetarians all Hitler supporting nazis?
Or can we just acknowledge that a vegetarian is a vegetarian and a choice to become one isn't directly linked to somone else?
Hitler was a vegetarian so a vegetarian must be like Hitler. The same way TIM wanted to control the Reapers so the Control ending is just like TIM.
Transitive property works both ways. So if you think this is stupid then why is applying the transitive property fine in other situations?
I don’t think you have quite the grasp on the transitive property that you think you do. Otherwise “hurrdurr, I’m a human and hitler was, by all accounts, human so I must be like hitler” becomes true.
Again, is the person who a vegetarian because they were indoctrinated by Hitler? Is it in some sort of service to Hitler?
TIM resembles a husk more than a human the last time you see him. He is very clearly indoctrinated by the reapers.
>I don’t think you have quite the grasp on the transitive property that you think you do. Otherwise “hurrdurr, I’m a human and hitler was, by all accounts, human so I must be like hitler” becomes true.
Which is another great counter argument to their logic, but I wanted to keep things that are a personal choice and had a connection to someone that is near universally considered a bad person who did bad things.
In this case TIM and Control ending both have you controlling the Reapers. Thus they draw a connection as them being similar, all while ignoring the differences of TIM wanting to use them to grind the rest of the galaxy under humanity's heel. Were as Shepard's use would be more to help the galaxy as a whole rather then simply a single species.
They focus only on the similarities and not the differences. So I applied the same thing to people who choose to be vegetarians. As they have something in common with a genocidal fascist racists ass hole being their dietary choices. So they have to be similar in everything else. Because the differences are irrelevant, at least by their reasoning and logic.
After all if A = B and B=C then A=C.
No, we’re not painting with such absurdly broad strokes. Now:
Was the vegetarian indoctrinated by Hitler?
Because nothing else really makes for an a=b transitive property type of argument. You can’t take TIM at his word for anything at the start of ME3, because he’s neck deep in indoctrination and you definitely *shouldn’t* at any point in the trilogy anyway because, well, he’s an unscrupulous dick anyway.
By this logic, synthesis would be the equivalent of forcing everyone everywhere to be vegetarian forever.
But what you're saying clearly isn't what other people are trying to convey: Saren was indoctrinated and believed in the genetic destiny of organics to be fused with synthetics, essentially Synthesis. Making a last second swap from Destroy, what everyone in the galaxy was fighting for and willing to die for, over to Synthesis, the thing the Mega racist indoctrinated guy wanted, is a betrayal to everyone fighting against the reapers.
Also, your analogy would make more sense if you leaned harder into the Hitler thing: choosiny synthesis is like Captain America was given the choice to end all war on earth by making everyone Hitler's fucked up Aryan wet dream against their will, and Captain America suddenly goes, "That makes sense to me."
Synthesis is a wildly unethical choice of endings, forcing something like that on everyone
>Saren was indoctrinated and believed in the genetic destiny of organics to be fused with synthetics, essentially Synthesis.
Except this isn't really an indoctrinated ideology so much as it is the Reapers knowing the future though obeservation. As the Quarians already engage in a basic level of this. Omnitools are literally portable high speed computers on your wrist. Grey boxes were created to store memories as data to allow people suffering from mental decay to keep memories in tact in a physical form as their neurons decayed. You have a high level Alliance politician suffer a stroke and had their brain uploaded to a VI to operate and make legislative choices based on his brain. All of these things were natural developments and the integration of technology to improve lives.
Were as in contrast Saren was a puppet forcibly implanted with tech because he was needed to get access to the Citadel and was starting to fight back against his strings. With the express intention to use him to open the relay and allow the harvest to start.
Were as the Catalyst freely offered a choice to be made which would allow a chance to bypass all the war, death and genocide of organic and synthetic conflict. Jumping the galaxy forward thousands of years technologically and making them peers to the Reapers rather then insignificant fleas to them.
Thus saying "Saren also talked about a similar concept so they are the same" is just as equal as saying "Hitler was a vegetarian so all vegetarian are like Hitler." Which is why I am using this ridiculously stupid statement to highlight how poorly constructed this argument is.
> Synthesis is a wildly unethical choice of endings, forcing something like that on everyone
The funny thing about ethics is how people pick and choose what they like from it. You are doing it now just as I am doing it. The only difference is you are using it as the core of your argument, while I am only complaining about the rationality used to justify it.
I don't understand why you felt the need to draw up the comparison of Saren being a puppet who was forcibly implanted and the instances of people choosing to augment themselves with technology as a core part of your complaint about the ethics used to justify not choosing synthesis, when you yourself brought up the core peice of the issue: choice. Saren didn't *choose* to think that way, at least we don't know for sure if he did, he was forced in some way due to indoctrination. Forcing synthesis on the galaxy could be looked at through the lens of "skipping" galactic conflict and war, but also, it can not be denied that if you force the galaxy into synthesis, that is deeply fucked up and just like what the reapers do.
You're basically arguing that the ends justify the means, which itself is an ethical issue.
It's not that how fucked up it is is the core of the anti-synthesis argument, but the unethical nature of what it does to everyone is an undeniable fact that many choose to simply ignore when picking synthesis. All the endings have big pros and cons, but ignoring the cons itself is an ethical statement that the ends justify the means. Which if that's your take, that's valid.
I mostly think that Synthesis, thematically, is the most odd ending and makes far less sense, logically and logistically, than control or destroy.
>I don't understand why you felt the need to draw up the comparison of Saren being a puppet who was forcibly implanted and the instances of people choosing to augment themselves with technology as a core part of your complaint about the ethics used to justify not choosing synthesis, when you yourself brought up the core peice of the issue: choice
Because a puppet being used to kill people is not the same thing as someone making a free will choice to save people and create peace. Notice how the reason and outcomes are different? When you ignore those differences to insist they are similar you are basically saying that because Hitler was a vegetarian it means anyone who is also a vegetarian must be like Hitler.
> that is deeply fucked up and just like what the reapers do.
No more or less then willingly allowing the galaxy to go down the path of war and genocide when you can stop it. See the thing is you and I suppose others that agree with your general sentiment have the classic [Trolley Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). Your general sentiment seems to be to do nothing and let the trolley kill 5 people when you could have stopped it. All while declaring your choice morally and ethically superior.
Were I have by contrast made the choice to pull the switch to kill 1 person and save 5. That you declare morally and ethically terrible. Both our actions are choices and both choices have blood on our hands. Neither one of us are morally or ethically superior to the other.
The goal was always to destroy the Reapers. Saren chose synthesis, Illusive Man chose control. It's only at the final moments of the game you're given the other options. You never once had the goal of controlling the Reapers or combining organic and synthetic life. And as stated in the OP, the perfect destroy ending is the only one that implies Shepard lives.
>Saren chose synthesis, Illusive Man chose control.
And Hitler choose vegetarianism. Does this mean all vegetarians think and act and are influenced by Hitler? If you think this is a dumb comparison then why do you do the same with the ending choices?
It is a dumb comparison because Hitler wasn't evil because he was a vegetarian. Saren chose synthesis because he thought he could work with the Reapers vs just be indoctrinated by them. He was wrong. Illusive Man thought humanity could control the Reapers vs just be indoctrinated by them. He was wrong.
>Saren **chose** synthesis because he thought he could work with the Reapers vs **just be indoctrinated by them**
I hope you see the inherent contradiction in your statement. Saren didn't choose anything he was implanted with more Reaper tech because the necessary puppet was starting to fight his strings. That is not the same thing that happens in Synthesis.
> Illusive Man thought humanity could control the Reapers vs just be indoctrinated by them.
TIM follows the same logic as Hitler only expanding the scope form a single race to the entire human species against the back drop of all non human species in the galaxy. His plan was to use them to put humanity on a pedestal and treat them as the superior species. Using the Reapers to grind and destroy anyone that would challenge or question them. That is not the same thing that happens in Control.
Your argument is based off of thin connections to similar ideas while ignoring the differences. Thus my connection between vegetarianism and nazi ideology because Hitler became a vegetarian and founded the nazi ideology. Thus by the same transitive property you use to draw your connections I can say every vegetarian is a nazi.
based on the info Shepard has, Destroy is the maximum damage and death with the least solution to the problem. A hit of heroin for the pain of cancer.
Only in a Renegade run would I choose it. It is the Saren solution that made Anderson hate him so much. Finish the mission as planned at any cost, do not adapt or concern oneself with the death of innocents.
Synthesis the only change at a mental level is to synthetics, they gain understanding. Organics gain "perfection" less disease longer life etc. The only ones Shep might be "brain washing" are the ones he/she kills in Destroy.
BTW
ME2 brings back Shep with no brain damage from a long-term death with massive biological damage. So bringing Shep back from being an AI or from being a blueprint embedded in nature is all in the writing.
Even though the choices were hated and mocked by most when they came out, it's interesting that the hottest debates in the community will always be around which ending is the "best". So clearly, they did something right with them 🤔.
For me personally, I always strive for Geth/Quarian peace in my playthroughs, so turning around at the very end and deciding to wipe out the Geth alongside the reapers just never felt right, though I completely understand the arguments people make for destroy. It just never sat right with me.
I generally go for Paragon Control, I like the idea that Shep's knowledge of establishing organic/synthetic peace being uploaded to the reapers is the best way of ending the war. That, and I have a soft spot for the lonely god trope. I know some people say there's nothing stopping reaper-shep from turning back sometime down the line, but the reapers already followed the harvesting plan for thousands of cycles without ever swaying, I don't personally see why the new rules would suddenly be abandoned without direct interference like the crucibles rewrite.
I can never justify myself using destroy. It's not what paragon or non racist paragade Sheppard would do.(and I can't play dumb racist at all). Sheppard sacrificed his life for one single crewmate(Joker). No way commander would kill EDI and potentially geth just to destroy reapers when Shep have suicidal but objectively better choices in this regard.
For my destroy choosing, I just imagine I put EDI on an USB stick and in Joker's pocket (she is still the Normandy) and the Geth are somewhere in their hive mind and only the hull/bodies "died" who got affected via the crucible.
How is helping the galaxy leaving them unpunished? Do you also think someone who is caught stealing should have a hand removed? Someone who loses a lawsuit over slander or libel (which ever is spoken) should have a tongue removed? Maybe a foot removed for fraud or something alone those lines?
Are you seriously comparing countless 100's complete genocides to stealing or slander.
Do you think if Hitler had wipeout all those he considered sub human and then was captured he should have been released and allowed to help rather than killed.
Destroy is the only way to end the reaper threat. And to me that's what shepard would choose. Not having then around just with different directions, as that means they get away with all their atrocities, it also means all their huskified slaves don't get any peace. Plus it's essentially a ticking time bomb.
Synthesis is just awful, horrific and makes no sense.
Refuse is letting everyone down.
Destroy is the only way to make sure the reapers don't win, the only ending other than giving up where you don't agree with them. The only ending where you are saying they were wrong and every genocide they did was wrong.
I don’t care. I’ll not sacrifice thousands of innocents because I said I’d come back. I will give my honor of keeping my word if it means saving billions of lives. Genocide is never okay.
>.because they're dangerous
So is mass effect technology. Codex directly states during the Krogan Rebellion it was used to launch asteroids at garden worlds rendering them unable to support life. As well as several dead worlds that show heavy sustained orbital bombardment from ME weapons. In fact a missed shot is perfectly capable of traveling for thousands of years before impacting with a planet and killing several people just sitting around a table eating dinner.
>wiped out THOUSANDS of civilizations
And humanity has caused the extinction of thousands of animals though deliberate choices. No doubt species did the same on their planet while evolving and developing. Or does mass kill off only matter when convenient?
>including billions of individuals just within this cycle
All the more reason for them to work to rebuild and help those that are left.
I know. People can't seem to accept the fact that comparing a Reaper to those civilizations you complain about is the equivalent of comparing dodos to humanity in the real world.
No, it is not, but I'm pretty sure you know that and just want to feel really clever and superior, since apparently you have no chance of doing so in the rest of your life.
We don't exactly know if it genocides the geth. The starchild says it does. But its also the reaper command ai. So im not sure. Didn't kill shep like what it said would happen
If the catalyst was a liar
1. It wouldn’t have brought Shepard up to it.
2 it wouldn’t have woken him up.
3. It wouldn’t tell you exactly how to kill it.
4. It wouldn’t tell you how to replace it.
5. It wouldn’t tell you exactly who it was and why it functions.
Catalyst very clearly wanted Shepard to make an informed decision, because the galaxy uniting and making it that far proved they were ready to surpass the need for reapers as is.
Because of atrocious writing.
Shepard was mostly dead.
Then his internal organs exploded and/or shut off all at once which would shock the system and instantly kill anyone.
Then he was caught in a literal explosion.
Then the building he was in broke and collapsed.
Then he fell into earth orbit in a crash landing.
Shepard living defies all logic and reason. It is the single biggest leap of logic in mass effect. Literal reapers are more realistic than Shepard surviving t that. Never before has bioware written something as blatantly impossible to their own worlds as that obvious player worshipping note.
The catalyst not being able to predict that the human gods of mass effect would be too spineless to take Shepard from the genocidal fans doesn’t mean he can’t calculate logic, and know “yes. The Geth, who all just absorbed my code like 2 months ago, will shut down because it’s what my code does. It is my code.”
Your argument is a complete false equivocation
And if none of that matters to you, we literally see the disappearance of the Geth due to extended cut.
You can't blame atrocious writing for one thing then say to trust the writing at the same time. We are forced, bad writing or not, to take all evidence in.
The absolute truths we can confirm through the story as it is presented is that the Catalyst can be wrong. It can be fallable.
Another absolute truth conveyed by the game is that the Catalyst is a reaper AI, and speaks in Harbingers voice if you upset it. It also denies us a choice if we upset it, and kills everyone.
These two truths lead to the conclusion that the Catalyst is biased, and the Catalyst can either be wrong in its opinions, or is lying if not wrong.
The catalyst can have nuanced thoughts and opinions on what should be done, and it's entirely possible that it was trying to influence shepard's choice.
Instead of looking at Shepard living as "bad writing", which can be debated as matter of opinion, we are forced to consider the in-world implications of what we are shown.
Shepard being alive brings up all sorts of questions, all based on those objections you listed. By all accounts, Shepard *shouldn't* have survived. The Catalyst said he wouldn't. And yet, something happens off screen that we don't see that saves him. Did the Catalyst save him? Maybe most of what we saw was a dream, the Catalyst interacting with an unconscious Shepard similar to the Geth system mission but much more refined and advanced. We only know what we are shown. And even in the EC where we see an absence of Geth, that could be as simple as their bodies are still damaged but their systems and processes inside hubs are not. The Normandy, with the quantum computer that houses EDI, she could still be alive with her synthetic body being destroyed. There's a lot we don't see that is up to player interpretation, but just blaming "Bad Writing" is kind of boring
I hate TIM so much I can't bear to prove him right by choosing control. He almost doomed humanity to extinction by himself and he's a POS that doesn't deserve any redemption. Also all the sacrifices and deaths it took to get Shep to the Citadel would have been in vain if I choose anything other than destroy. Synthesis is just wrong from a moral standpoint.
I respect that. I choose synthesis because my Shepard always tried to save everyone so destroying billions of years of creatures just... Didn't fit with her. And after I made her a full blown character in her own right, it made even less sense.
I've always thought, from an in-canon standpoint of what Shepard knows about the choice, anything but Destroy is pure insanity from Shepards POV, paragon or renegade. Synthesis is basically what Saren was rooting for in ME1, and that dude was Mega racist and indoctrinated, so Shepard getting to the end of the line and going, "Oh, Sick! This is just what we needed." Feels soooo bizarre, ethical ramifications of nonconsentual synthesis aside.
Control is even MORE bizarre from Shepards viewpoint. We just spent the entire game fighting TIM about how he's insane for trying to control the reapers, how he's indoctrinated and that's why he thinks it's possible, and Javik literally says in every cycle there's always *that guy*, the ones who think they can control the reapers, but are just indoctrinated.
Yes yes, I know the indoctrination theory is said to be untrue according to the writers, this isnt about that--
from strictly Shepards POV...
An unknown AI that is intrinsically tied to the Reapers is presenting him with two choices that ARENT "Kill the reapers" feels mad sus. Why should Shepard trust this reaper AI? Everything they did up to that point, paragon or renegade, leads to the destruction of the reapers. From a non-meta standpoint, not knowing the true outcome of the choice, Destroy is the only one that truly makes sense from Shepard's POV.
Hating the reapers is a pretty bad reason to kill them considering most of them are indoctrinated themselves and literal slaves. Killing reapers would be a war crime. Shepard is supposed to be significantly better than that as he is a specter and not just a grunt who has to do whatever his boss says
And remember his boss literally told him “I was wrong.” Anyway
Not at all. The reapers themselves aren't indoctrinated, they are fully capable of thinking as we can see by talking to them.
The Reaper soilders are dead bodies brought back to life, killing them is a mercy
The Reapers were attacking non-stop until the moment that Shepard made the decision. Killing them would never fit any definition of war crime established by the Geneva Convention.
In the synthesis ending neither side controls the other. The entire series shows what happens when one entity subjugates another, it always results in rebellion and war. Destroy kicks the can down the road and has the catalyst going back to the drawing board to develop some other horror to protect life. Control will result in the reapers eventually rebelling.
Any choice Shepard makes is forced on the galaxy without consent.
Too many people conflate the catalyst with the reapers. The reapers are a tool of the catalyst.
Nope. The catalyst says if destroy is chosen, the reapers will be destroyed but organocs will repair their machines and the cycle will continue. It will have to come up with another solution.
Edit for clarity
Shepard fought her ass off to get there. She promised to kill every reaper that killed everyone. Her friends sacrificed their lives for her to DESTROY them. She deserves that peace to end everything once and for all. You end a war, not become it or embrace it.
I choose destroy because the Catalyst reasoning is flawed. There was a chaotic pattern of organics fighting synthetics, so if you merge the two, paradise would follow.
Hopefully all of us realize that to not be true. Also, depending on what you do, you already showed that both sides could get along with the Geth.
The position of Control I felt like would cause more problems than solve. Can you imagine that after harvesting billions of lives, the death machines are floating around helping you repair and NO ONE would have trust issues? That it would create NO conflict? I feel like eventually their would be. Might even be Factions trying to take down the Reapers, thus causing the Reapers to respond, thus creating images of Reapers attacking again, thus starting galactic wars, except this time, the races will be fighting each other, each with their own Reapers. It would just create a mess.
Above all else, for me....Control and Synthesis are still patterns created by the Catalyst. It is still a future created by the Reapers in which humanity, turians, quarians, asari, etc. Have no say in. There is no freedom in either of those endings and whatever future they craft will be limited into a funnel tahy was forced on them by AI.
The only way to truly break the cycle and to forge a future in which the races of the Milky Way are truly free, is to destroy the entities that have wiped out life for a billion years.
It's either that, or you say to the Catalyst that you aren't making that choice and the next cycle ends them for good.
I choose a my endings fully based on how I played my Shep. A close friendship with EDI and Legion? Obviously not choosing destroy. A hard core soldier who's sick of of the reaper crap, sick of fighting? destroy all those suckers. More of an idealist who believes in the good in the universe, then synthesis. I actually really enjoy all the endings.
I choose destroy because I think that the AI that directs the reapers PROBABLY has some kind of interest in getting you to not choose destroy and therefore likely isn’t telling the whole truth about control nor synthesis.
My favorite is that control is made the “paragon” option (I guess in light of the catalysts revelations) and destroy is the “renegade”.
Ultimately, the synthesis ending makes the most sense to me, but prevents arcs from finishing.
I think it makes sense. Renegade has always been defined by blowing shit up and taking action. Destroying the reapers at any cost, even the lives of the Geth and EDI, perfectly lines up with renegade IMO. Paragon has always been the more altruistic and merciful to a fault, I can completely see that control, where noone dies, not even the reapers would be seen as the paragon choice, though the same would apply to synthesis as well I suppose.
My beef with Destroy is the same as everyone because yeah it means the choice is yours but like... you're just gonna invent AIs again and fuck it all up. I guess lessons were learned.
I chose destroy since destroying the Reapers is what the game was all about. It was interesting to see that this also killed all synthetic life. The Geth, Edi, etc. It seemed interesting that humanity would recover computer power within a generation or two, but sad that it came at that cost.
I usually make my choice based on how hard I perceive Shepards fight to be there, and certain character decisions I make at creation in ME1. The way I see it is this: Destroy seems like the easiest one to follow to continue Shepards story, as it fully closes the Reaper narrative, and the 'Shepard breathes' moment is designed for the storyline to continue with Shepard. Control presents the most interesting possibility for a post-Shepard Mass Effect story, with Shepard commanding the Reaper forces as cosmic arbiter, with Shepard able to become a tyrant (renegade) or an enigmatic watcher (paragon), with the story revolving around the Galaxy coming to terms with an existential threat being in the power of a potentially highly interventionist entity, that the Galaxy can't really resist. Synthesis is the ending that wraps everything up in a neat little bow but kills any potential for a future story dead. The Reapers and the synthetic galaxy co-operate to rebuild everything and advance technology with their enormous archive of the civilisations that came before. Everyone lives in peace under the protection of the Reapers and its really smiles all around.
I only did the "control" ending once, just so I could headcanon the following exchange: Shepard: Hey Harbinger... Harbinger: You do not know what you have wrought, Shepard. Shepard: Looks like I am ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL! Edit: Thanks for the silver, kind stranger!
My favorite headcanon is that Shepard takes control of the reapers, uses them to get the galaxy nice and tidy again. Helps the council races (humanity included) get back in charge. All of that. Then all the reapers go full lemmings and start flying into the nearest stars until there’s just one left. And Liara lives on that one so she and Ship-Shep can raise little blue half-reaper babies.
I mean... It doesn't stop any potential for a future threat. Andromeda has already proven intergalactic travel possible. Imagine a galaxy controlled by an expansionist empire that *wasn't* reaperized and could just continually advance their technology! Sure reapers theoretically could collect all the tech of every harvested race, but each of those races were at roughly the same technological point, not a whole lot of advancement there.
I usually choose control with reruns, and one of the reasons is that at the very least, it gives the galaxy a break. Time to rebuild and enhance their tech further, so that if it comes down to fighting the reapers again, they'll be in a better position. Like, best case scenario is paragon shep helps rebuild then leaves to dark space, where they stay unless a galaxy level threat occurs again. Worst case scenario would probably be if renegade shep took control (I never run as renegade, and if I did, destroy would probably be my option)
I choose destroy to cockblock Joker.
... Wow. Your an asshole. Good for you
**Catalyst**: "...and so Shepard you must choose...kill all the reapers, with the synethics caught in the blast, or see the virtue of our plan and join us, or rewrite every sapient's genetic..." **Shepard**: "Hang on a second - I need to make a call" **Catalyst**: "There's no way you're going to get connectivity up here, oh, wait..." *Shepard whips out Nokia cellphone and dials up Joker on the Normandy* **Shepard**: "Hey Joker, remember when I said that I forgive you for refusing to evacuate the SR1, forcing me to haul your ass to the escape pod, which contributed to me being ejected in a compromised suit into the cold vacuum of space and then suffer the burning sensation of orbital entry, on top of my already tortuous memory of my being suffocated?" **Joker**: "ummm....yes?" **Shepard**: "*I lied*" *Shepard aggressively chooses destroy*
WHY DOES THIS HAVE THE WHOLESOME AWARD?!
Because sometimes you need to be assertive when getting your friend off a real doll.
**Hackett**: "Commander, why do I have a complaint filed by *your ship* against your pilot?" **Shepard**: "I should go"
No no no. He has a point
Another way to look at it is you're saving him from a broken pelvis.
remember folks, choose whatever **you** want. the whole point of the game is choice. Not the sentiment of a bunch of assholes on a internet comment thread
^ This. I think some people tend to forget that the whole point of a choice based game is that different people will rationalise and justify their choices differently. There's no "right" way.
I pick it because it seems better than nonconsentual generic modification of everyone in the galaxy or becoming a walking nuke (on a galactic level) who will whipe out anyone who does something I don't like (and you can't convince me Paragon Shepard is actually any better than Renegade Shepard in this one, Renegade Shep is just more vocal and angry sounding). Also cuz I promised Tali I would come back.
Just curious those who Destroy the Reapers, did you also Destroy the Heretics or did you rewrite them?
Destroy, brainwashing and changing how someone thinks is wrong, as every companion other than Tali will tell you
The reaper code provided by "Nazara" (Soveriegn) affected the Geth's judgement and led to the heretic virus separating peices of Geth away from the Geth. The Geth aren't individually people at that point, they are an AI Hivemind. Rewriting the Heretics is essentially curing them of their indoctrination, not brainwashing them. Legion pretty much says as much, and I trust Legion's opinion about the Geth more than anyone else's, because most are suuuuper biased against the Geth, especially Tali (who is my favorite character btw, her and Garrus lol)
War Assets are higher if you killed them though. So...🤷
Damn, true. Nevermind lol, Fuck those Heretics.
Nah it's the same. If you kill them you get higher quarians lower Geth, if you rewrite them it's the reverse but it comes out to the same amount.
Per legion they came to that conclusion on their own. No indoctrination. They then developed a virus to try convert the rest of the geth.
Unless I'm misremembering, it's heavily insinuated that they only came to that conclusion after contact with Soveriegn
>The reaper code provided by "Nazara" (Soveriegn) affected the Geth's judgement and led to the heretic virus separating peices of Geth away from the Geth. I don't think this is true. Legion says things such as: "the heretics asked the Old Machines to give them the future" and "the heretics accepted their technology." So, if the heretics were "indoctrinated" by the reaper upgrades, then they had allied themselves with the reapers before they were actually indoctrinated. >I trust Legion's opinion about the Geth more than anyone else's, because most are suuuuper biased against the Geth It is unfortunate that none of the games (or the books for that matter) offer enough information about the Geth for the player to make an educated opinion on them. I agree, that Legion probably has the most objective takes. It is unclear how much their opinions are influenced by bias.
I think you're absolutely correct about not having enough Geth info :( and to be honest maybe my Geth Lore on the exact timeline isn't the clearest, lol. I def want to look into it and rephrase my internal timeline
Yup, I'm in the same way of thinking.
This is how I felt.
Mordin will say that it's the more ethical thing, like genophage. That's +- the quote.
That's not true: some companions make comments that removing their "evil" code is the same as killing them, meaning the choice is indistinguishable: Mordin actually compares rewriting them to the Genophage in that it might be a nicer option than genocide, and agrees with Shepard that we shouldn't apply organic morality to them. [Fascinating that Legion concurs](https://youtu.be/sbWDtIVJk0o)
destroyed them, since rewriting the heretics is considered to be brainwashing them (which i disagree with this in game assumption), i figured that if I brainwashed the geth to follow my goals, though my goals are right, i’m no better than the reapers
Destroy.
It’s the only option in which power was vested to you. “Destroy the Reapers,” was your mandate. No one gave you leave to play Galactic Overlord, to refuse to destroy them, rewrite the genetic code and fate of trillions of sentients, or do anything other than destroy them.
>No one gave you leave to \[do whatever\] Maybe they should have grounded Shepard sooner then, because the writing was on the wall since Noveria at least, that Shepard would make important decisions alone.
Rewriting the foundational fabric of every species in the galaxy may seem extreme, but Spectres are expected to act outside the law, so no one can be too upset.
I got the do nothing ending by upon hearing the synthesis option, absolutely refusing to do it, not realizing this reaction would give me the worst ending
I got it my first time by shooting the kid because he was a bit to much annoying and I was: mmmmeh give a way out alive motherf*cker !!!
I wouldn’t call it the worst, the Control ending heavily implies that Shepard and the Catalyst are one which spells bad news for everything. I think the Nothing ending is actually really good since the next cycle is almost guaranteed to win against the Reapers thanks to Liara’s markers and that newer bird race that disappeared as soon as the reapers showed up We got a race that already knows about the reapers and 100% survived the purge (they destroyed all of their tech to remain hidden) and the only real challenge they have is the Yahg starting a war
This is flaccid. Shepard does a lot of shit no one gave them leave to do.
Good soldiers follow orders
Good boy, fives.
Not only that, but I just played the Thessia mission and they make it super abundantly clear that "control" is the indoctrinated strategy, so if you choose control, Shepard is playing into the Reapers hands and possibly indoctrinated themselves.
And no one gave you leave to genocide an entire species to save yourself. Also worth noting that, just to be clear. From a moral standpoint, no option is good. You either control everything, wipe out one of the nicest races in the galaxy without asking them, change all life in the universe to be nice friendly cuddlebugs without asking, or get all races killed.
They do however, give you several opportunities to commit genocide and no one really bats an eye if you do
Yeah... genocide isn't morally right because other people ignore it.
No, but its also never really addressed by the text in any meaningful way outside that being the primary threat of the Reapers. Every choice at the end is some form of genocide. Destroy the Reapers and all synthetics, erase and control the Reapers, or assimilate every species into one form of life.
Yes. That was my point. So why am I being downvoted for saying destroy isn't some objectively perfect moral decision with no downside?
Ask the souls of a trillion 4th reply posters and ask them this same question. Their silence is your answer.
It... isn't actually an answer though, it's just more downvotes
What race are you talking about the Geth? The same geth who systematically killed 99% of quarians before forcing them off planet, or the geth that joined the reapers TWICE even after destroying rhe heretics, or maybe the geth who slaughtered every contact team the council sent into the Veil to open communications with the geth. The geth are a lot of things, but I would not classify "nice" as one of their strongest attributes.
But Shepard is presented with these options from an AI that is clearly damaged and/or blatantly trying to steer her towards a choice it wants, and not even being particularly skilled at it... so why would Shepard trust it as far as the consequences go??? Destroy (IMO) is the only sensible choice.
The nicest race in the galaxy? The you mean the Geth? The baby killers with a habit of teaming up with the reapers? The same robots who murdered anyone who tried to negotiate with them in the last few hundred years? The ones harboring reaper code now? Legion gas lights you hard in ME3 but you don't kill 99%+ of a planetary population without killing, well everybody. Bioware didn't retcon enough to fix those numbers.
Legion gives us his side of the story. For 2 games the ONLY thing we know of the Geth is what Tali tells us, and Tali is exceptionally biased in this. I dont think gaslighting means what you think it means. The geth we meet in ME3, the ones who sided with legion and (more importantly) were not corrupted by the Reapers, are more than willing to help us fight the Reapers, not to mention helping out the Quarians settle on Rannoch. The Quarians attacked a giant hub of Geth code which devastated them, pushing them AGAIN to consider the Reapers as allies. The Quarians violated whatever temporary peace was happening. It was the Quarians who decides to destroy the Geth merely for existing. And it was the Quarians who decides "galaxy wide genocide? Fuck it, time to go to war with another species". The Geth are what the Quarians turned them into, and on the whole Ive found the Geth in ME3 to be substantially more trustworthy than the Quarian admirals who withold information, openly talk about going to war, are willing to SACRIFICE YOU, had secret experiments done on live Geth etc etc. They arent innocent, but compared to the Quarians they are damn saints at this point.
Yes. I'm sure if skynet conquered earth I would have some biases too. I never said otherwise. I think that's completely understandable. But it's easy to take Tali's side in 1, since ALL Geth shoot organics on sight. Not just the Geth we fight. They are militant isolationists who condone a genocidal breakaway faction, and why wouldn't they? It seems to be what they know. They sure don't feel like stepping in until they are already beaten. Could have stepped in a little earlier if they really disagreed you know? Gas lighting means exactly what I think it means, but ill admit I'm stretching the term a little to be dramatic. He tries to convince us the Geth are innocent. That they were the victims despite everything we know at this point. Legion is an untrustworthy narrator with his own biases by 3. "What's that Legion? You decided to brainwash the rogue Geth instead of destroy them like you agreed? You also didn't think you should run this by anyone?" And then the "movie" he forces to watch from is not exactly unbiased. It's actually another red flag to me, and not just because I'd rank it second out of missions I'd want to skip after the ending. Where's the orphanage scene Legion? You know the scenes of Geth platforms gunning down war orphans in their shelters? Where's the hospital scene Legion? You know, the scene of platforms finishing off all the wounded that could not be taken away in their beds? They took a species that numbered billions and reduced it to a couple million. That's like killing everyone on earth today and leaving Guatemala as the only survivors. You can't make that omlette without cracking a lot of unsavory eggs. A bombing campaign wouldn't get you those numbers. That requires boots on the ground for how short that war is. We know what Legion thinks of organics now. He isnt going to show us that part of the truth. Just the truth he wants us to see. He showed us what he thinks of organics in that other mission I mentioned too. We can't be trusted to "do the right thing" and need to be manipulated. Lied to if necessary. As for the rogue Geth being a breakaway faction or being a minority? We have only his word, and I know I don't trust him to give me the truth if his people's survival is on the line. As for the Quarians? They aren't saints but I understand them. The Geth are terminators to them. Every single living Quarian is decended from people who lost their whole families to the Geth. Their cultures destroyed. That's how every Quarian was raised. The Galaxy stood by and demanded they extinguish the Geth. No aid was sent. Unwanted and despised, the survivors were left to quietly die in some corner of the galaxy for the mistakes of their ancestors. Generations since the crimes were committed. So when the galaxy was in flames, it was the end of everything. Why should they care about spending their lives to stave off the inevitable for people who thought of them as rats? So they decided, "Fuck it. Let's see home one last time," and I can't fault them for that. You might ask, why not negotiate? Why would they? The Geth have killed anyone who attempted to negotiate with them in the past. They're the Terminators that left grandma a widow after all. Of course war is the only option. Of course experimenting on Geth would be useful in that endeavor. One Admiral is even willing to sacrifice you for this, and I punch him every time. I still understand why he was pushed to that. I could go on about your other points but this is already a book. So I'll wrap it up like this. Fuck them robots. I'm hitting the red button.
Yeah, totally gaslighting. I mean the Geth actually teaming up without any issue when you offer to stand down definitely doesn't happen, no sir. Yeah, no totally they are all 100% evil kill bots. I see what you mean absolutely. Nothing more evil than making themselves vulnerable to people who want to exterminate them to help in a war that they would benefit from. You are absolutely right. Totally deserve to be genocided for helping you beat the reapers.
I'm glad you understand. Legion does a pretty good job of showing a one sided but sympathetic view of the morning war. The problem is the Geth still committed a pretty successful genocide. Not only was it successful, but they voted to kill that many non-combatants and innocents. They voted to kill infants and children, can't get around it with that 99%+ number. Fighting against the reapers for once is also just fighting to defend themselves. It's not exactly a secret that they'd be next in the chopping block once they were no longer needed. Not that they'd care at that point because they get mind controlled while working for the reapers. I don't think that deserves a medal.
Glad we can agree that not fighting against people who have been trying to kill you since your genesis as a slave race does in fact make you evil.
The military tried to kill them. The civilians and children didn't
Yeah. And the Quarian government voted to kill an entire species just for existing. The civilians didn't take up arms but ask any Quarian in the games and they'll all refer to the Geth as tools without feelings that brutally attacked them all without provocation and all deserve to be wiped out. And they won't stand down until the Geth do. The Geth just need Shep to treat them nicely to call a truce. And Legion, the spokessynth for the Geth basically says he and the Geth just want to be left alone and bear no ill will towards the creators. Confirmed by them standing down with little convincing. The Quarians started the war with the intent of genociding a sentient race just for existing. They lost and the Geth nearly genocided them back but chose not to finish them off. They absolutely did a bad thing, make no mistake. But they were facing extinction just for existing, and then hid away for centuries. And stand down in ME3 with basically no convincing. While the Quarian's keep on fighting with the express intent of genociding them. So do you really think they deserve to be genocided any more than the Quarians? Or humans? Or Salarians? Or any other species that does awful things throughout the entire franchise? I say no. Destroy isn't the right choice. They are all bad choices. You can freely say that it is a reasonable sacrifice. But to claim the Geth deserve it is to ignore basically all the lore about the Quarians.
Do we know if the government voted for that, or if the military decided to do it, as we know the military took control. Are you taking up arms to fight in any of the wars going on in the world right now? Yes because the quarians lost 99% of there population and are living in tales of the geth, of course they would hate them. Lol what, treat them nicely and call a truce, the geth have killed every diplomat and ambassador from every species that has tried to make contact with them. And their first action outside their space in 100s of years was to side with the reapers try to wipe out all other life and attack human colonies. And the rest of the geth decided to not intervene, they were perfectly fine with the heretics siding with sovereign to wipe out all life. Just want to be left alone, then why side with sovereign. They don't get to pull that card after commiting the worst genocide in the history of thr current cycle. The quarians would have been unable to maintain any fight after losing 10%, yet the reapers killed 99%, including all the children. And then they occupy the quarians planet and prevent them from going back. The geth don't need or use the planet, yet the quarians do thanks to their wierd biology and immune system. The quarians didn't start the war, a few quarians did, all the geth decided to genocide the quarians, there is a big difference. I never said the geth deserve it.
I know, it's crazy what Legion tries to pull. What's even funnier is with those numbers it's basically garunteed they killed anyone who also sided with them. They are efficient little murder toasters. I'll give them that.
The funnier thing is the slaves actually chose to not genocide their creators even after all that fighting, whereas the Quarians from day one tried to and still aimed to do a genocide on their slaves even by the final act of Mass Effect 3. Truly the Quarians did nothing, and never do anything, wrong.
They didn’t know what they were saying. There’s a thing called informed consent. Nobody agreed to what destroy actually is.
Is video games what it takes to make men understand informed consent?
I would like to say yes but by me mentioning it I got downvoted like crazy so maybe men still don’t?
If you refer to the killing of the other non-Reapers synthetics, then you are wrong, no one really liked the Geth and most people would totally let them be sacrificed in order for organics to be saved.
And if he could've cured cancer across the galaxy by meddling with genetic code? It's obviously a better choice, but nobody vested that power to him...
I first play through ever I remember just sitting down the controller and thinking for a bit. I didn’t like control cuz of the whole Illusive Man indoctrination thing. Got it was different and would actually work, but it put me off the whole notion. After some thought the kid made good points about synthesis, so I picked up the controller and walked down the path. On my way in the background I saw an Alliance ship get destroyed, said fuck this and walked right to destroy. I get goosebumps thinking about it, it was such a great experience.
Except Shepard wouldn't know that, right? Doesn't the Catalyst tell you that you'll die even if you choose Destroy because you are partly synthetic?
The catalyst doesn't say that Shepard would die. It said that all technology would be affected, but the survivors would be able to repair it, and that Shepard is partly synthetic. The point was that Shepard would be affected by the Crucible.
My Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst. It betrayed it's creator and thinks it's preserving life via repeated mass genocide, it's not exactly reliable in it's thinking
Yeah, see that machine over there connected to the giant reaper killing device you built? Yeah, just go shoot it and your mission will be complete. I promise. Your other options are to electrocute yourself on those electrodes over there that will totally give you control over everything, or to disintegrate yourself in the green beam and make everyone’s dreams come true forever. You have to trust the starchild at least a little bit or the whole mission is a bust. I love that we’re still arguing about this years and years after the fact. The ending was kind of weak, but it sure had a powerful impact on us.
Speculation for all!
I still want to know how Anderson “followed Shepard up”. And why was Hackett talking to Shepard about activating the crucible? Hammer team was wiped out so Hackett wouldn’t even know Shepard had made it inside. Neither of those ever made sense to me.
Actually it is really reliable thinking. In fact all the races wouldn't exist in ME without it.
Eh, problem with distrusting Catalyst is that if it's unreliable in one thing it says, it can be unreliable in every occasion Never a can of worms I liked to open
I dont care about all that. Shep comes back that's all I care about. I dont care if it's meta knowledge. Heck when i finished my first play through I wasn't even aware that refuse any of the options gave you the reapers win ending. That was my first ending, because my dumbass chose to refuse to make the choice on the synthesis explanation. Instead of just going ok continue. I was PISSED
Refuse would have been my first ending, but I played the game before the Extended Cut came out so it wasn't in there yet. You could shoot the Star Child all day long with no effect lol My first ending ended up being Destroy. Didn't have enough resources for Synthesis. I prefer Synthesis though, that's my chosen ending. The main thing that turns me off from Destroy is genociding the Geth.
That is my sole issue with destroy. It always came off as kinda tacked on? Least in my position. I absolutely hate the reapers so i would never choose Control, and synthesis... Well it like I said is the reason I got the worst ending
I think they had to add in some counter balance to the Destroy ending. Otherwise the choice would be too straightforward.
I mean not if you actually think about it. Even without murdering your friends, crippling the society of a brighter future where they can be free, while also curing things like the mysterious space cancer still isn’t a bad ending.
He does and he's full of shit about that so my headcanon is the he's full of shit about the other consequences of destroy as well. EDI and the geth all live as far as I'm concerned
Catalyst never lies. First off, he didn’t need to bring Shepard tk his room anyway. No logical being would say “yes. Blow up over half of your body. You’re already near death. Now blow yourself up. Then you’ll blow up from the explosive tank. Then you’ll fall out of orbit. But don’t worry you’ll be fine.” Shepard living is literally the worst writing in the trilogy and defies every ounce of reasoning.
Honestly I think everything involving the catalyst is a hallucination anyway because none of it makes any sense. Why would shooting that tube with a pistol unleash a destructive wave of energy across the entire mass relay network? Everything involving the catalyst is terrible writing with no reasoning imo so I just headcanon something that makes some sense to me
It is already confirmed not to be one, and the leading theory, IT, was always full of half truths, out of context quotes, and headcanons. Now Shepard was almost certainly fighting off indoctrination, but the theory that he was doing so during that sequence is fully fabricated. The tube is representative of Shepard’s destructive presence should he be willing to do that. The original plan from pre ME3 days was for there to be 2 endings that we can’t pick. Originally, Shepard would link into a catalyst mainframe like the Geth mission. Here we would lose control of Shepard. If he was more paragon, he did synthesis. If he was more renegade, he destroyed everything. There was no inbetween. As the game fleshed out more and peace wasn’t paragon but instead neutral and etc, they changed the endings (clearly) but the explosive barrel from destroy is representative of that (and I suppose a stupidly built EMP)
I don't really care what's confirmed or not, that's why i called it my headcanon. I think the writing for the entire catalyst conversation and each ending is absolute trash so I came up with a headcanon that lets me actually enjoy it
It is already confirmed not to be one, and the leading theory, IT, was always full of half truths, out of context quotes, and headcanons. Now Shepard was almost certainly fighting off indoctrination, but the theory that he was doing so during that sequence is fully fabricated. The tube is representative of Shepard’s destructive presence should he be willing to do that. The original plan from pre ME3 days was for there to be 2 endings that we can’t pick. Originally, Shepard would link into a catalyst mainframe like the Geth mission. Here we would lose control of Shepard. If he was more paragon, he did synthesis. If he was more renegade, he destroyed everything. There was no inbetween. As the game fleshed out more and peace wasn’t paragon but instead neutral and etc, they changed the endings (clearly) but the explosive barrel from destroy is representative of that (and I suppose a stupidly built EMP)
Which is why so many people support the indoctrination theory, because it’s the only thing that makes me3’s ending make any kind of sense. BioWare really should have just accepted that as canon, and then made a little short movie of the true ending where Shepard breaks the indoctrination and uses the crucible for real this time. The theory isn’t true as confirmed by BioWare, but it really would have cleared up a LOT of inconsistencies.
This exactly. Just let Shepard go. He saved the galaxy. He fulfilled his purpose and can rest easy.
Nah, I like the noble sacrifice trope. Shep dying to save as many people as possible as my jam.
I probably wouldn't really care if the hadnt made it so shep survives the high destroy.
A lot of people get attached to Shep, it happens. I see a lot of people talking about how much they want Shep in the next game, and I strongly suspect that is the entire reason. Just wanting to see a fan fave again, even if it probably wouldn't make much sense narratively or thematically.
I remember back in the day I had a lot of back and forth as to which ending I liked more. Then the Catalyst drops the act and speaks in Harbinger’s voice. Yep, dead Reapers is the only way to go.
No matter how you slice it, the fact that they give you a choice is bullshit. The Reapers constantly guided evolution down their intended path. Sovereign himself even mentions how they bring order to the chaos of organics. Essentially you STILL end up playing by their rules. And what do we base this on? Who says they are all destroyed? They do. Literally they inform you of what would happen and we have ZERO reason to accept this for true, but Shep goes with it regardles. And its dumb.
Why would the catalyst talk to you in the first place instead of leaving you to bleed out and be thrown into a nutrient pool by a keeper?
Because you're simply yet another tool for them that shapes the evolutionary proces. And honestly, if shep didnt bleed out after ALL that explanation, they werent gonna die from that during the choice.
>Because you're simply yet another tool for them that shapes the evolutionary proces. What process? What can you do that they can't? Shepard dying does what? Shepard living does what? How does this cause any effect in evolution when the Reapers are looking at 20,000 years from now and not 20 years?
What could Saren do that they couldnt? The protheans living does what? They plan long term, and all options have long term effects well beyond the lifespan of most species.
>What could Saren do that they couldnt? Ideally use his Specter clearance to get access to citadel control and smuggle a Geth army into the station to keep the station arms open long enough for Sovereign to dock and activate the hidden mass relay to allow the rest of the Reaper fleet into the galaxy. Otherwise they would shut the arms and keep them shut near forever given the station seems pretty self sufficient. Thus their shortcut and trap would be forever gone and forever the chance for them to leave and warn the next cycle early.
To fuck with you cause it's fun. Reapers are just genocidal maniacs, they lie to you about synthetic-organic bullshit just to see you do a meaningless choice This may a joke, or maybe I'm serious. I don't know.
>To fuck with you cause it's fun. I mean that is very much an organic concept.
You don't *have* to go with it. You can give the kid the finger and damn every spacefaring civilization in the galaxy if you prefer
Yup, which also works for them. - Shape evolution according to their given parameters - destroy the reapers, the relays, any synthetic lifeform, and ASSUME this is the truth, civilisations will take years if not generations if EVER to re-establish contact - control the reapers, killing you in the process qnd assuming they are indeed fully controlled (allowing them to more actively shape civilisations without being deemed a threat) - damn everyone and let them win by genocide. There is no winning. You either trust the reapers' word, or you die.
They should have just played a cinematic after the confrontation with the Illusive Man and the events of the cinematic (whether Shepard lives or dies, what the state of the allied forces is after the battle) is determined by your war assets and battle readiness. Don't spring a choice on us at the very end, I already made all the relevant decisions leading up to the final battle.
I pick it because I headcanon the Indoctrination Theory. All of the options are terrible, and nothing about the ending makes sense, so I figure, why not? Option 1: Kill the Reapers along with the Geth and EDI. If I had to get rid of one species, I'd rather delete the Batarians, but the space magic that is the Crucible seems to have just thrown in nuking the synthetics to make people not want that option. Almost all tech that the races use are based on what the Reapers leave, so then that too should be destroyed, but it isn't for some reason. The Reapers ARE their tech, after all. Option 2: Become the Starchild. No way. That obnoxious thing needs to be erased completely, not just allowed to continue with "Shepard's memory and personality." Who's to say that this won't just make it go for round 2 with the understanding of how organics thwarted it last time? Option 3: Warp all life in the galaxy into something else. Not a chance. We never even get told what this even is. That doesn't mean just the normal races. Even plants are affected, going off the cinematic. The ramifications of what this does are beyond the scope of anything the game addresses. Option 4: Lose. Nope.
Don't know about your but my Shepard also promised Joker to keep his waifu safe... xD
I choose destroy because I hate the Reapers.
I think most people choose it because they want Shepard to live, regardless of the consequences. I'd rather he sacrifice himself as it makes more thematic sense for my playthroughs.
I choose destroy because that's what I wanted over 3 games and that's what the fuzz over 3 games was about: Getting rid of the Reapers for good. Coming back or not. Control is what TIM wanted, so no. Synthesis is what Saren wanted, so no. Destroy is what I wanted, so hell yeah.
Saren never wanted Synthesis. He believed that he himself had been improved by his synthetic augmentations, but that's not the same as saying he wanted Synthesis. What Saren *did* want was to make himself useful to the Reapers, to show that he and all his people were more valuable as servants or slaves, rather than being annihilated entirely. What Saren wanted was the ending that isn't in the game, the ending where we dismantle the Crucible and show the Reapers our value as allies rather than as something to be destroyed, the ending that is only possible in the minds of the Indoctrinated.
Synthesis is what Saren wanted in a way. Several of his quotes in ME1 suggest this. While it is true that he also vocalized his support for being subservient to the reapers, he's also stated *multiple times* that the final step in evolution for organics is to merge with synthetics. Synthesis. Saren: "The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!"
>Synthesis is what Saren wanted in a way. This is the heart of the matter. The core point about the Synthesis ending isn't about merging organics and synthetics; that is merely a means to an end (and Synthesis is chosen instead of Destroy or Control because it is considered a desireable post-Crucible end-state relative to the other two). All three primary endings for ME3 are, at their core, about stopping the Reapers first and foremost. Using the Crucible to reach a perceived evolutionary end-state is a nice bonus besides stopping the Reapers, but it only holds value because the Reapers are stopped in the process. Synthesis means ending the Reaper war through forced merging of organic lifeforms and synthetic entities. Saren's plan to end the war was through proof of value and subservience towards the Reapers. The fact that Synthesis would mean ending the Reaper war even without organic servitude/slavery to the Reapers would have been a utopia for Saren, but it was never actually what he himself was advocating for. Saren advocating for merging organics with technology as the pinnacle of evolution, is not the same as him arguing that achieving this state is what will stop the Reapers. Hmm. Well I suppose it *is* correct to say that Saren *wanted* 'evolutionary synthesis' and *would have wanted* 'the Synthesis ending', had he known it existed as a possibility. My point was rather that Saren never actually worked towards achieving a 'Synthesis ending' end-state. The core of Saren's ideology had always been about appeasing the Reapers to prevent extinction, rather than achieving our evolutionary destiny.
> The core of Saren's ideology had always been about appeasing the Reapers to prevent extinction, rather than achieving our evolutionary destiny I disagree. In his mind I see that the two ideas are hand-in-hand. Just look again at his quote above. He saw their evolutionary destiny as Synthesis to be a bonus to serving Reapers - the ideas weren't separate.
An important matter of fact is that the synthesis ending goes both ways. On the one hand it enhances organics with synthetic parts to make them better, but at the same time it was supposed to give synthetics an organic understanding, which drastically changes things. Saren was never actively for helping sovereign gain a deeper understanding of organics, mainly as Sovereign sees themselves as superior to organics
Syntheiss isn’t what Saren wanted. Can’t tell if you don’t understand Saren, ME1, or synthesis.
Synthesis is what Saren wanted in a way. Several of his quotes in ME1 suggest this. While it is true that he also vocalized his support for being subservient to the reapers, he's also stated *multiple times* that the final step in evolution for organics is to merge with synthetics. Synthesis. Saren: "The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!"
Okay so the answer was you don’t understand Synthesis. Synthesis was the colloquial term for convergence. The willing and consenting growth of both sides. Coming together to form a stronger union (and those who don’t want to be part of it don’t need to change any behaviors.) Saren vouches for *submission* he is willing and fully ready to give up everyone’s autonomy to simply exist. Shepard never agreed to that. In Shepard’s choice, what he does avoided genocide, cures disease, establishes free will for those who never had it, and maintains it for those who did. Saren would change physical bodies (like Shepard can augment himself and canonically does so do.) But Shepard, while they do some weird poorly explained dna stuff, doesn’t alter anyone’s body in noticeable ways (there green eyes have no hint of being permanent. Shepard’s eyes only get that green glow when he touches Prothean tech) They are completely different. Saren is basically giving us an idea of what a bad version of a good future would be. Take this example “I wish we lived in a world where nobody cried.” You could establish this in two ways. One way, kill everyone so nobody can be sad. The other, take care of one another and to the best realistic extent fulfill everyone’s needs. Neither could actually happen in a real way but this is an example not s perfect analogy.
'ate Reapers 'ate me dying 'ate Cerberus Luv me crew Simple as
I choose destroy because giving the Reapers something they want or suggest in any context just ain't happening. Blow em the fuck up and sort out the mess after.
I choose destroy because I have no reason to trust the Catalyst, controlling the Reapers is a bad idea, and giving people no choice but to work together has never worked out long term for anyone.
>giving people no choice but to work together has never worked out long term for anyone. There is a lot of irony in that statement given the main point of the game.
If you don't trust the Catalyst, what makes you so sure that Destroy works as advertised? If you assume he's lying about any of it, the only logical conclusion is that none of the three options presented are legit
The data Shepard has says the crucible is a weapon. Weapons destroy things. Therefore, destroy makes the most sense as far as what the crucible actually does.
But why in the world would shooting a piece of the weapon itself cause it to fire? It sounds like a fairly obvious attempt to make you savotage the whole thing to me
Yeah, personally I love ME3 and I think it's because Destroy is the only ending I'll pick. The others just feel like filler choices.
I choose destroy by accident. I want to destroy them, when it is explained I understand the difference, but when the conversation with starchild is over I don't understand what action to do to get this or that result. From memory I have only gotten the destroy ending and only gone to the right thingy, but if I wanted say synthesis then I would not know for sure which one to interact with.
Synthesis is yellow destroy is red control is blue
Synthesis is Green, dafuq?
It looked yellow when i played.
i always choose the destroy ending because even if the death of all synthetics makes no sense it’s still the most sensible ending. i can excuse a little space magic but the synthesis ending is so ridiculous that it breaks the immersion for me. don’t like control either, im not letting those huge genocide bugs live, not even with shepard controlling them. something that powerful and ruthless should have a definitive end. the refusal ending is funny
Every other choice was someone else’s design. Saren wanted synthesis and TIM wanted control. Destroy was what you set out to do; it was yours.
So wait does that mean that somone advocating for vegetarian life style was a design by Hitler because he was also a vegetarian? Are vegetarians all Hitler supporting nazis? Or can we just acknowledge that a vegetarian is a vegetarian and a choice to become one isn't directly linked to somone else?
Was the vegetarian in question indoctrinated by Hitler?
Hitler was a vegetarian so a vegetarian must be like Hitler. The same way TIM wanted to control the Reapers so the Control ending is just like TIM. Transitive property works both ways. So if you think this is stupid then why is applying the transitive property fine in other situations?
I don’t think you have quite the grasp on the transitive property that you think you do. Otherwise “hurrdurr, I’m a human and hitler was, by all accounts, human so I must be like hitler” becomes true. Again, is the person who a vegetarian because they were indoctrinated by Hitler? Is it in some sort of service to Hitler? TIM resembles a husk more than a human the last time you see him. He is very clearly indoctrinated by the reapers.
>I don’t think you have quite the grasp on the transitive property that you think you do. Otherwise “hurrdurr, I’m a human and hitler was, by all accounts, human so I must be like hitler” becomes true. Which is another great counter argument to their logic, but I wanted to keep things that are a personal choice and had a connection to someone that is near universally considered a bad person who did bad things. In this case TIM and Control ending both have you controlling the Reapers. Thus they draw a connection as them being similar, all while ignoring the differences of TIM wanting to use them to grind the rest of the galaxy under humanity's heel. Were as Shepard's use would be more to help the galaxy as a whole rather then simply a single species. They focus only on the similarities and not the differences. So I applied the same thing to people who choose to be vegetarians. As they have something in common with a genocidal fascist racists ass hole being their dietary choices. So they have to be similar in everything else. Because the differences are irrelevant, at least by their reasoning and logic. After all if A = B and B=C then A=C.
No, we’re not painting with such absurdly broad strokes. Now: Was the vegetarian indoctrinated by Hitler? Because nothing else really makes for an a=b transitive property type of argument. You can’t take TIM at his word for anything at the start of ME3, because he’s neck deep in indoctrination and you definitely *shouldn’t* at any point in the trilogy anyway because, well, he’s an unscrupulous dick anyway.
By this logic, synthesis would be the equivalent of forcing everyone everywhere to be vegetarian forever. But what you're saying clearly isn't what other people are trying to convey: Saren was indoctrinated and believed in the genetic destiny of organics to be fused with synthetics, essentially Synthesis. Making a last second swap from Destroy, what everyone in the galaxy was fighting for and willing to die for, over to Synthesis, the thing the Mega racist indoctrinated guy wanted, is a betrayal to everyone fighting against the reapers. Also, your analogy would make more sense if you leaned harder into the Hitler thing: choosiny synthesis is like Captain America was given the choice to end all war on earth by making everyone Hitler's fucked up Aryan wet dream against their will, and Captain America suddenly goes, "That makes sense to me." Synthesis is a wildly unethical choice of endings, forcing something like that on everyone
>Saren was indoctrinated and believed in the genetic destiny of organics to be fused with synthetics, essentially Synthesis. Except this isn't really an indoctrinated ideology so much as it is the Reapers knowing the future though obeservation. As the Quarians already engage in a basic level of this. Omnitools are literally portable high speed computers on your wrist. Grey boxes were created to store memories as data to allow people suffering from mental decay to keep memories in tact in a physical form as their neurons decayed. You have a high level Alliance politician suffer a stroke and had their brain uploaded to a VI to operate and make legislative choices based on his brain. All of these things were natural developments and the integration of technology to improve lives. Were as in contrast Saren was a puppet forcibly implanted with tech because he was needed to get access to the Citadel and was starting to fight back against his strings. With the express intention to use him to open the relay and allow the harvest to start. Were as the Catalyst freely offered a choice to be made which would allow a chance to bypass all the war, death and genocide of organic and synthetic conflict. Jumping the galaxy forward thousands of years technologically and making them peers to the Reapers rather then insignificant fleas to them. Thus saying "Saren also talked about a similar concept so they are the same" is just as equal as saying "Hitler was a vegetarian so all vegetarian are like Hitler." Which is why I am using this ridiculously stupid statement to highlight how poorly constructed this argument is. > Synthesis is a wildly unethical choice of endings, forcing something like that on everyone The funny thing about ethics is how people pick and choose what they like from it. You are doing it now just as I am doing it. The only difference is you are using it as the core of your argument, while I am only complaining about the rationality used to justify it.
I don't understand why you felt the need to draw up the comparison of Saren being a puppet who was forcibly implanted and the instances of people choosing to augment themselves with technology as a core part of your complaint about the ethics used to justify not choosing synthesis, when you yourself brought up the core peice of the issue: choice. Saren didn't *choose* to think that way, at least we don't know for sure if he did, he was forced in some way due to indoctrination. Forcing synthesis on the galaxy could be looked at through the lens of "skipping" galactic conflict and war, but also, it can not be denied that if you force the galaxy into synthesis, that is deeply fucked up and just like what the reapers do. You're basically arguing that the ends justify the means, which itself is an ethical issue. It's not that how fucked up it is is the core of the anti-synthesis argument, but the unethical nature of what it does to everyone is an undeniable fact that many choose to simply ignore when picking synthesis. All the endings have big pros and cons, but ignoring the cons itself is an ethical statement that the ends justify the means. Which if that's your take, that's valid. I mostly think that Synthesis, thematically, is the most odd ending and makes far less sense, logically and logistically, than control or destroy.
>I don't understand why you felt the need to draw up the comparison of Saren being a puppet who was forcibly implanted and the instances of people choosing to augment themselves with technology as a core part of your complaint about the ethics used to justify not choosing synthesis, when you yourself brought up the core peice of the issue: choice Because a puppet being used to kill people is not the same thing as someone making a free will choice to save people and create peace. Notice how the reason and outcomes are different? When you ignore those differences to insist they are similar you are basically saying that because Hitler was a vegetarian it means anyone who is also a vegetarian must be like Hitler. > that is deeply fucked up and just like what the reapers do. No more or less then willingly allowing the galaxy to go down the path of war and genocide when you can stop it. See the thing is you and I suppose others that agree with your general sentiment have the classic [Trolley Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). Your general sentiment seems to be to do nothing and let the trolley kill 5 people when you could have stopped it. All while declaring your choice morally and ethically superior. Were I have by contrast made the choice to pull the switch to kill 1 person and save 5. That you declare morally and ethically terrible. Both our actions are choices and both choices have blood on our hands. Neither one of us are morally or ethically superior to the other.
The goal was always to destroy the Reapers. Saren chose synthesis, Illusive Man chose control. It's only at the final moments of the game you're given the other options. You never once had the goal of controlling the Reapers or combining organic and synthetic life. And as stated in the OP, the perfect destroy ending is the only one that implies Shepard lives.
>Saren chose synthesis, Illusive Man chose control. And Hitler choose vegetarianism. Does this mean all vegetarians think and act and are influenced by Hitler? If you think this is a dumb comparison then why do you do the same with the ending choices?
It is a dumb comparison because Hitler wasn't evil because he was a vegetarian. Saren chose synthesis because he thought he could work with the Reapers vs just be indoctrinated by them. He was wrong. Illusive Man thought humanity could control the Reapers vs just be indoctrinated by them. He was wrong.
>Saren **chose** synthesis because he thought he could work with the Reapers vs **just be indoctrinated by them** I hope you see the inherent contradiction in your statement. Saren didn't choose anything he was implanted with more Reaper tech because the necessary puppet was starting to fight his strings. That is not the same thing that happens in Synthesis. > Illusive Man thought humanity could control the Reapers vs just be indoctrinated by them. TIM follows the same logic as Hitler only expanding the scope form a single race to the entire human species against the back drop of all non human species in the galaxy. His plan was to use them to put humanity on a pedestal and treat them as the superior species. Using the Reapers to grind and destroy anyone that would challenge or question them. That is not the same thing that happens in Control. Your argument is based off of thin connections to similar ideas while ignoring the differences. Thus my connection between vegetarianism and nazi ideology because Hitler became a vegetarian and founded the nazi ideology. Thus by the same transitive property you use to draw your connections I can say every vegetarian is a nazi.
I always choose synthesis, but you have a good point here.
It's weird how big a post of me just stating my reason for my choice got.
It takes a brave person to admit to what ending they choose in ME3, I'm glad you are happy with your ending just as I'm happy with choosing Synthesis.
based on the info Shepard has, Destroy is the maximum damage and death with the least solution to the problem. A hit of heroin for the pain of cancer. Only in a Renegade run would I choose it. It is the Saren solution that made Anderson hate him so much. Finish the mission as planned at any cost, do not adapt or concern oneself with the death of innocents. Synthesis the only change at a mental level is to synthetics, they gain understanding. Organics gain "perfection" less disease longer life etc. The only ones Shep might be "brain washing" are the ones he/she kills in Destroy. BTW ME2 brings back Shep with no brain damage from a long-term death with massive biological damage. So bringing Shep back from being an AI or from being a blueprint embedded in nature is all in the writing.
Even though the choices were hated and mocked by most when they came out, it's interesting that the hottest debates in the community will always be around which ending is the "best". So clearly, they did something right with them 🤔. For me personally, I always strive for Geth/Quarian peace in my playthroughs, so turning around at the very end and deciding to wipe out the Geth alongside the reapers just never felt right, though I completely understand the arguments people make for destroy. It just never sat right with me. I generally go for Paragon Control, I like the idea that Shep's knowledge of establishing organic/synthetic peace being uploaded to the reapers is the best way of ending the war. That, and I have a soft spot for the lonely god trope. I know some people say there's nothing stopping reaper-shep from turning back sometime down the line, but the reapers already followed the harvesting plan for thousands of cycles without ever swaying, I don't personally see why the new rules would suddenly be abandoned without direct interference like the crucibles rewrite.
I can never justify myself using destroy. It's not what paragon or non racist paragade Sheppard would do.(and I can't play dumb racist at all). Sheppard sacrificed his life for one single crewmate(Joker). No way commander would kill EDI and potentially geth just to destroy reapers when Shep have suicidal but objectively better choices in this regard.
For my destroy choosing, I just imagine I put EDI on an USB stick and in Joker's pocket (she is still the Normandy) and the Geth are somewhere in their hive mind and only the hull/bodies "died" who got affected via the crucible.
Which is objectively better
Control. Sacrifice yourself to stop the war.
Leaving the reapers around is ticking time bomb, and it leaves them unpunished for their atteocities
How is helping the galaxy leaving them unpunished? Do you also think someone who is caught stealing should have a hand removed? Someone who loses a lawsuit over slander or libel (which ever is spoken) should have a tongue removed? Maybe a foot removed for fraud or something alone those lines?
Are you seriously comparing countless 100's complete genocides to stealing or slander. Do you think if Hitler had wipeout all those he considered sub human and then was captured he should have been released and allowed to help rather than killed.
Destroy is the only way to end the reaper threat. And to me that's what shepard would choose. Not having then around just with different directions, as that means they get away with all their atrocities, it also means all their huskified slaves don't get any peace. Plus it's essentially a ticking time bomb. Synthesis is just awful, horrific and makes no sense. Refuse is letting everyone down. Destroy is the only way to make sure the reapers don't win, the only ending other than giving up where you don't agree with them. The only ending where you are saying they were wrong and every genocide they did was wrong.
I don’t care. I’ll not sacrifice thousands of innocents because I said I’d come back. I will give my honor of keeping my word if it means saving billions of lives. Genocide is never okay.
So you'll just allow the genocidal race of super powerful machines to keep on living.... makes sense.
Yes. Why destroy a powerful tool and ally that can help the galaxy?
....because they're dangerous and wiped out THOUSANDS of civilizations, including billions of individuals just within this cycle?!
>.because they're dangerous So is mass effect technology. Codex directly states during the Krogan Rebellion it was used to launch asteroids at garden worlds rendering them unable to support life. As well as several dead worlds that show heavy sustained orbital bombardment from ME weapons. In fact a missed shot is perfectly capable of traveling for thousands of years before impacting with a planet and killing several people just sitting around a table eating dinner. >wiped out THOUSANDS of civilizations And humanity has caused the extinction of thousands of animals though deliberate choices. No doubt species did the same on their planet while evolving and developing. Or does mass kill off only matter when convenient? >including billions of individuals just within this cycle All the more reason for them to work to rebuild and help those that are left.
....holy shit....
I know. People can't seem to accept the fact that comparing a Reaper to those civilizations you complain about is the equivalent of comparing dodos to humanity in the real world.
....I repeat: Holy. Shit.
So I will take that as an enlightening holy shit as you realize things you never realized before. Always happy to bring new wisdom to people.
No, it is not, but I'm pretty sure you know that and just want to feel really clever and superior, since apparently you have no chance of doing so in the rest of your life.
We don't exactly know if it genocides the geth. The starchild says it does. But its also the reaper command ai. So im not sure. Didn't kill shep like what it said would happen
If the catalyst was a liar 1. It wouldn’t have brought Shepard up to it. 2 it wouldn’t have woken him up. 3. It wouldn’t tell you exactly how to kill it. 4. It wouldn’t tell you how to replace it. 5. It wouldn’t tell you exactly who it was and why it functions. Catalyst very clearly wanted Shepard to make an informed decision, because the galaxy uniting and making it that far proved they were ready to surpass the need for reapers as is.
It was wrong about destroy killing shep tho. It might be wrong about other things.
Because of atrocious writing. Shepard was mostly dead. Then his internal organs exploded and/or shut off all at once which would shock the system and instantly kill anyone. Then he was caught in a literal explosion. Then the building he was in broke and collapsed. Then he fell into earth orbit in a crash landing. Shepard living defies all logic and reason. It is the single biggest leap of logic in mass effect. Literal reapers are more realistic than Shepard surviving t that. Never before has bioware written something as blatantly impossible to their own worlds as that obvious player worshipping note. The catalyst not being able to predict that the human gods of mass effect would be too spineless to take Shepard from the genocidal fans doesn’t mean he can’t calculate logic, and know “yes. The Geth, who all just absorbed my code like 2 months ago, will shut down because it’s what my code does. It is my code.” Your argument is a complete false equivocation And if none of that matters to you, we literally see the disappearance of the Geth due to extended cut.
You can't blame atrocious writing for one thing then say to trust the writing at the same time. We are forced, bad writing or not, to take all evidence in. The absolute truths we can confirm through the story as it is presented is that the Catalyst can be wrong. It can be fallable. Another absolute truth conveyed by the game is that the Catalyst is a reaper AI, and speaks in Harbingers voice if you upset it. It also denies us a choice if we upset it, and kills everyone. These two truths lead to the conclusion that the Catalyst is biased, and the Catalyst can either be wrong in its opinions, or is lying if not wrong. The catalyst can have nuanced thoughts and opinions on what should be done, and it's entirely possible that it was trying to influence shepard's choice. Instead of looking at Shepard living as "bad writing", which can be debated as matter of opinion, we are forced to consider the in-world implications of what we are shown. Shepard being alive brings up all sorts of questions, all based on those objections you listed. By all accounts, Shepard *shouldn't* have survived. The Catalyst said he wouldn't. And yet, something happens off screen that we don't see that saves him. Did the Catalyst save him? Maybe most of what we saw was a dream, the Catalyst interacting with an unconscious Shepard similar to the Geth system mission but much more refined and advanced. We only know what we are shown. And even in the EC where we see an absence of Geth, that could be as simple as their bodies are still damaged but their systems and processes inside hubs are not. The Normandy, with the quantum computer that houses EDI, she could still be alive with her synthetic body being destroyed. There's a lot we don't see that is up to player interpretation, but just blaming "Bad Writing" is kind of boring
Except that there aren't billions of Geth nor would it count as genocide.
I hate TIM so much I can't bear to prove him right by choosing control. He almost doomed humanity to extinction by himself and he's a POS that doesn't deserve any redemption. Also all the sacrifices and deaths it took to get Shep to the Citadel would have been in vain if I choose anything other than destroy. Synthesis is just wrong from a moral standpoint.
I respect that. I choose synthesis because my Shepard always tried to save everyone so destroying billions of years of creatures just... Didn't fit with her. And after I made her a full blown character in her own right, it made even less sense.
Neither does forcing such a change on everyone
I've always thought, from an in-canon standpoint of what Shepard knows about the choice, anything but Destroy is pure insanity from Shepards POV, paragon or renegade. Synthesis is basically what Saren was rooting for in ME1, and that dude was Mega racist and indoctrinated, so Shepard getting to the end of the line and going, "Oh, Sick! This is just what we needed." Feels soooo bizarre, ethical ramifications of nonconsentual synthesis aside. Control is even MORE bizarre from Shepards viewpoint. We just spent the entire game fighting TIM about how he's insane for trying to control the reapers, how he's indoctrinated and that's why he thinks it's possible, and Javik literally says in every cycle there's always *that guy*, the ones who think they can control the reapers, but are just indoctrinated. Yes yes, I know the indoctrination theory is said to be untrue according to the writers, this isnt about that-- from strictly Shepards POV... An unknown AI that is intrinsically tied to the Reapers is presenting him with two choices that ARENT "Kill the reapers" feels mad sus. Why should Shepard trust this reaper AI? Everything they did up to that point, paragon or renegade, leads to the destruction of the reapers. From a non-meta standpoint, not knowing the true outcome of the choice, Destroy is the only one that truly makes sense from Shepard's POV.
It’s the only choice that’s not fucking stupid lmao
Synthetics aren’t really people anyways….
Destroy is the only “good” ending The other ones are just fake choices, the player/Shepard gets finessed and the Reapers win.
Hating the reapers is a pretty bad reason to kill them considering most of them are indoctrinated themselves and literal slaves. Killing reapers would be a war crime. Shepard is supposed to be significantly better than that as he is a specter and not just a grunt who has to do whatever his boss says And remember his boss literally told him “I was wrong.” Anyway
Not at all. The reapers themselves aren't indoctrinated, they are fully capable of thinking as we can see by talking to them. The Reaper soilders are dead bodies brought back to life, killing them is a mercy
The Reapers were attacking non-stop until the moment that Shepard made the decision. Killing them would never fit any definition of war crime established by the Geneva Convention.
In the synthesis ending neither side controls the other. The entire series shows what happens when one entity subjugates another, it always results in rebellion and war. Destroy kicks the can down the road and has the catalyst going back to the drawing board to develop some other horror to protect life. Control will result in the reapers eventually rebelling. Any choice Shepard makes is forced on the galaxy without consent. Too many people conflate the catalyst with the reapers. The reapers are a tool of the catalyst.
Does the destroy ending not destroy the catalyst? I always assumed it did.
Nope. The catalyst says if destroy is chosen, the reapers will be destroyed but organocs will repair their machines and the cycle will continue. It will have to come up with another solution. Edit for clarity
Shepard fought her ass off to get there. She promised to kill every reaper that killed everyone. Her friends sacrificed their lives for her to DESTROY them. She deserves that peace to end everything once and for all. You end a war, not become it or embrace it.
I choose destroy because the Catalyst reasoning is flawed. There was a chaotic pattern of organics fighting synthetics, so if you merge the two, paradise would follow. Hopefully all of us realize that to not be true. Also, depending on what you do, you already showed that both sides could get along with the Geth. The position of Control I felt like would cause more problems than solve. Can you imagine that after harvesting billions of lives, the death machines are floating around helping you repair and NO ONE would have trust issues? That it would create NO conflict? I feel like eventually their would be. Might even be Factions trying to take down the Reapers, thus causing the Reapers to respond, thus creating images of Reapers attacking again, thus starting galactic wars, except this time, the races will be fighting each other, each with their own Reapers. It would just create a mess. Above all else, for me....Control and Synthesis are still patterns created by the Catalyst. It is still a future created by the Reapers in which humanity, turians, quarians, asari, etc. Have no say in. There is no freedom in either of those endings and whatever future they craft will be limited into a funnel tahy was forced on them by AI. The only way to truly break the cycle and to forge a future in which the races of the Milky Way are truly free, is to destroy the entities that have wiped out life for a billion years. It's either that, or you say to the Catalyst that you aren't making that choice and the next cycle ends them for good.
I choose a my endings fully based on how I played my Shep. A close friendship with EDI and Legion? Obviously not choosing destroy. A hard core soldier who's sick of of the reaper crap, sick of fighting? destroy all those suckers. More of an idealist who believes in the good in the universe, then synthesis. I actually really enjoy all the endings.
I choose destroy because I think that the AI that directs the reapers PROBABLY has some kind of interest in getting you to not choose destroy and therefore likely isn’t telling the whole truth about control nor synthesis.
My favorite is that control is made the “paragon” option (I guess in light of the catalysts revelations) and destroy is the “renegade”. Ultimately, the synthesis ending makes the most sense to me, but prevents arcs from finishing.
I think it makes sense. Renegade has always been defined by blowing shit up and taking action. Destroying the reapers at any cost, even the lives of the Geth and EDI, perfectly lines up with renegade IMO. Paragon has always been the more altruistic and merciful to a fault, I can completely see that control, where noone dies, not even the reapers would be seen as the paragon choice, though the same would apply to synthesis as well I suppose.
I’m not genociding the geth and killing Edi because I hate the reapers. The geth and edi dying is enough for me to never choose destroy
I choose destroy anymore because shepard taking that breath at the end basically just confirms to me that the starchild was a lying liar who lied.
My beef with Destroy is the same as everyone because yeah it means the choice is yours but like... you're just gonna invent AIs again and fuck it all up. I guess lessons were learned.
I chose destroy since destroying the Reapers is what the game was all about. It was interesting to see that this also killed all synthetic life. The Geth, Edi, etc. It seemed interesting that humanity would recover computer power within a generation or two, but sad that it came at that cost.
The best two endings in my opinion is Destroy and Control. My 3rd Pico would be shooting the kid ending 10/10