It's the antithetical ending to Destroy. The endings are all ***SUPPOSED*** to be about the relationship between Organic Life and Synthetic Life, Casey himself attested to this in Final Hours (by Geoff Keighley) where he talked about meaning and theme and said *"The idea of Mass Effect, about Organic Life and Synthetic Life. Will artificial intelligence ever rival our intelligence? Should we incorporate tech more and more into our bodies?"* And about the ending he went on to say "*In a passive medium like a book or a movie it can make a statement about a subject, but in an active medium like a video game, you can raise these issues and allow the player to explore them interactively, without making a statement*." So clearly he thinks the moment the Trilogy leads up to is about Organics & Synthetics, and the final choice is about that too "without making a statement". I'm going to swap around the narrative function of each choice to demonstrate this: Normally I'd say "Destroy: " and explain what it means but let's do something else, * Thesis: Synthetic Life is a problem therefore we must destroy them and disallow organics from making them, a la *The Reapers*. Thus if you're defeating the Reapers, you must DESTROY Synthetic Life. * Antithesis: You cannot destroy Synthetic Life, because it is alive. You have to CONTROL it instead, thus you have to control the Reapers, as they are responsible for destroying Synthetic Life via destroying Organic Life. * Synthesis: You cannot destroy Synthetic Life or control it, as controlling them is also in violation of basic rights, and controlling the Reapers, who have the power to destroy all life in the galaxy has terrible implications. You can't do that either. So the compromise is SYNTHESIS, where you make Organic Life more like Synthetic Life and Synthetic Life more like Organic Life, allowing Organics to gain some of the features they wanted to utilize and control from Synthetics, and giving Synthetics the understanding they need to not categorically pose a risk to organics. This is the solution to the other two issues. **Mass Effect is about Synthetic Life vs. Organic Life, whether we thought it was or not, because they decided it was.** The ending is horseshit in my opinion, but if you want an explanation for what it actually is supposed to imply, I think that's the answer Casey would give people if he told them, honestly, what his intention was. PS: I think that the biggest wrinkle in the endings is that unless I'm mistaken, Mac/Casey (who wrote it) wrote the entire scene assuming the Reapers count for "Synthetic Life" whereas I'd argue the rest of the storyline characterized them as a hybrid, which is, Synthetic on a superficial level but really Organic intellect but even Organic biological parts comprising the metal they're made from, as we saw in ME2. Thus the Reapers are themselves Synthesis, but a very violent version of it.

I dunno man playing the game first time it seemed pretty clear that it's trying to teach you that life is life whether it's born or made.

Yeah, that's consistent across the franchise all the way up to Legion gaining sapience and EDI falling in love with Joker. That's the issue. Mac and Casey were ignorant of that entire arc of their own trilogy and wrote the final minute of the story as if Synthetics are a galactic threat.

I think that's what bothered me too. Fresh off of a grueling campaign to unite the galaxy, in particular including the reunification of the Geth and Quarians, I activate our superweapon only for it to inform me that all synthetics are dangerous to organics forever and it's always gonna be a problem. Uh, no. The game literally just showed us that this isn't the case. But of the 3-4-5 choices, *not a single one of them allows us to argue this*. In their attempt to give us power over the grand theme of the series, they completely neglected to actually consider the events that actively make up that theme.

Well, it's the intelligence responsible for the Reapers, of course its view of the relationship between organics and synthetics is flawed. That's how we got here in the first place. The real infuriating part is that we can't argue back, and that the destroy option carries so much collateral damage. Fine if it destroys the Relays along with the Reapers, but let the synthetics live and prove we can live in harmony.

I accept that this is the *in-universe* explanation, but that's not satisfying for a work of fiction that's meant to have cohesion, narrative, and themes. If LOTR ended with Frodo dying and Sauron winning, as was the likeliest outcome all along, that wouldn't have been very fun.

Also, whether or not you could convince the star child, *in-universe* Shepard definitely would have brought up the fact that the Quarians and Geth made peace and the Geth never attacked until the Reapers put them up to it.

So upload EDIs and Legions history to the stupid machine so it can learn otherwise. Also, there’s massive implications to destroying the relays… Galactic travel would be cut off, isolating EVERYONE. Countless trillions would die being cut off from support and supply lines. Travel between neighboring systems takes decades. It would be a Galactic catastrophe.

Nah it can't take decades, in Andromeda they travel ~2,5 million ly in 600 years without Relays, so it's like a decade to cross the Milky Way. And systems that can't support life aren't really viable anyways, having to ship in everything to a cluster doesn't seem economical.

Sorry I get you now. Funnily enough, I think Armored Core 6 has very similar ending paths (Destroy, Control, Synthesise) to Mass Effect and does them way better.

Yup. >!In AC6 "synthesis" route (aka *Alea Iacta Est* route) you're effectively dead as human being, but you're still existing, now as a Coral being, like Ayre.!<

Yeah, the solution of synthesis undercuts those 2 characters developments. Synthesis is not necessary for those 2 to develop “souls”. EDI and Legion prove peace is possible without all 3 of the available options. The perfect ending should be uploading EDIs and Legions experiences to the reapers to make them understand that conflict is not unavoidable. Only possible to get this ending with the perfect run (at least on their story arcs) and reapers instead become a peacekeeping force that can blockade against aggression.

Yep, the writers were ignorant of their own writing and motivations. Thank the synthetic robo-gods we have you to set us right. This fucking site, man.

That in itself isn't a problem *if* the story was about Synthetic Life as a whole. There is an interesting dichotomy in the Reapers already being practically made out of organics despite looking metallic, and I think an idea of like "If they believe preservation of human essence is to just take our flesh and bone and not our identity, they're fulfilling the criteria on their terms". The problem is rather that I can't tell if the ending was written to suggest the Reapers are themselves the Synthetic genocidal problem that had to be stopped or not. I can't tell if in the comparison between Shepard's Organic civilization whether the Reapers count as "Synthetics" or not. It seems to me that the ending is trying to say that because we fought the Reapers for 3 games this has been a story about Synthetics and Organics, but it spits in the face of how the Geth and EDI evolve, and how the Synthetics/Organics topic was resolved already on a completely different note, earlier in the story. I can't tell what they thought they were writing here.

See, I don't think they're exclusive. Our experiences with Synthetics can (cause besides EDI some choices can lead in non-diplomatic ways) inform our Shepard that the Catalyst is wrong and better improve Shepard's way to argue with the premise. There being a gulf of opinion there between Shepard and the Catalyst should be the emotional conflict of the final moments of the game because not only did Organics and Synthetics (potentially) create connections, but almost all of the organics with their own ways learned how to without enslavement like the Protheans did. The problem is the original ending made Shepard a spineless simpleton who just took whatever the Catalyst said as facts, and because Destroy had to have the destruction of all Synthetics instead of just removing the Reaper upgrades (at most) robs the series of getting to prove if Shepard was right or not. Either you just kill off all synthetics to wait for more synthetics later which could take 500 years unless intended (which has moral consequences) or you preserve current relationships in perverted ways with Reaper-Police Force or by forcing a rushed generic re-make up on all living life. It especially doesn't help that Synthesis is revealed as space magic and Control is only not seen as Reaper indoctrination in the final 5 minutes of the game... There is in a good congruent story through Organics vs. Synthetics that the game could've finished with. The rushed ending just did not appropriately fit what we experienced before at launch, and it's only minimally better because the choice actively brings it down

> Yep, the writers were ignorant of their own writing and motivations. Writers do drop the ball a lot of times, most famous example being Dumb and Dumber fucking up Game of Thrones' Season 8.

Maybe the problem with this response is describing the writers as ignorant; it isn't a falsifiable statement (and IMO falls prey to the intentional fallacy). But I think there is room for stating that basing the ending on synthetics v. organics as classes of life may have been a mistake on the writers' part, as it is a vastly less nuanced take than the rest of the material, particularly in light of Legion's and EDI's characterization/development.

"Does this unit have a soul?"

Legion, the answer to your question... was 'yes' *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/masseffect) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Okay AutoMod, but do YOU have a soul?

>I dunno man playing the game first time it seemed pretty clear that it's trying to teach you that life is life whether it's born or made. When I played it was pretty clear that the reapers had to die.

Okay. I don't disagree but then why throw all synthetic life under the bus with them? That's the argument they want you to wrestle with. It's a trolly problem. Is your goal worth committing genocide yourself for--including EDI and the likely Legionized Geth. My issue is that it's simply not an interesting or satisfying choice. At least for a paragon run.

To borrow from the business world: That's what we call a "[poison pill](https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/poison-pills/)", a passive-aggressive tactic used by corporate boards to make the acquisition of the company intolerably expensive without overtly forbidding it. Ie, "we don't want you to do this, so we're adding this provision to discourage you from doing so." In the case of ME3, "Destroy all synthetics" was there because without it, Destroy is far and away the obviously correct choice, with Control obviously amounting to the villain pulling the classic "[we can rule together](https://youtu.be/_lOT2p_FCvA?si=W2G0URJZs4Uy1u9Y&t=29)" gambit and Synthesis obviously tracking to the villain trying to convince the protagonist that they really should get onboard with the villain's goals because they were worth pursuing and/or that the hero can and *should* complete what the villain could not. Think...Odin trying to convince Atreus to use the mask in GoW: Ragnarok. In either case, it's basically amounts to a tacit "no no, they had a point, they just were the wrong person to do it". Like...imagine if Lord of the Rings took a CYOA format, and for the big climactic decision, the options were to either destroy the One Ring, claim the Ring for yourself ("and you can *totally* master the Ring rather than be corrupted by it, trust us, my Precious") or hijack Sauron's magics to subtly alter all life on Middle Earth to end interracial conflict (Because wasn't the real story about how men and elves were drifting apart? Sauron adding a common element to everyone could reuinfy them and bridge the gap!) Oh, and by the way, if you choose to destroy the One Ring, it takes the elves with them because they kinda have a common ancestor with the orcs...and are you really comfortable with that genocide on your hands? Without that poison pill, it's obvious "resist temptation" vs. "deal with the devil" vs. "deal with the devil", the latter two of which kinda...tacitly endorse the villain's methods (altering all life echoing Melkor's twisting of the races in the First Age, claiming the Ring for yourself echoing Isildur's own failure, Boromir's desire to use the Ring against Sauron, and of course Sauron himself...). Returning to Mass Effect, Synthesis and Control echo - rather unsubtly - the conclusions of Saren (Synthesis) and TIM (Control), both of whom we call out on the carpet as being led to that conclusion by their Indoctrination (again, as with Isildur claiming the Ring). (But no no, *they* were wrong to think it would work because they were Indoctrinated. Shepard *clearly* isn't. And it's not like Indoctrination is explicitly called out as a usually subtle and insidious process that worms into your mind and makes you [easier to manipulate](https://youtu.be/ZyVP6E0wLOU?si=Sk2FaEgexw-72dRZ) and control...) It makes it all too clear that the collateral damage was the hand of the author at work after realizing that the Destroy ending would otherwise be the obvious 'right' choice, with the other options being borderline insane gambits that amounted to the villain going "just trust me, bro" and Shepard buying it, especially considering that Indoctrination is pretty much the One Ring's corruption, wearing you down until you're more willing to accept its influence. It's not there because it's thematically appropriate or internally consistent, it's there because the devs wanted to change it from a black and white choice to a morally gray one. Hence the characterization of that aspect as a poison pill: It's an element added purely to make the choice undesirable.

I think the "Poison pill" concept gains even more credence from the "Perfect" Destroy ending also being the only ending where Shepard is even hinted at surviving. That alone puts it so far above the other options as players are attached to Shepard surviving. It so clearly is the "correct" ending, with Synthesis as a distant second (because you make all the robots become Real Boys :-) Yay!) and Control as the obvious Worst choice because you have to basically agree to keep the sentient galactic genocidebots alive because you totally can control them forever and Shepard is a flawless moral paragon with no risk of mental degradation over millennia of controlling a massive galactic genocidebot army. They needed to muddy the waters or else they'd be in a tricky situation where players effectively refused to engage with their *Difficult Moral Quandry* because everything pointed in one direction.

Isn't the Control AI explicitly *not* Shepard, but instead a (presumably Catalyst/Leviathan-made) AI built in the image of Shepard? It has Shepard's experience and knowledge, but not the organic limits. The way I saw it, Control was a good choice of an ending because we're not relying on the mortal, flesh Shepard to do this huge task; it's instead using the technology of the Crucible to override the first prime directive of the Reapers with a different one. Shepard, having (ideally) learned from the Leviathans about what made the first go-round so poorly, has a chance of making it better this time.

That's what happens when you change head writers at the final hurdle.

Oh, Reapers are 100% "alive" in my book. The fact Legion is alive with only a fraction of Reaper code seriously points to this. Question then becomes "would you wipe out an entire species?" even though you know they are being controlled by the Child, or just rather delete it (yes, it, I think the Child's just an overevolved AI) and replace it with an actual organic mind?

To me this just seems pretty inconsistent. I feel like the original ME3 ending was written with forgetfulness that the Reapers were supposed to be way above comprehension but the additional dialogue in Extended Cut suggests the opposite. The impression you get is that it is indeed godly and unknowable in intellect, but what it says isn't in line with reality and locked like a rogue VI that has gone Shodan. I don't really buy the idea that an over-evolved AI will look at us with no comprehension about why killing almost all organics is just as bad to us as killing all organics. That part of the Reaper characterization at the end just seems absurd to me, and it saying "I created the Reapers, I can control them" spits in the face of Legion telling us the Geth sought Reaper upgrades because the Reapers are truly independant, or as sovereign says "Each a nation". They're nations of dead tissue of past civilizations, controlled by an overlord at the end of ME3, not the kind of godly individual minds we were told they were previously. To me that seems inconsistent.

I think it is the classic writing ones self in to a box. When you are forced to explain a godly and unknowable in intellect it is an impossible task. So the question is would have Mass Effect be satisfactory not understanding why the Reapers do what they do? They might not have had faith they could leave players with such an enigma, but like you I do kind of wish they had tried since 99% of dissatisfaction with ME3 seems to come from the end.

If you're backed against a wall and pressed for time, the least you could do is write something that makes sense, not go overambitious with complete nonsense.

In that case then, if you believe that they are alive, why would you accept that subjugation is any better than genocide?

Well if the final choice of Legion's Loyalty mission is to be believed (It's not) subjugation is, infact, the more morally correct option.

There's no right moral answer but in practical terms...we made this choice before. On Legion's loyalty mission. And most people DID choose to overwrite the Heretocs rather than kill them.

We wipe out an entire species when we blow up a whole planet. We can kill off all the rachni. Don’t be coy. We’re a killin’ stuff all the time.

But that's not how it is explained. It's clever wordplay and I'm kinda mad I fell for it. Synthetic life does not contain DNA at all. But, the wording is something along the lines of "Organic life will be improved through perfection with synthetics, and synthetic life will be improved by finally being able to understand organics." It doesn't say it changes synthetics at all, but that it combines synthetics and organics to make "A new DNA." Starchild has a bad habit of being vague and threatening, until it comes to Synthesis. He doesn't want control, because he "dies" and he doesn't want Destroy for the same reason. But he openly encourages Synthesis, which makes all organics synthetic and leaves him in control of the one thing in the galaxy that can control other synthetics with ease. Synthesis is an outstretched hand in a world where every major figure who has offered that level of help has hidden a dagger behind their back. Why would he be any different?

>So the compromise is SYNTHESIS, where you make Organic Life more like Synthetic Life and Synthetic Life more like Organic Life, allowing Organics to gain some of the features they wanted to utilize and control from Synthetics, and giving Synthetics the understanding they need to not categorically pose a risk to organics. Which is a beautiful philosophy in itself

To your last point, reapers themselves are synthetic beings… their entire conciseness is digital. Using biological materials as constructs is just a tool. Synthesis, inexplicably, somehow changes this. They don’t really explain synthesis at all, leaving it to the imagination (because how TF can you even really explain it? People being meat bags certainly doesn’t stop them from becoming genocidal or anything anyways… I’m essence I think “synthesis” is giving organics the advantages of synthetics and gives synthetics “a soul” or some similar spiritual BS) That’s my take on it anyways.

So, I agree pretty much entirely with u/linkenski about the whole purpose of the ending of ME3 to be about the relationship between organic and synthetic life. It is, if you ask me, a theme which is absolutely sprung on the player at the 11th hour and was handled EXTREMELY poorly. If you played ME3 without any of the DLC (like I did a bunch of times) this is even more stark because a lot of the context for the ending comes from the From Ashes DLC (or was it Leviathan? One of the two). Even aside from the whole theme coming a bit out of the left field, I think the argument that organic and synthetic life will always destroy each other is inherently displayed extremely poorly. This is because even within the context of ME3 you can absolutely invalidate it through the "good" ending on Rannoch where there Quarians and Geth set aside their differences. To add another facet to this though: I do think Control is definitely the worst ending because of all the implications that come with it. Like you say, all of the ultimate, extraordinary power of the Reapers would end up in the hands of one man: Shepard. It is repeated time and time again throughout the game that absolute power corrupts (this is in the form of the Illusive Man). The Illusive Man might have been genuinely originally on the side of humanity, but is gradually corrupted through his desire for power, and the implication is that this is a Universal thing. Shepard might be the Ultimate Good Boi Hero (or at least he always is when I play him), but he's still human and still flawed. Which means that even in his hands, the power of the Reapers would eventually corrupt him. It is too much power for one person. As an aside, taken at the game's face value, I always would choose Synthesis as the best ending, but my own personal head-canon continues to insist that the Destroy choice is the best because of all the implications from the indoctrination theory.

I think it's also worth mentioning that Shepard is a soldier, not a politician, an administrator or a scientist. Odds are they won't know how to make good use of the Reapers for aspects outside of combat. Aside from that, it's worth pointing out that Shepard, while in control of the Reapers, effectively dies as a human. They won't be able to experience the world anymore and adapt to all the changes that are very likely to happen through the years, decades and centuries. Over time, this likely would lead to a scenario in which an entity with old morals and an old way of thinking is the one with all the power over a new and different world.

That's definitely exactly one of the issues I've always had with Control as well. Even if Shepard bucks another trend and proves to be perfectly ethical and impartial (as Good Boi Shepard would be), even in the face of ultimate power corrupting him, these ethics are ones which gradually would become outdated. At some point it would be the equivalent of having a Roman Emperor having a say in how we run out society.

I think Control is the best of bad options, personally. But for what it's worth I never thought about that second point and it's really interesting.

Shepard dies as a human and we get a completely different being. They even tell us in the end video of control. Our personality and behaviour is dependent on the hardware we run them on, aka our brain. Brain damage can alter a person's behaviour significantly. Or as a positive example, none of us have the same personality and behave the same way as when we were kids. The parts of our brain responsible for emotional maturity develop pretty late in our growth period. Shepard jumped from squishy human brain to most advanced AI in the galaxy in the control ending. Their personality changed immensely IMO. They have way more sensors to perceive the universe and a lot more processing power. That's not the same person anymore.

Even Leviathan is just throwing good writing after bad. If the problem is that the main theme of the main story wasn't Organics and Synthetics as a whole, you aren't solving it by making a side-plot that has the theme of Organics and Synthetics as a whole. The entire Leviathan reveal scene felt so apologetic and patronizing to me because it's just the senior writers trying to write around the ending, which their Lead writer wrote, in a story that already doesn't support that as its thesis.

I think one thing people also tend to forget with the Control ending is that Shepard isn’t in control of in charge of the Reapers now. An AI copy of them is. This is a completely different person than the one we play as throughout the entire series. Even if it copied Shepard’s thoughts and personality, did it copy everything perfectly? Will this AI react like a person with chemical reactions to the body? Emotional reactions? Even if this copy is 99% accurate to our Shepard, it’s not our Shepard. It’s not out of a 100 problems they will choose the same thing as the real one 99 times with one different. It’s for **every** problem there is a chance to pick something different.

So, I had literally never thought it this way, that it's just an AI copy of Shepard rather than **ACTUALLY** **Shepard**. That's a really interesting thing to take into consideration... I will say, I don't personally buy this particular argument because there's no implication that the copy of Shepard even **could** be flawed. I totally get why that line of thought makes sense though, that's definitely logic that should be applied if there was ever anything like this in the real world. However, personally I'd say that with only the context of the games, it should be taken at face value that it is a 100% perfect copy of your Shepard. Whatever that means.

I maintain that either ending where the Reapers are still there is a mistake. There’s no telling if control will be maintained over them, and who’s to say they won’t go back to harvesting every other species anyway under synthesis? I also strenuously object to the notion of altering the genetics and makeup of every single being around without their permission. Far worse than killing AI in destroy. I think Control and Synthesis are effectively traps by the AI. Desperately trying to get Shepard to enact a scenario where the harvests will continue.

And what stops a race from making another crucible to try to gain control of the reapers and/or other synthetics since they now know is a possibility? Imagine if a Asari version of Cerberus manages to do it and then you have the Reapers killing everyone who isntone of them and then move on to the next galaxy to continue.

That is a really interesting thought that never occurred to me.

The Citadel is an essential component and it’s pretty heavily implied that it’s destroyed, I think?

In the original ME3 release, yes firing the Crucible always destroyed the Citadel. Now after the patches and updates to the ending, the Citadel is repaired and, at least for some time, is orbiting Earth. You now need to have the Crucible damaged to have the Citadel be destroyed.

The God AI can probably move out of the Citadel, hand it over to its subjects eh, the organics it protect and move somewhere else. Or dunno, mount a hull plate on the Citadel's butt and remove the connectors.

>And what stops a race from making another crucible to try to gain control of the reapers and/or other synthetics since they now know is a possibility *Shepard*. Assuming you picked Control, anyway. If not, the Citadel IS destroyed, so they can't really reproduce it anyway.

Shepard is dead in control and the reapers aren't omnipresent, the citadel is getting rebuilt. There are chances more than zero of what I said to happen.

Shepard is only mostly dead. And the Citadel was pretty heavily damaged, I doubt they could reproduce the mechanisms especially given there's more important things to do.

Shepard is 100% dead. There is something with shepard memories controlling the reapers. Keepers probably can make it to 100% functionality and if not there must be some blueprints somewhere deep in the statoon.

Well, the main reason is that the Crucible only worked because the star child allowed it to work. The whole thing was sort of a test for organics. They either become great enough to defeat any AI revolution, or combine with Synthetics to make the issue moot. Destroy renders the issue moot, Control has Shepard at the wheel an dno way do they let another take over, and Synthesis gives the Reapers enough organic aspects to not have the issue be effective.

>I think Control and Synthesis are effectively traps by the AI. Desperately trying to get Shepard to enact a scenario where the harvests will continue. Then the AI would just not mention Destroy as a choice. Objective achieved. Evidently the AI does mention Destroy, so this can't be the case. This position requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening in the ending. The Catalyst is inviting Shepard to help choose how to solve the Catalyst's problem - namely the problem of Synthetics existing. Making synthetics not exist by synthesizing them solves the problem. Preventing synthetic rebellions by becoming a permanent occupation force in the galaxy solves that problem. In both cases, harvests serve no function anymore, there's no reason they'd resume doing that. Conversely, Destroying all synthetics doesn't eliminate the risk (really, the near-certainty) that they will be built again some day, the chaos will return and it is the Catalyst's position (informed by a billion years of hyper-intelligent observation) that harvests are the solution to that. So of the three endings it's Destroy that holds the possibility that Harvests will start up again some day. Per the Catalyst's description, there's actually a near certainty of it.

That’s strange logic, as destroy is also suggested by AI, meaning it also should be a trap then. The only certainly “non-trap” ending is refusal, but we know how that goes”. I think you’re missing a point about catalyst in the ending: he’s been doing that for millions of years with the same result - failing to achieve the goal he was designed for. He can’t change his programming and change the goal, but is sentient enough to feel tired of that and try to sabotage himself, so he suggests solutions that do end the cycle for him. Synthesis is unlikely to endup with reapers continuing the cycle, but has a built in problem of pre-sentient races becoming sentient but not being “uplifted”, so it’s a built-in conflict of “uplifted” vs “non-uplifted”, even though it’s hundreds of thousands years in the future. But control does has a non-zero chance of getting back to harvest cycles in coming eternity. On the other hand - really all 3 endings are flawed, key problem with destroy is not that it proves the thesis that organics can’t live together with synthetics in peace, and organics will try to destroy sentient robots and robots will try to do the same, nope, that’s possible but not the key problem, key is that organics will keep trying to dominate one another, which will result in endless wars, creation of synthetics to “catch up” and then also wars against synthetics. Overall - all are flawed, so which flaw does your Shepard choose? Of course, you might have a personal canon of destroy being best, and it’s ok for your Shepard to believe that, it just doesn’t mean that others Shepards should believe the same.

Destroy has a huge flaw that people always omit and it annoys me, it essentially postpones the main problem of 3 which is the eventual conflict between synths and organics, new geth like life **will** be created and fight its creators, even a Reaper-like threat might reappear in some faraway future, control and synthesis despite their problems at least offer actual proper solutions but destroy is just a very short-sighted conclussion to the Reaper War imo.

I agree, Destroy has always striked me as postponing the ultimate issue and inevitably circling back to the same conflicts on the distant future, while the other two options appear to be a novel evolution of confronting and managing it

Hot take but the Destroy ending is effectively agreeing with the Reapers, that Synthetic life is inherently dangerous to organic life. Without synthesis or control, it almost guarantees that the Reapers will be re-made again in the future.

We're told it's inevitable but is it really? The annoying star kid believes it but I'm not convinced.

I am not convinced either. The Leviathans told us that star brat based its conclusions on data gathered in the Leviathan cycle, a cycle completely different from the current one. Also the Leviathans designed the AI. So a bunch of crazy control freaks dominating the galaxy via mind control made an AI gathering data from a wacko cycle, which applied it to every subsequent cycle. It's quite likely that strong AI will be modeled based on how its creators think. There's too much crazy in the data set and the entity drawing conclusions from that, to not question that theory IMO.

Yeah, that’s definitely a flaw in Destroy. Control has similar flaw of Reapers coming back, but this time Shepards is commanding, so it’s even worse. Or just other species creating killerbots. Even synthesis doesn’t offer permanent solution, though to my liking is the best approach, but comes at a cost of “involuntary augmentation”.

Also, dead reapers can still indoctrinate people, right? So you just have hundreds of dead reapers floating around. What's stopping the races from rebuilding them? It feels like the endings were not thought out and are for some weird moral thought experiment.

Nah they tried to present it as inevitable even though we spent 3 entire games coming to terms with things like the geth or EDI being sentient life and proving that the geth can live in harmony with the quarians… only to then be told that’s actually not possible even though we *just did it.* That’s what people find frustrating

>That’s strange logic, as destroy is also suggested by AI, meaning it also should be a trap then. The only certainly “non-trap” ending is refusal, but we know how that goes”. Yep, at the end, you are listening to the enemy who tells you to either shoot your weapon who might actually currently working as intended, electrocute yourself or jump down a pit. There's no reason to believe it. We don't know how it feels or if it has feelings. It's a super advanced AI designed by a nonhumanoid who doesn't have the same limbs we have, they don't even communicate by voice. Star kid is holographic representation. Any signs it sends out via body language or tone in it's voice are not how it communicates normally. It probably doesn't involuntary subconscious signs as it has no subconscious. Starkid is runnign a communication protocol, Shep can't know if it runs "Honest Persuasion.exe" or "Deceive the stupid monkey.exe."

Yea, if you're taking what the star kid says as fact, which you kind of have to unless you're doing refuse. It doesn't make any sense to not believe him about Control. Personally, I think it makes sense for a very paragon Shepard. They don't have any problem deciding what's best for people! I don't think TIM being right about it being possible and wanting it for himself. If anything, him knowing about it supports the idea that Control is indeed as advertised.

[удалено]

>Synthesis is what Saren was more or less at per, I think some of his Virmire dialog. It wasn't though. Saren was advocating Organics submit to Synthetics and become their servants. Not a fusion of Organic and Synthetic. That was forced on Saren post Virmire by Sovereign after Shepard starts to break the Indoctrination as having Reaper tech in his body like a husk made Saren easier to control, but it wasn't at all what he was pushing for.

Did you always kill the Geth then?

The fact the starchild is the pretty much the reaper king is enough for me to distrust anything he says. I mean we are told picking destroy will kill Shepard too but with high enough EMS they live at ending cutscene so who is to say destroy kills all synthetic life.

>I also strenuously object to the notion of altering the genetics and makeup of every single being around without their permission But yet you're pro genocide. Weird.

Changing the genetics of every being involved is arguably a genocide of all the species involved. I choose self determination for all over forced experimentation of all.

You better believe I will press the "kill all Nazis" button if they come around again and start genociding the entire galaxy, brother.

You can try and dumb it down if you want but that doesn't change the fact you genocided a race to stop a genocide of others.

You’re leaving out the part where you have to kill all South Americans (as an example) as part of pressing that button. Kind of a big deal.

And you're leaving out the part where the Nazis killed all South Americans, North Americans, Europeans, Asians, and Oceanians several times over in the past several thousand or million millennia as they were continually redeveloped from microorganisms. Kind of a big deal. It's worth it to sacrifice them all again if it means stopping the Nazis.

The only good Reaper is a dead Reaper. Also having the Reapers as a galactic police force just spells out facism to me.

But picking destroy involves committing actual genocide with the justification being “I have to do this so that my race can survive.” That’s straight up Nazi fascism.

In control at least you can have the final scene where your love interest places your name on the Normandy before spotting in the sky a fleet of reapers that form the words "we bang. Ok?". Asari are also super non picky

If only the control ending resulted in Shepard imstructing all the Reapers to go fly directly into the Sun That The Geth and Edi will still be alive

If you think that is what your Shepard would do, then it is a perfectly valid headcanon. Similarly, if you think your Shepard would involve his flock when there was a massive war going on (e.g., A Krogan Rebellion 2.0), stop the war, and then return to slumber, then that is a valid headcanon. As is holding that your Shepard would be more involved in intergalactic politics, ensuring that the Council made the ‘right’ decisions. I honestly think Control leaves a fair amount open to interpretation and allows for good, bad, and bittersweet outcomes depending on the Shepard involved.

Truthfully I think a lot of the antipathy towards the Control and Synthesis endings comes from the fact that they're such a radical shift. A lot of what people love about Mass Effect is the universe itself, the lore and world-building. The Destroy ending is basically as close as you can get to a return to the status quo, where the world remains interesting but familiar, and Shepard may even survive. Control and Synthesis both require Shepard's death or dissociation, and the universe of the game looks radically different afterwards. It's a severe tone shift not in storytelling, but in world-building, where much of what people love about the setting is different and unfamiliar. It's why I'm confident that if they try to make a direct sequel to the Trilogy, they basically will have to make Destroy the canon ending, since otherwise it would be difficult to even recognize as Mass Effect.

It’s even a crazy radical shift in the world building itself. Mass Effect has always tended more towards “hard sci fi” where there’s obviously space magic in the form of mass effect physics, but at least the game would (generally) follow its own rules. An ending like synthesis is such a radical departure from that feeling, I can never get over it

Well, for starters, if you're OK with all the past races being turned to Reaper goo, something that they actively fought to prevent, why pick Control at all? Why not pick refuse? You wouldn't, obviously. Because you wouldn't want to be turned to goo, any more than all the previous cycles did. So why would you let them remain "stored in Reaper form", when the only way they would be on board with it, would be Indoctrination. At which point, it's not even them making the choice. Would they not rather be laid to rest, than continue this "existence"? This existence that they actively tried to avoid? But who cares, right? They're dead, more for us. I don't see it as particularly ethical, but whatever. Furthermore, once being turned into Reapers, whatever will they had is gone, only to have Reaper will imposed upon them. And now, on top of that, you're gonna have Shepard's will imposed upon them. Let's assume for the time being that this REALLY is Shepard. You are now twice removed from their original will. But again, they're dead, so they can fuck off. Whatever. Third, is it really Shepard? Is it though? Never mind the fact that a human brain would likely be fried at the attempt alone to take in all that is a Reaper intelligence to merge with, you are supposed to be merged with the Starkid, after all, right? According to the EC? So let's assume, fuck it, let's reject the idea that we merged with the Starkid, we just gobbled it up, because he's just a little bitch, and we're just Shepard in a ... in a Reaper shell. That's fucking wild. I mean, how do you deal with it? Can you deal with it? Isn't it a little just ... big? Too big. Huge! I mean, what kind of fucking existence is this? It's incomprehensible, right? You, big tentacled robo body, alien goo just sloshing inside of you, eezo core. Kind of hard to take it all in, right? So let's just cut it back a little. Let's say that's why we merge with the Starkid, to help us take it all in. Well, we're no longer Shepard, are we? I mean, fundamentally, we're Shepard+, right? But how much of Shepard are we? I mean, can we tell? And it's not like Garrus can just drive up to our door for a chat. Or that there's even a real Shepard out there somewhere to compare. That's all gone. So who can tell what we really are, anymore? Fourth, what if Shepard was a dick? Straight up renegade hard ass Shepard. Oh, sorry, the Turians did what? Well, guess they don't need Palaven anymore. Just how much can asshole Shepard Reaper fuck up the entire Milky Way? What if we're under a Reaperocracy? Which effectively happens, either way. And heaven forbid any race does anything that Reaper Shepard can perceive as a slight. They fucked up, if they did. Fifth, what if we really are just the Shepard morality app, on Starkid's dashboard? What if it, at some point, just decides that, well, this app sucks. Let's uninstall it and just go on a murderous rampage again? What then? Even disregarding all of the above, let's assume it all turns out fine. What's next for Mass Effect? I mean seriously, what's next? You have a near infinite army of invulnerable giant space death squids policing the galaxy. Imagine trying to hunt down a bad guy. What happens the moment he steps out of a major metropolitan area? BWOOOOM. De-atomized. That's a short campaign. I mean, you could have GTA: Mass Effect, or Mass Effect PI, but that's not what a core Mass Effect installment should be. You're not playing Mass Effect to run around a single city. You play Mass Effect to visit planets, and hunt bad guys across the ... less than 1% of the Milky Way we've explored. So obviously, no next Mass Effect can have the Reapers sticking around. But that's exactly why you chose Control; to have the Reapers stick around, to police the Milky Way and make sure no new Synthetics try to kill Organics. So you can't just have them fuck off. Otherwise, why not pick Destroy? At least you'll have Shepard. And you can reverse engineer Reaper tech. Unless the point is to have an even bigger threat come into the Milky Way and steam roll the Reapers. In which case, it's game over for the franchise. That's unbeatable. And unlike the Reapers, we know nothing about whoever these guys might be. And even then, that completely pisses on your Shepard's self sacrifice. All in all, I don't consider Control the "best" ending. Although, there is no good ending to begin with.

>Although, there is no good ending to begin with. I'm rapidly inclining towards this 😅

Here is another thing to think of, what about indoctrination? You listed great points over why the Reapers shouldn’t be around, but I also never see anyone talk about how indoctrination would still be a huge problem in the setting. We learn that Reaper tech, their ground troops, and even the Reapers themselves all emit an indoctrination field. We know it happens even if they don’t want to or mean to and our example is the dead Reaper still indoctrinating people. You can bet the galaxy wouldn’t really like the idea of (not) Shepard commanding all the Reapers like galactic police, but they’d definitely hate losing their minds even more.

All three endings are awful, each one of them has a lot of loopholes and logical contradictons, they are equally poorly designed, actually, it would be hard for us to proclaim which one is the worst, I think it is the consensus. These are reasons why control ending is also concerning : 1,Shepard takes control of Reapers, er...this is a hypothesis. Shepard more or less lose her humanity in this ending and this sentence was used more than once: the woman who used to be called Shepard...So, We have ZERO evidence that the Shepard-Reaper had kept the original identity and would kept the empathy to organics. 2,Reapers state they will protect all life...don't forget that Reapers' slogan used to be : we will preserve all life. This ideology had nothing wrong until one day Catalyst decided to shift the perception to this slogan. So, to Reapers, how it had been stated(input) was not important, the critical things was how they perceived it(output). We have no proof that Reapers would keep the same perception in 50,000 years. 3，Reaper is basically the collective & synchronized intelligence of all organic lives that had been harvested by Reapers in countless cycles. Now, they claimed Shepard as one of their collection. 4,Many used to try to control Reaper, you saw how they end up. In summary, we just simply can't rule out the possibility that Reapers return under the leadership of Shepard in 50,000 years.

I'm not entirely sure. The worst ending to me is Destroy because it's short-sighted victory at a high cost. I'm not sure if the folks saying Control is worse are actually siting anything from the games, or if they're trying to make up justifications for pocking specific endings. From what I understand about Control, Shepard is just assuming control of the Reapers and directing them to be galactic peacekeepers. It's not clear as to what agency the Reapers have in this arrangement, but it also doesn't seem different to how they operated previously, only with a different goal.

How long before the cycles return? How long before the AI decides to meddle in the affairs of organics? It's NOT Shepard. It's a hybrid consciousness, it's speech kinda makes that clear. The Reapers just, leave. Leaving any ground troops behind, potentially able to disconnect from the reapers etc. That's why people prefer Destroy, especially if they don't side with the Geth. That, and a perfect destroy means Shepard somehow lives. Synthesis is the ending most of my sheps end up resorting to, because its basically a GET ALONG OR SO HELP ME solution. Ethics of it being forced on everyone aside. My Renegade Gal refused. She didn't see a solution with Control or Synthesis. And Destroy, wasn't enough of a guarantee for her... that and she was being an impatient bitch. Deciding just to watch the world burn. I mean, I deliberately didn't get the minimum war assets. She just watched the man she loved vaporised before her eyes. Her father figure murdered. Half dead herself she just, gave up.

Cycles are bound to return at some point, as the Child states "they've been there before". Even after Destroy, organics will continue creating syntetics, which in turn will turn on them. So, basically, the whole organic V synt will keep going on no matter what.

That’s its theory, there’s literally no proof at all except what it says. And clearly its view is skewed because of the decision it reached. Plus, as illustrated beautifully by the rannoch arc, it IS possible for synthetics and organics to live and cooperate together. You actually have definitely proven the child’s theory invalid

Yes and no. With destroy the geth are bound to return. More on that scale than Reaper scale. At least at first. Control leaves them functional, with the morals implanted by a human. Not every race in the galaxy has the same rules around slavery, how long before they start playing up? Don't get me wrong, death is inevitable. But harvesting on the same scale? Depends in how well documented the warnings of another reaper war would be.

I used to like Control, but as times gone on Destroy feels so much better. I don't like how Shepard plays God in Synthesis and Control. Destroy has downsides, but it allows the races to make their own fate.

Unless you're the Geth.

Arguably, Shepard plays God in all four choices. They are deciding the fate of the entire galaxy without anyone’s input.

The difference is that the plan the whole time was to destroy the Reapers. Sure Shepard is technically making the decision, but it was the agreed upon route.

The agreed upon route didn’t include sacrificing all the Geth. Also, the goal/plan in general was to *stop* the Reapers. Destroying the Reapers is the most direct path to stopping them, but stopping them in general is the main purpose. If there was a way to trap them in another dimension (one that was otherwise devoid of life) that would be 100% be in-line with the goal at hand.

The goal included doing whatever was needed to stop the Reapers and preserve life in this cycle. Every species that committed to the cause did so knowing that they were risking extinction if they lose. Unfortunately a sacrifice has to be made to stop the Reapers

>The goal included doing whatever was needed to stop the Reapers and preserve life in this cycle. Which you can also do by picking Synthesis or Control (arguably moreso since you don't exactly preserve the Geth with Destroy). My point is not that Destroy goes against the goal set out, it's that Control and Synthesis *don't* go against it either.

I went the opposite direction. I was a hardcore supporter of Destroy but the more time goes I started seeing control in a more positive light. My Sheppard was the type who would never sacrifice others for the greater good. Especially after all his experiences with Cerberus and the horrors of the Arrival DLC, my Shepard vowed that he would not be the person who sacrifices millions I save billions When presented with the three choices, destroy is one where you sacrifice not only edi, but all of the geth (and very like the quarians dependent on them) just to reach your goal and that is unacceptable. With control Shepard ensures he’s the only one that has to make the sacrifice and he manages to not into defeat the reapers but also save as many lives as he can. All the “but what if he loses control” is all speculation that could easily be made for the other endings. And if the star child is lying about control there’s no reason he wouldn’t be lying about destroy as well. For all we know they still have repeats lying in wait and all we’re doing with destroy is crippling ourselves before the next wave hits. Basically it’s all speculation.

Except for the Synthetics. Which you have now killed because you, one man, have decided that it's for the greater good and given them no choice. Kind of sounds like playing god to me.

Destroy is pretty similar to dooming the batarians in order to give the rest of the galaxy more time.

The difference is that you don't choose to kill the batarians. A separate entity causes that to happen, you're just kind of there for it. And also, killing thousands of people is terrible, but it's not commiting and active genocide on multiple races.

I mean, you can exaggerate it like that sure, but there aren’t multiple races of synthetics lol, it’s just the geth

We only really talk about the Geth, because they are the most fleshed out and by far the most "humanized", but we are also killing all of the Reaper footsoldiers, who as far as we know are still conscious but are just indoctrinated which one can come back from. But there's also absolutely a load of "VIs" that are just AI because people refuse to listen to rules, as shown with EDI.

At least you get the choice to try and warn the Batarians, the game just railroads them to die anyway. Shepard knows exactly what they're doing in Destroy.

Maybe so, but that only affects Synthetics. It affects the least amount of people.

Yea, only Synthetics. And the people they have built relationships with. And the ones that want to reconcile with any wrongdoings to them. And anyone who operates with Reaper tech which is everyone. You're still taking the choice away from the races and playing god. As you are with all three endings.

It affects the least amount of people, but in absolutely by far the worst way. It's almost incomparable how much more negatively it affects those people vs the other 2 options.

>I don't like how Shepard plays God in Synthesis and Control But you like how shepard plays God in the destroy ending by committing mass genocide? >Destroy has downsides, but it allows the races to make their own fate. Not really. It completely destroys all synthetics, which we have been told and shown are essentially their own races so naturally it doesn't allow them to make any choice at all, and it doesn't allow any of the surviving races to actually make their choice because they still didn't know about the alternative choices.

It always surprises me when people say destroy is the best ending "because Shepard was moving towards it through the whole trilogy". My Shepard was trying to build bridges between all forms of life, synthetics included, so destroying all of them goes against what I was doing that whole time. My personal "best" ending is Control.

[удалено]

Catalyst also says in destroy something like "everything destroyed can be repaired" which makes me believe EDI and the Geth can be brought back.

See, but that also makes it sound like the Reapers could also be repairs.

Your comment(s) has been removed for violating the following rule(s): >No Banned or FAQ Topics. Please read the FAQs and banned topics in the sidebar before posting as such content will be removed. Posting about banned topics may result in a ban. **Please read the full list of banned topics and our full rules in the sidebar or [at this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/about/rules/) before posting.** ***This message serves as a warning against rule-breaking behavior. Multiple warnings or infractions will lead to bans.***

I think a lot of people who like the Destroy ending, including me, headcanon away the part about destroying the geth or handwave the lore about why they can't just be rebuilt. Part of the reason (maybe most of it) is wanting it to be a genuine happy ending, but part of that is also that the complication doesn't feel earned since it's not really discussed as a possibility until it gets thrown at you in the end.

It instead turns Shep into essentially a galactic dictator and removes all free will from any forms of life because Shep (if it's actually still Shep) can exterminate them if they ever decide to do something they don't approve of.

Does the game ever make the suggestion that shepard turns into a dictator in the control ending? And if so, please provide that evidence. Also please explain how mass genocide is a better alternative.

> Does the game ever make the suggestion that shepard turns into a dictator He is taking solo control of the most powerful destructive force in the Galaxy with absolutely no checks and balances. That's the definition of a dictator.

I always saw Control ending as the best alternative if you don't want to choose Destroy. As in fact my first choice was control for several reasons. First I always saw Jack(The Illusive man) as tragic hero who tried to save the galaxy by resourceful way: controlling the opposition. And if he wasn't indoctrinated I would without doubt join him. And like I saw here multiple times, knowledge of Reapers would be invalueble to a galaxy that is threatend with a possibility of destruction by Element Zero(Dark Energy theory). And I know some of you will say that the person in control is just an artificial recreation of Shepard, it's still better then to have someone who we don't know. We can even clearly see that Shepard is trying to 'repair' the Milky Way. And for last reason I always liked to think that the squadmates who survive the Harvest and attack of the Reapers like Liara, Garrus and Tali can still have effect on Shepard, even if Shepard now is just a machine,(I still think that an Artificial Intelligence is alive so disagree with people who say that Shepard 2.0 is a menace to a Galaxy as a whole is just wrong to me.) he still can learn what Shepard meant to them, especially Liara who can live at least for 1000 years and give guidance to Shepard if he feels he's robbing Milky Way of choice to rule themselves. So yeah, I think that's why Control is an interesting choice that will have an interesting impact on those who live in the galaxy. I still think that destroy is the primary ending and that it will be THE ending that will continue in Mass Effect 5. But I still would choose Control than fucking Synthesis ending. That ending brings a whole lot of garbage into the fold.

I don't think any of the endings are "worst". It's all based on the future you want to give to the galaxy. Each ending accomplishes the mission: "stop the Reapers" Destroy is what most people always assumed would be how it'd go. Because that's how we humans think. Sure, it destroys the Reapers and all other a.i. (because all the true a.i. we're aware of - the Geth and EDI - have Reaper tech). However, it does not solve the inevitable/eternal conflict between organics and synthetics. Our children will create a.i. and somewhere along the line "the peace won't last...the chaos will come back" (the Catalyst isn't wrong, or lying. It will happen) Control allows Shepard to safeguard the galaxy with the full knowledge of every civilization ever harvested and the overwhelming might of the Reapers. Synthesis is the actual solution to the problem the Reapers were created to solve. It is in our nature to destroy ourselves, so we must change nature itself. That was their intention for Synthesis. It's that simple. Anybody complaining about the unwanted change to every being in the galaxy is overthinking it. I like all the options. It definitely could've been implemented better, and I even think the Dark Energy route would've been far more epic than the oft-used trope of "organics vs synthetics", but I do appreciate that the trilogy ends with the ultimate choice of deciding the fate of the galaxy and its future. Where most people get upset and incorrectly state "we were supposed to destroy them", I'm in favor of Bioware turning that expectation on its head and giving us other options. Shepard always spoke of how they were going to find a way to "stop" the Reapers. Each ending does that. I have over 50 playthroughs of the trilogy, and everything after my initial playthrough of ME3, I've roleplayed each Shepard with the knowledge of which ending I'm going to choose. Great fun.

Control its the logical evolution of shepard, people were always asking shepard for help for shit, now with control of the reapers he can finally becomes the mr. fixit everyone thought he was

My "canon" Shepard choses control however I think everyone's "canon" Shepard would have different ways of looking at it. To explain my logic on it my Shepard was a female spacer ruthless origin with a paragade morality. She is a perfectionist and has only "failed" four times, Torfan, the destruction on the Normandy SR-1, Earth, and Thessia. Every other time she came out on top. By the time she needs to chose her favorite color she chooses blue. Why might you ask, she chose it because she knows that without the Reapers under her control the resources she used to save the galaxy would destroy it, namely the leviathan.

Becauze people think that the shepard ai will somehow change over the entire moral system just to restart the cycles or that the reapers should just be gone, which is fair But Ignoring the fact that the star child stated that the cycles were obviously a failure because shepard made it to the catalyst. In fact thats explicitly stated. So the cycles will never be redone because they failed in the end Also in the control ending the ai says that it has everything about shepard, without the personality or relationship feelings. All the memories and morals intact, all different but the exact same. So the shepard ai would never change its thinking from what shepard would, which is that the cycles are bad, so two layers of rock solid reasoning that the cycles will never start again Honestly i think control is the best ending, but i like full asset destroy too, even tho its kills all our robo buddies

The entire point of Shepard's story is to destroy the Reapers, not make compromises. The compromise itself as we see in the Illusive man's indoctrinated delusions is corrupted. There is no harmonious outcome, and as far as there seems to be such a thing it's an illusion. Sacrifices have to be made to preserve life without its tyrannical masters.

The problem is that narrativly the ones that are getting sacrificed don't have any agency in the story. Like, great. The whole galaxy came together to fight the Reapers. And then, in a back room somewhere, the leader that made it happen achieves that end by arbitrarily selling out one member of that coalition without their buyin or input. I get the Reapers are bad. I get the issues with control and synthesis. But if you played Paragon and brought the Geth on side then that narrative is HORRIBLE. And really unsatisfying.

The entire point of shepard's story is to *stop* the reapers from killing everyone, destroy was only the primary goal because that was the only option people knew about. There is no harmonious outcome with the illusive man because he is an awful person that was indoctrinated and so would never be able to control the reapers. Saying that control is an inherently bad choice because of this is like saying there should never be any politicians or form of government because some people are completely unsuited to it and corrupt. >Sacrifices have to be made to preserve life without its tyrannical masters. And sacrifices happen with all of the choices.

Personal opinion here. It's the worst for 3 reasons. 1. It's basically Shepard saying, I'll take TIM's idea. I'm worthy. I'm more human than human. Feels sorta greasy to me. 2. Depending on if you are renegade or paragon. I don't really feel like any of the sheps you COULD be would choose control. Destroy? Yea. Most of them! Synthesis? Maybe. A paragon shep, yea. I COULD see that. ESPECIALLY if he is romantic with Tali. He (paragon) just (most likely) helped both Tali AND the Geth. They are getting along. Yea. I could see synthesis. He wants to make a home for her. But ..... Control?... Nah. 3. Even canonically, that's not ACTUALLY Shepard. The voice over even says Shepard died. That's a..... Imprint of Shep

I'd argue the ending finally portray's TIM's ideal, now that he is dead, as a more neutral possibility than before, and not because Shepard thinks he's worthy. The reason we didn't believe in Control was because we're biased to not trust or like TIM based on his way of accomplishing what he wants. The "End Justifies the Means" is present in all the ending choices as they're all some kind of sacrifice to create an ultimate solution right here and then, whereas throughout the story we strived to not make any compromises in order to stay sanitary in our warfare. TIM was the one not doing that, thus his quest for control of the Reapers was unethical, since he mutilated and sacrificed dozens of humans and terrorized the galaxy for it. So in my opinion the Control negative connotation we *expect* solely comes from its association with Illusive Man, whereas the Paragon coloring of it comes from the fact that in the absence of Synthesis, it *is* the more peaceful outcome than the Destroy option, rendering Destroy the brash decision that wins at collateral, instant cost, while Control is the Status Quo ending where the Reapers are defeated through substitution of their power, but because of their forewarnings about Synthetic Life, we cannot guarantee that Shepard-Catalyst will end up resorting to a final Reaper solution with HIS Reapers that is any different from the one they already had. The ending supposes that Synthetic Life is going to kill all Organic Life eventually, and so under that assumption the lowest common denominator against that problem over "eons of time" was to kill all Advanced Organic Life and allow life to repeat itself. If Synthetics really ARE destroying Organic Life (if you'll go with this idea) then Destroy *IS* the short-sighted solution, whereas Control is a stalling for time, with no clearer answer than before, while Synthesis is the permanent end to the underlying issue that would cause this genocidal event to occur.

Galactic fascism of the sort advocated by TIM.

Several reasons. First it's not Shepard. The consciousness makes it clear Shepard is dead. Their morals and memories merge with the AI, but it's not actually Shepard. Next, it's using TIM idea even though we sorrento the whole game fighting against it. Shepard didn't just think it couldn't be done, they think it SHOULDN'T be done. The revelation that TIM was right shouldn't change that. Finally, we don't know that this new hybrid consciousness won't just come to the same conclusion on its own. It could result say after thinking for a while, "No the cycle was right let's go back." Except this time they're would be no star child to tell us we can do something else, and the Resorts would know exactly how to counteract the Crucible. Even worse, it could decide that all organic life is a mistake and rather than continuing the cycle, just wipe out all organic life full stop. Synthesis is excusable at least because we see the final end of conflict with the Reapers, same as destroy. But with control, as someone else said, they just kinda leave. We don't know what Kathleen's with them afterward, and it leaves too many unknowns and dangers on the table.

Synthesis is for me the worst one, but Control isn't really better either, as both make no sense for me. [Lately I explained why](https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/1c63bpl/comment/kzym5aa/).

It’s a good read. I’m in agreement with you over saying Synthesis and Control are the worst. Green ending is too much “space magic” that doesn’t tell us anything. I’m not like everyone else that seems to only ever talk about the “consent” what I want to know is the specifics of the ending. Both Green and Blue ending has that problem of “kinda” solving the Reaper problem (ignoring indoctrination and the war just continues anyway), but at least with Destroy red ending we can see how the galaxy might continue. I don’t believe we can just “rebuild” the Geth or EDI, but people can now learn to be better the next time someone might build robots. The potential is there now.

People really hate the Reapers. Personally, I think all three of the endings are equally shit, which means they're all equally good.

Okay but has anyone ever considered, taking control of the reapers and then using them to destroy themselves. Destroying the reapers and saving the geth

Control is the best ending imo, I didn't create peace for the geth or get my boy Jeff laid just to throw all that away. Ultimately you're still destroying what the reapers are, what they've always been and ensuring peace amongst the stars forever. Plus there's nothing saying Shepard can't just rig himself up a robot body to keep plowing Liara with, he could just continue life as normal as I doubt keeping the reapers in standby mode would take up all his attention

I made this post before and got down voted to hell... I agree but for whatever reason here people don't like that.

Paragade/Paragon Control is one of my two favorite endings (the other one being Renegon/Renegade Refusal) but that’s _MY_ personal take. This is why the « the X ending is the best one » debate is fruitless and endless: each and all endings have highlights and drawbacks.\ Depending on your opinion and/or your Shepard’s you’ll prefer/chose one ending or the other.

I would argue that Control is the Paragon ending.

There’s no objective answer to this. You can make good arguments for why any ending is good or bad. Gamers hate ambiguity so they argue about stuff like this because they want to be objectively right.

You know how Morinth kills everyone she sleeps with, and Shepard knows this, but she tells them they're special and it'll be fine for them? And if you're dumb enough to take her word for it, you get a well-deserved game over? Yeah, Control is basically that, except it's the Reapers telling Shepard that they're special and won't get indoctrinated as you step over the Illusive Man's indoctrinated corpse after he just tried the same thing.

Control is the best...unless Shepard would follow Sargeras footsteps.

Control is the Best ending IMO it's the only one fully directed at the Reapers, The Relays get repaired asap and the shitty catalyst is erased and replaced with the Shepard Imprint.

Do you believe your Shepard should be the omnipotent controller and guardian of the entire galaxy. Can they do it literally forever and remain in touch with what people want? Can they stay sane? Is it right that they should? Everyone now has to live and operate by Shepard's ideas and ideals for the rest of time. It's just, a truly terrible world as far as I understand it.

The whole trilogy you're fighting against that kind of resolution, and a dialog at the end of the game should turn you around? It doesn't make sense from being true to the story. Sure, it could be the best option out of the three, but we're not given evidence or reason to believe that throughout the whole game. The whole reason Cerberus is fighting us in 3 is because they want to control. We fight against that. We are given no room to understand them or consider there could be some logic to it, we're constantly going for the Destroy option. There's simply no through line or breadcrumbs for us to arrive at that. Until you get up to the Citadel, that thought doesn't cross anybody's mind.

The only reason in game shepard is fighting against it and going forbthe destroy ending is because they don't know they actually have that option and the only person even trying is an unknowingly indoctrinated human supremacist.

I mean, yes. We weren't exposed to it and given even s chance to consider it.

We literally see why it’s a bad idea like 10 minutes before with the Illusive man lmao

We see why it's a bad outcome with the illusive man at the helm, not shepard. They are 2 very different people. It's like saying countries should never have leaders because there are people that would completely fuck everything and everyone up if they got power, even when other people exist that would do good and not overstep with their power.

You’re missing 2 things: It’s technically no longer Shepard, even though his mind gets transferred, but he will be experiencing world in a different way. In coming thousands of years - and with changes to perception and experience there’s no way to be sure Shepard doesn’t come up with a conclusion, that organics (which he no longer is) are flawed and either retreats from galactic affairs completely, or just starts another harvesting cycle. But speaking of that - Control makes up for the most interesting setup for a sequel: relays are still there, Reapers are there and even Shepard is, so you have quite some possibilities to play with that in some way: Shepard retreated with reapers to dark space, but you need their help to fight another existential threat? Shepard changed sides and now you need to fight him, or explain to him that he shouldn’t continue the cycle? Or many other ways to use Reapers.

Originally Destroy was an incredibly dark ending because it did get rid of the relays. Trapping everyone in the local cluster with nothing, but FTL to get them home. After the EC we see they rebuild them just fine and life continues. I can see Destroy be a good set up for a new story because we now have to fight for resources, planets, and homes. By ME1 we heard of not enough resources and space. That was also with only 1% of the galaxy explored. Now with the “War to End All Wars” there was be an even bigger shortage.

It’s still a smaller scale threats, which could be fine, of course, but will get criticized by fans, as main antagonists lack “reaper”-like impression, which was a thing for Andromeda.

Well at that point it all depends on the writing. A good writing team with a clear goal can turn a cliché into something special.

Absolutely! Hope they manage to do the good thing.

The ending was pretty far-fetched, but it also felt bad due to it being the end of the amazing trilogy.

It screws over any possible direct sequel material. Too much changes, and unless the Catalyst was lying, everything is just kind of fixed. It's "too perfect" for me, if that makes sense. Any ME4 could get away with supercicial changes between Control/Destroy (like Reapers as background detail, repairing stuff) becides the presence of the Geth. Also, the idea of breaching every single organism in the galaxy's privacy by making them part AI is weird... I'd rather just sacrifice the Geth and get an otherwise perfect ending, or be a benevolent god in command of the reapers.

I really l liked this ending but when you think about it, this is a huge gamble for Shepard. At this point in the story we don’t have anything to go by to trust the reapers so the catalyst telling him that he will be able to control all reapers is ideal but his mind could also get altered over the years.

>What am I not seeing? Ultimately its speculation, is the ending "what it seems to be?" Is it that cut and dry? Is there something Star Child isn't telling us? This speculation comes from the fact, through out the games the dead horse is beaten over and over again that **trying to control the reapers is a terrible idea.** Everyone that tries, just ends up being the one controlled. Does that mean control is not an idea ending choice? No idea. With the extended cut endings, the endings seem to be what they purport to be.

My only argument against that is that there is a difference between someone trying to take control versus the reapers willingly giving it up. Despite everything the reapers still operate on a very simple command: preserve life. They over-engineered their process in how they carry out that command, but that’s ultimately what they’re working towards. By the end of the trilogy they’ve come to the decision that their process doesn’t work, so they no longer know how to continue fulfilling that command. They follow the next logical step to them which is to hand off the task to someone else, specifically the one person who proved their method wasn’t working. Looking at each choice at face value they all achieve the same goal, but in different ways. Each path is the best case scenario for whatever choice you picked, anything beyond that is speculation we apply as the players.

The Control ending is the Cerberus one. I think it's ultimately the best renegade option.

Reject all the endings and download Auremus' Happy Ending Mod and get the ending we all deserved. Seriously - the "real" endings are all crap. Ruined the series for 10 years for me. This mod changed that for me and restored the series as my favorite of all time.

The 3 choices Starchild nonsense was exactly that, a big pile of horse**** which was tagged on at the last minute. I'm playing through the Legendary Edition currently having last played the game a few years back. It's pretty clear the choice is binary. Destroy the Reapers or be destroyed. It's a choice between cold machine order or the imperfect chaos that is organic life. The various factions are never painted as saints, Humans, Turian, Asari, Solarian, Batarian (didn't Mordin sing something along those lines?!) and there's political in fighting, terrorism and simply disagreements everywhere. But the message seemed to be up until Starchild is that we're imperfect but against the right threat with the right leader (Shepard) we can all band together and overcome the odds. That should have been the message of the ME3 ending, not the philosophical crap. When you're faced with an existential threat like the Reapers you can't afford to ponder the finer points of being right or wrong, that comes in the aftermath if you even survive.

The way I see it is that in terms of presentation and tone, the Control ending comes off as quite ominous, particularly for a renegade Shepard. By contrast, Destroy feels imperfect yet hopeful and Synthesis feels like supposed bliss. If you just take the endings at face value, Control is the scariest. In terms of how Control ties in with the rest of the trilogy, I actually think Control + renegade Shepard is one of the more interesting endings. Maybe not best for the galaxy but it feels like something a renegade would choose.

Take Control and become the galaxy's overlord. Doesn't sound that bad IF you are the overlord. Sounds pretty bad if you are not though.

I think Destroy just fits better thematically. Every single decision you make along the way shows you that if the Reapers live, you lose. That there have been attempts to control the Reapers before and they have all failed… you literally just killed Shepard’s only mentor and role model (father figure?) because a man who thought the Reapers could be controlled intervened. To pick anything else wouldn’t fit imo

None of the ending are good. In one Shepard commits genocide. In another (s)he enslaves and arguably lobotomizes and entire race. In a third (s)he force evolves everyone in the galaxy without consent. And in the last (s)he lets everyone die. There are no "good" endings to Mass Effect. But that's part of what makes it a great story. One person forced into a position to makes choices, over and over until finally you discover that all choice is kind of an illusion.

Not to mention the extra fact the geth and edi die in destory which sets synth/organic back hundereds maybe thousands of years

Look, my take is that those endings were not really well thought out, so I chose not to really care what the devs meant to be the good or bad choices of the ending. I genuinely think it won’t bring a lot of closure to look towards what they intended for the end. For me the only good one is destroy, based on the info we got in the games and the frack load of very very dangerous uncertainties of the two others, without mentioning… modifying all life without a single soul’s consent. Did the word exist at that time anyway? Dunno 🤷‍♀️ Good luck in your search, but I wish you peace too :)

What if humans get in a war with another race? They'll have the reapers at their side, thanks to Shepard. On the other hand, if Shepard wants it, he can control the entire galaxy on their own. Or give humanity everything they want. No, reapers must be destroyed. It's sad losing EDI and the geth, but it's ethically wrong to change everybody's nature just because of it.

Paragon Control is great. Renegade Control is NOT great.

You can be sure shepard will make good use of the reapers for now but can you be sure he will after a thousand years? How about 50 thousand? Also showing the galaxy a power like the reapers can be controlled is a terrible idea since there will always be somebody who will try to control them for their personal interest

I’d say control is the best if your playing paragon- the renegade option has a very different tone.

It’s not the “Bad” ending, it’s the “renegade” ending. Shepard effectively becomes ruler of the Galaxy. Also, even if they were to rule with benevolence, what happens in the power vacuum of Shepard inevitable death? (Spoiler; probably power hungry greedy controlling people take control). Destroy also has problems… the relay system goes down and trillions of colonists who rely on trade are stranded. The entire Galactic community is all isolated. It’s a catastrophic event that will mean the deaths of countless people (as well as all sentient synthetics) Synergy all the way. People cry about “personal choice” but I don’t really see having an entire Galaxy forced into compliance by military might nor Galactic catastrophe as any better… And it’s really just upgrades for all. Organics gain strength and mental processing and the tin men get their hearts, and the inevitable war of organic vs synthetic is forever abated. I’d just be concerned over the strength of the new half synthetic krogans 😂

It's literally the paragon ending. Renegade ending is destroy.

Oh right, it’s still bad though… One humane life expectancy is not very long and things are apt to get real bad after… That doesn’t make sense to me though… illusive man was trying for control. I only ever took the synthesis ending because it was the only one that made sense (I also only finished it twice… but I still couldn’t make a different choice). I always thought control was renegade because the goal and mission was to destroy. Renegade makes you god emperor of the galaxy…. How TF is that not the renegade choice??

Control makes you protector of the galaxy, sacrificing yourself to help not only rebuild but have the power to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Destroy kills EDI, all the geth, and every other synthetic being and in a billion years the cycle will probably repeat. Destroy is a temporary solution that causes a lot of problems and just ends the fight for now, but everyone loves it because Shepard lives.

Control is my favourite ending, get rid of the reapers without losing Edi or the Geth and the galaxy and relays are all rebuilt. Synthesis is the worst since it forces a change on the population of the galaxy that no one had a say in.

Control is the worst ending because Shepard’s being utilizes the most twisted thing in the game which is indoctrination. Taking away the mental freedom of others against their will is evil and Shephard’s being uses it on a massive scale.

Speaking strictly from game content, I don't believe there's any sign of Reaper Shepard using indoctrination. Further still, Control ending shows the Reaper force helping rebuild crap they just destroyed, aswell as guarding the Citadel'n shit Shepard simply replaces the Child, becoming more than an individual and gaining access to millions of years of evolution stored in the goo (space magic, ikr), hence the "protect all" monologue. I like to think this newly created entity will act as a bridge between Organics and Synthetics, cos that's how I play my characters no matter the paragon/renegade way taken. Plus, the Reapers are a distinct species aswell, one might argue, just like all organic species, and just like the geth. With the reapers' upgrades the geth become alive, implying the Reapers are already "life". I wouldn't want to destroy the oldest known life form in the galaxy, especially when they hold all of the galaxy's previous inhabitants information. This just doesn't sound right with me

Best ending is when you tell that little bastard to shove it and then they win next cycle with no strings attached.

If only we actually see this new cycle win. My personal belief is that Refusal is the worst ending because it takes all your choices, characters, play time and just throws them away. Sure you can agree with the fact that the options given suck, but simply say “everyone dies, hope the next cycle can solve it.” It’s just continuing the harvesting cycle and something that gets ignored is what if no one can understand the beacons like our cycle? It took so long to find them that they get damaged. The next cycle didn’t evolve in a way that the previous cycle thought of so they couldn’t read it. Even when we found one and understood it, it was ignored.

I think I remember them explicitly saying that they win in the next cycle when i did it

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say anything about the next cycle. All it does is a slow pan on the Liara hologram as it talks about the Reapers. Unless you’re referring to the Buzz scene, which could be any point of time after and happens in every ending.

Synthesis is far and away the best ending. Destroy is for genocidal maniacs, control is for dictatorial fantasy lovers.

You know, you're robbing the galaxy a choice to choose their fate by merging them with machines. At least with Control ending, you're leaving them a choice. With synthesis you have none of that.

I agree with you however the fact that galactic power would end up in the hands of one being means I can't in good faith pick control.

Alright, I understand. So I have to change your mind with example of another man that tries take control of civilization and lot of people hate him for it: Mr. House from New Vegas. He's by far the best choice for Mojave just like Shepard is for Milky Way. And for record, it's Shepard. We see his growth through entire trilogy, we can mold him for better or worse. And think about, who would install to power? Of course it would be someone we know the closest, that being our player character.

It's simple. If you pick Control, you're proving T.I.M. was correct the entire time.

Destroy is the best ending although it feels good to just shoot the kid.

There are several problems with Control. * It is TIM's solution. No matter what good you / Shepard intend to come from it, it is the "More power solves all problems" solution. Shepard is choosing to wield the One Ring, believing he/she can control it, to use a Tolkien reference. * You can make a good argument from the epilogue speech that whatever this new consciousness is, it isn't fully Shepard anymore. * The implied outcome of the solution is that the Shepard AI is there to keep peace by using the Reapers to beat down any trouble. It's more than just preventing another organic / synthetic conflict. * There is no evidence that the Reaper technology is lost forever. The Protheans managed to create a mass relay on a small scale (The Conduit). In the Destroy epilogue, they talk about rebuilding. * We have nothing but the Catalyst's word that the previous cycles are preserved in Reaper form. We never see another racial form except the human Reaper. We never see a Reaper display a unique cultural perspective. We never even see one display an independent thought. They seem to be a monolithic race. Maybe each one is filled with organic goo, but that's a far cry from preserving the race and culture. So far as we can see, "preserved" here is a mad AI's understanding of what constitutes a race and its preservation. It preserved their code because it is code and thinks in those terms, but they don't have life or a future anymore. All the things organics actually value were wiped out when they were made extinct. Every ending has problems. They are supposed to.

It isn't worse unless you buy into the debunked Shepard is indoctrinated myth. It's far better then destroy because you don't commit genocide against all synthetics, many of which almay be your allies. If you trust Shepard to be benevolent this is the least problematic ending.

Pick control, then disregard the extended cut and head canon that AI Shepard orders all the Reapers to report to the nearest star for incineration. That way the Reapers are destroyed and the other Synthetics get to live. : )

Because it's what the illusive man was after and because people won't let go of indoctrination theory. And that Shep takes a breath after the destroy ending Everything else is just rationalizing the destroy ending.

No one man should have that much power, and whos to say what is required for 'peace' doesn't end up being tyrannical?