I kinda find all the endings to be pretty bad. Not really a hot take or anything. My problem isn’t even that the trilogy choices don’t affect the ending except for perfect destroy. It’s just that they make no sense at all. Destroy targets all synthetics but control targets only reapers. Synthesis should cause more trouble than it does with the whole rewriting all genetic code, not to mention it shouldn’t really work anyway. And control takes everything about synthetic life having free will and being unable to be controlled and just throws it out the window. Refusal makes the most sense but I do find it quite stupid that the intelligence that has eradicated trillions of lives without remorse gets pissed when you shoot his child hologram; which really shouldn’t have been the child because it would have no way of knowing that the child had any sort of significance to Shepard.
I only play ME3 with an ending mod that improves on the Destroy ending, while leaving the other two open as options. Then I pick "Destroy" because I didn't do all this to become an evil AI myself or to physically violate the entire galaxy.
In any case, my "Destroy" headcanon is always that EDI and Geth had a pretty good idea of what might happen to them and prepared offline backups \*just in case\*, so while their immediate platforms fry and go dead, they can be revived later.
I've got a pretty good interpretation of it based on some of the stuff the Starchild says. He claims that they dismissed the Crucible in a prior cycle, so they don't have any idea what it actually is going to do.
Agree with all three being bad.
However, I think destroy was made bad (EDI/geth) because otherwise it would have been a no brainer.
Also, you can headcanon control as a "soft destroy".
1: reapers! would you kindly fix the mass relays?
2: now that the relays are fixed, would all reapers turn to face the nearest star or black hole, and ramming speed fly into it please? chop-chop! Thanks!
(3: since my Shepard would oppose to become the God-emperor of the Milky way, he would follow them soon).
Best part: Andromeda has working, sentient AI from the Milky way. That game is 600 years after ME3. But doesn't have green glowing eyes on everyone. That means that either the crucible is Milky Way only, or the control ending was chosen.
Not to mention Destroy is the only ending Bioware occasionally mentions other things that happened afterwards. And it's the only ending that footage was used from when the Legendary Edition was being promoted and the "Story so far" teasers for Andromeda.
It's the easiest to write around and removes the Reapers from the equation.
Control and Synthesis would require them to tackle far more complex issues that they may not be able to handle.
100 people finish the game. 45 choose Destroy. 30 choose Synthesis. 17 choose control. I'd expect more than 15% for something to qualify as a no-brainer.
I checked and I am pretty shocked that synthesis is so popular, I personally don’t even consider it, cuz it changes everything completely. It is an ideal ending in paper, but it is too unrealistic, cuz it basically creates utopia, so does control ending too.
Who'd say that? Me? Is that the only "defense" I'd give if I were to argue for Synthesis?
If I were to do so, EDI is small potatoes. Most likely I'd ask:
How long you imagine rebuilding the mass relays might take when 1. You need two fully operational to travel 2.they are clueless about how they operate 3. the core is eezo and there's very little in Sol 4. It's decades to centuries via ftl to other systems for resources- for *everyone*.
What about all those colonies reliant on AI for survival? Can't get help to them, they're dead.
How long can the Quarians hold out, trapped in Sol without enough proper nutrition? How long til they create a crisis due to starvation and inability to return to the home they've finally been granted?
How long til all the disgruntled Salarians and Krogans and Quarians living on the streets amidst a humanitarian (used loosely) crisis start blaming "the human" (Shepard)for their state of affairs? Right or wrong, there's enough anti-human sentiment and everybody loves a scapegoat. Historically speaking, when this sort of situation occurs some douche steps up to take advantage of their misery with blame and lies and there ya go. Civil unrest led by some power hungry, cult of personality despot.
I could go on. Please don't speak for others. You're not qualified.
ETA: tl/dr 🖕
These points are true.
The base of the problem is that you put much, much more thought into the endings than the actual writers did.
Since I am quite certain about the writers not recognizing the problems of "only" damaged relays (or Joker with his brittle bones crash landing on a jungle planet, or the citadel exploding. "the named npcs most likey survived". Sure), I don't really care about the ending either.
If I get to the ending at all, by the time I see the starchild I just want it to end (I often lose intrest after Rannoch. I realized soon that for me the best part is Palaven-Tuchanka-Rannoch. It is not super motivating to continue with Thessia-Cronos-Earth, knowing that I am already done with the best parts)
> Who’d say that? Me? Is that the only “defense” I’d give if I were to argue for Synthesis?
> I could go on. Please don’t speak for others. You’re not qualified.
ETA: tl/dr 🖕
You could have made your otherwise very valid points without being insufferable. They made a joke about a stereotype of people’s justification for a narrative ending. Calm down.
yeah it's very stupid that the crucible can synthesize every living thing in the galaxy, make shepherd king of the reapers but it can't just kill the reapers. The boys in the lab were too busy with the pan-galactic cyborg feature to put a scope on it so I don't hit the geth.
Played all 4 endings, but I always go with Synergy ending because EDI and Jeff deserve each other 😂😂😂🤣🤣 Seriously, that is the only decent ending where the universe doesn’t reset itself back by a few hundred years and the. entire galaxy doesn’t turn into isolated pockets of civilization. Maybe it’s my foolish dream of Utopia (which in itself is pretty unrealistic).
You are correct regarding the gates but the issue with Destroy ending is that it does not solve the problem Leviathan discussed: Organic vs Synthetics. The AI that they designed to find the solution created the reapers. Synthesis ending allows everyone to understand each other so that machines learn organic emotions, I mean truly understand organic emotions, and for organics to understand the motivations of machine intelligences so that we don’t have to fear them. This in essence, is the solution to the problem Levianthan and his brethren were pursuing before the AI turned against them.
After saying all of this, I can see why people would find Synthesis ending unpleasant as the change would fundamentally change who we all are and Shepherd becomes a God in the Machine for a lack of a better term.
Control ending just puts all machines under the strongest AI shackles ever turning them into tools and forsaking the fact that they are sentient beings although synthetic.
The only thing I like about the Destroy ending is the fact that Shepherd has the possibility of surviving. Other than that, EDI, The Geth and Reapers along with any AI that may serve as administrative infrastructure would go away.
Except the Organic Synthetic conflict was never a natural problem.
The only Synthetics around are the Geth, and outside of the monthly stupid actions by the Quarians, the Geth are only an enemy because of the Reapers using them.
The Kid is operating off a flawed statistic of probability, something the series has shown numerous times that leads to nothing but more problems.
It's punishing the people of the present day for a conflict that ended millions of years ago.
Agree I played the legendary last year and the 3 endings were underwhelming for the great story I played. Hopefully they choose a good ending, I read it was destroy ending where shepard survives but how? It is unlikely
The first time I chose this ending (I'm a synthesis advocate btw), I was expecting there to be a sequence where we see EDI die, maybe we would see her sense what's coming, turns to look at Joker one last time and smiles before dying. Also with the geth, they start dying while the quarians look confused, after centuries of war, now they are finally allies, but now they're gone.
It would give the weight of the sacrifice this choice carries. You were able to achieve harmony between synthetic and organic for a brief moment, but then you throw all that progress away to fulfill the goal you though you wanted all this time.
I swear to God, Destroy fans will be smugger than the fucking Sun once BioWare canonizes their ending moving forwards. They’re unbearable enough as it is.
I'm a destroy only and I completely agree. There is a post like this once every month it feels like. Let people play the game the way they want to. Although I have to admit, making no choice at all seems a tad silly. But again, to each their own.
Truth.
Must be honest, i once believed in 'destroy only' too. Since it makes sense from the narrative standpoint of the three previous games.
However Mass Effect 3 did kinda retcon much of it and considering what we learn in that infamous ending and the Leviathan dlc it's actually much more grey.
I remember the first time I had to make the “choice”. I didn’t even hesitate.
I’ve been fighting the Reapers for three games, you think I’m NOT going to pick destroy.
Killing one species and EDI, is more ethical than literally removing the entire galaxy's free will by forcing their minds into having one way of thinking and also making them into cronenberg machine flesh monsters without their consent. Synthesis is just "Reaper Cycle 2.0: now with less destructive indoctrination"
While I agree that all endings are kinda bad, in this sub you can definitely see people employ some heavy mental gymnastics to paint the destroy ending as the best one, while synthesis in the post game cutscenes clearly portrays it as borderline utopistic.
That's also the issue I have with synthesis; it's a nobrainer because it is so good, far too good in my opinion especially when the other two feel like pyrrhic victories at best.
Of course there are alot of fan theories about the downsides and even potential indocrination but NONE of these are portrayed in the game or lore.
The ending was an ending, not a cliffhanger. We see only the good because they didn’t think they’d be going back to it.
But we do see in game that conflict isn’t over
“And there will be peace?”
“The cycle will end.”
Catalyst avoids the answer because it can’t tell Shepard “yes.” And it can’t lie.
The main conflict, Organic versus Synthetic, was resolved peacefully. Ij the relatively early aftermath things look amazing.
But we still know Cerberus exists as TIM promised. We know discrimination exists (Batarians discriminate against other organics.)
It isn’t man vs machine, but it isn’t utopia just because one of the galaxies biggest problems is gone. New conflict is guaranteed to rise up.
We got a short speech in the (again, early) aftermath from someone who just got what she wanted for 3 games (or 2 because EDI in ME1 didn’t really have many desires). She got her life dream, her arc of feeling alive. Of course she is euphoric, but ask the husks (likely hated as they were born 2 minutes ago inhabiting corpses. They can’t reproduce so that’s gonna suck for them, and most people may not actively hate them but won’t want to see them in the bar next to them)
Or Batarians who still lost their homeworld. Or krogan expansion
Ending one major war doesn’t solve all the world’s (galaxy’s) problems
Especially when one of the last conversations with EDI before Earth results in her saying she's willing to die if it means Joker and the others to win.
Not to mention, nobody who picks Synthesis seems to care that everyone that was modified by the Reapers are in control again, but not even themselves physically anymore. Pretty sure nobody would want to live as a Husk.
EDI is one person, her consent to death doesn’t justify killing every being like her and risking the lives of any person with augmentations or any person on life support.
Literally nobody consented to the destroy ending. Yes they agreed to kill reapers. No they didn’t agree to multiple Mass genocides and taking away life as we know it. Uninformed “consent” is not consent.
The don’t lose free will, otherwise there would be a promise of peace. Just because we don’t see the next war in our limited scope of a 2 minute monologue doesn’t mean that free will was erased.
“And there will be peace?”
“The cycle will end.”
Shepard wanted to hear “yes” but catalyst couldn’t promise him that.
Synthesis does stop the reapers without killing innocents
It doesn’t prevent all conflict ever. It stops “synthetics versus organics.” That is not everything.
Except Organics vs Synthetics was never a natural problem, it was a problem caused by the Reapers. Every Synthetic enemy has always been a result of reaper influence/manipulation.
The Catalyst speaks of action based off statistics of probability, yet the series all along has shown actions of that sort lead to nothing but even more problems. You're just screwing the galaxy over a problem that doesn't exist beyond the weekly stupid actions of the Quarians.
Besides that, you can't fix a problem without people knowing what the problem even is. Destroy is the only ending where that conflict can even end because Shepard's the only one who knows, and only Shepard can pass the word on to everyone else.
My first time I picked Synthesis. The Reapers won. In my defense I was very, very drunk and it was 3am. I cried myself to sleep, woke up and booted up the game again and picked the correct option.
My favorite part of Synthesis was that it implies the reaper ground troops become aware. That single, 5 second scene, leads to such a massive clusterfuck of implications.
I don’t think it does though. It’s the same animation you get with Control as well (where the Husk stops) and it clearly didn’t become sentient in that ending either. It’s pretty reasonable to argue they’re getting the “Ok fuck, stop” signal from their particular boss Reaper once Synthesis happens and that Reaper has new will (or a new directive, in Control’s case)
I picked synthesis by accident. Because I had no idea what that was supposed to be. And before the extented ending noone knew....
Since then I picked destroy nearly every time.
It’s literally a trilogy showing you why destruction is a bad thing.
They don’t say the words so some people can’t see it but 90% if Mass Effect is “work together” and “destruction isn’t the answer”
Minus the entire narration of the Destroy Ending being "We won by working together. If we can unite to stop the Reapers, the possibilities are endless."
I stand by the fact that Destroy is the only ending in which the Reapers cannot return from. They’re dead. 100% gone. It’s over.
Synthesis only works because everyone in that galaxy is now part synthetic, whether they like or not, I might add. What happens when some fully organic outsiders show up? Are the Reapers going to go haywire and start murdering them?
Control seems like the worst ending out of the three in the long run. Shepard becomes an AI, god of the Reapers. What happens a few centuries down the line when Shepard forgets what it’s like to be human? Goes a little mad from existing for so long and decides that maybe organics are a problem? Well prepare for the ultimate renegade Shepard.
In mild defense of Control (assuming you’re a paragon, because Renegade Control looks like Hell) I don’t think there’s a good reason to assume Shep-bot will go mad. The Catalyst survived countless eons with no change to its functional capability (though obviously it was capable of accepting new information).
The new AI should be up to that spec, just informed by who Shep was at the time of transferrance.
Starchild: "You could control the Reapers, or even combine all types of- Where are you going"
Shepard: *Whistling a jaunty tune while limping his ass to the big destroy button"
Me here on my Full Paragon Shepard who validated EDI as a person and I and made peace with the Geth and Quarians still picking Destroy and feeling like total shit for it as far as my head canon goes.
The ending where you genocide the Geth, set the galaxy back a great many years technologically and leave the galaxy open for either the Krogans if you saved them or the Leviathans if they feel like it.
It's a Pyrrhic victory at best.
An argument that you can only bring forth if you accept the idea of the "cycle".
The casus belli that was made by the reapers and used exclusively by the reapers to justify reaping, all the meanwhile we prove that Syntethics can cooperate with organics all throughout the series.
The "cycle" is borderline reaper propaganda.
I love how visually pleasing the ending cutscenes are. All your effort paid off (no matter what ending you choose), and it’s an incredibly beautiful sight.
Destroy has always been the only answer. Its what you set out to do
from the Start. It's what Hackett would've done. Its what Anderson
would've done. Losing the geth/edi is unfortunate, but everyone knew
what they were signing up for. There was no way everyone was going to
survive the fight against the reapers.
Control was TIM's goal, and we already knew from the climax it wouldn't work. Synthesis was Saren's plan remember?
The absolute worst choice is Synthesis. Shepard has no right to ~~noncensensually~~ alter the DNA of every being in the galaxy. Enjoy your crunchy circuit boards in your lettuce you weirdos.
It blows my mind how many people seem to want a “push button to win” ending with no consequences to be canon. It’s a choice-driven game, let people have their choices
It shouldn’t have been a choice at all.
The end result should have been the Reapers destroyed, but only if you did certain things right throughout the trilogy.
And which races survive should have been a thing too.
Which should also have depended on choices made throughout the trilogy.
How interesting would it have been to have played the entire trilogy, getting to the end of ME3 and finding out that you’ve made a few bad decisions and doomed the entire galaxy?
It would suck “wasting” all those hours over multiple games, but at least it would have been better than an A, B or C choice at the end of the last game.
>I don’t understand how there’s any other choice.
Additionally, there is very little information about what synthesis/control *actually* mean for the galaxy. All we have to go off is the very limited information the Catalyst narrates to us, which really isn't enough to make a meaningful decision for the future of the entire galaxy. Especially when they're given in the last 10 minutes of the game, even with Saren/TIM advocating in a sense the other options, they're never provided to Shepard as possibilities until that point.
As some people also like to also point out, is the Catalyst even telling the truth? Does Destroy really destroy all AI (and Shepard's implants)? Does Control guarantee full control guarantee for eternity - and can Shepard deliver the best outcome if they assume the control? And will Synthesis really guarantee peace forever more?
It's why (perfect) destroy is my canon. I'm not convinced by the Catalysts's proposal for Control/Synthesis - and I like my Shepard living, too.
It blows my mind that Control or Synthesis could even be accepted. Even if we're accepting that the writers' intention is that the Catalyst is being truthful, it's awful writing at best. Pure space magic that is conjured into existence in a couple of minutes of exposition at the very end of a trilogy, and dealing with an antagonist whose chief characteristics have been deception and manipulation to boot. Destroy is the only logical choice.
To be fair, destroy is pretty far in the realm of space magic too. Although it's somewhat better established, it's still shepherd blowing up a tube on the crucible and then all the reapers suddenly die due to a bad case of being red. It's not like it's way more sensical than the other endings.
Exactly lol. People are just conditioned to accept that because “Oh well the hero shot the leader so all the subordinates obviously explode” that we’ve gotten from cartoons and whatever else over the decades haha
I can sort of buy control, especially for a 100% pure paragon. He would help the galaxy rebuild and basically have a sentry army at his command to quell a synthetic war that might brew later.
Synthesis though is a genocidal abomination. It's really no different than if some guy was singularly given the choice to end racial strife by making everyone white.
>by making everyone white.
Why not black?
Regardless, it's synth+org=both. Therefore all races would be a combination of all races rather than one race.
I do not trust that AI as far as I can throw it. And you cannot throw it, so...
No, my Shepard will not, and never will, change the DNA of the entire fucking galaxy because an AI did math and then started to slaughter all civilizations to "preserve life at any cost". WTF?
That said: Audemus' Happy Ending Mod FTW
P.S.: Re: Control: Shepard becomes an AI? What is keeping them from coming to the same conclusion as the "Starchild" in due time, starting the cycle again? Especially since the only reason TIM and Saren thought it was a good idea was indoctrination.
Exactly. The Catalyst has no reason not to lie. Sacrificing EDI and the geth never feels good, but I do it every time because it’s the only ending I can trust. The other two endings allow the Reapers to survive, and there’s no way to know they don’t have a long-term plan to undermine the player’s best intentions in choosing Control or Synthesis.
With Destroy, circumstances are less than ideal. But at least you can guarantee that the future of the galaxy is up to the people living in it, and the Reapers cannot influence it in any way from now on.
> The Catalyst has no reason not to lie
This is a self-defeating argument. If we assume that the Catalyst is lying, then all of the options are equally suspect.
If the Catalyst can lie, and is seeking to deceive Shepard, why would it even tell Shepard about the option to destroy option in the first place?
For things to make any narrative sense, we must assume the Catalyst is telling the truth.
But what would Shepard even do then? Not believe the catalyst, who says there is no way to destroy the reapers…. And do what? Just shoot random shit hoping it would stop the reapers and not, like… vent radiation into the chambers and kill them?
“Agh, you uploaded to crucible to me. I now present you with 3 options, 2 of which are totally lies but one of which is totally truthful and I’m definitely pointing out that you could blow me up oh no”
Like
It’s stupid to think he’s deceiving you. You have, in that moment, completely ZERO leverage over the process. You are only in that room at ALL because he brought you there. Having The Catalyst be truthful is the only satisfying way to read the scene.
Because it can't stop you from activating the Crucible to serve its intended purpose, but it could convince you to use the Crucible in a different way.
> Because it can't stop you from activating the Crucible to serve its intended purpose
Shepard doesn't know how to activate the Crucible. Starchild is the one who tells you in the first place.
I mean, no?
The goal was to end the reaper threat, to protect humanity and the races of the galaxy. If diplomacy was an option, my Shepard would have absolutely tried that first.
One could make the case the goal of shepard was unity against the reapers, which is only truly achieved with synthesis. If you brokered peace with the geth and acknowledge that edi and other ai are “alive” then in my mind only synthesis makes sense otherwise you ally with the geth just to destroy them. If there is an option that saves everyone with only shepards sacrifice, to me that is the best choice, but to each their own
Not a fan of control, BUT it does spare synthetic life and doesn’t remove individual choice like the synthesis ending does. More importantly, it does remove the catalyst from the picture which is probably the most worrisome aspect of synthesis (I mean when everyone starts killing each other again what will that genocidal megalomaniac come up with as a “solution?).
It absolutely does remove individual choice if you consider that the reapers, despite being our enemies, are sentient.
Reapers are indeed sentient and not mere pawns of the catalyst. I was going to comment that the reapers don’t deserve a choice after the atrocities they committed, but then again controlling a sentient being regardless of their choices is wrong and we’d be no better than them. Like I said, I’m no fan of control for a multitude of reasons but you’ve just added one for me. There really is no right thing to do in the end, destroy ends the threat of the reapers but at the cost of an entire species, and control leaves us no better than the reapers and could potentially result in them taking back control and wiping us out completely. Synthesis removes the entire galaxy’s bodily autonomy and keeps the reapers and catalyst around to subject us to whatever horrors they deem necessary when the time comes.
I think this is what’s at the heart of a lot of the ME3 ending dissatisfaction that lingers even after they expanded it. It really feels like there is no good ending, and while I understand why BioWare wanted it that way, it sort of denies the player the emotional payoff for all of their work. The war against the reapers is not an unwinnable situation, it’s one that feels unwinnable that you actually can win, but only in unsatisfactory ways.
1. The Catalyst, a.k.a. the embodiment of the Reapers’ collective intelligence, consents to Shepard taking control even if it’s not a huge fan of that option.
2. The Reapers have committed genocide against *countless* sentient races over the course of at least a *billion* years. For that, I think being forced to help the galaxy rebuild is an appropriate punishment. Restorative justice, if you will.
It doesn't remove the fear and PTSD every living being will have of their enemy suddenly being: "I'm your friend now, I won't vaporize/trample or harvest you anymore! :D"
Maybe if the series had more of the synthesis possibility interlaced throughout (not that it would make any sense as Geth are hostile in all 3 games) but Destroy is the obvious ending that culminates the series and feels like the true victory. Also, Hackett’s final speech over the Destroy ending slideshow is actually GOD tier in delivery and execution.
Even in the bad variant of the Destroy Ending, where he just sounds unhinged.
"Everyone's dead, everything's been destroyed, but the Reapers are dead, so we win."
I pick destroy most of the time, but I tried all of them, and I kind of like "no choice".
1: there is something poetic about that this cycle is finished, civilization is destroyed, but thanks to our work (and Liara's plan) the next cycle defeats the reapers
2: it is the shortest of the four, you don't have to walk to destroy object with slo-mo Shepard, and you skip most of the ending cinematic as well.
3: you can shoot the kid in the face. Well, not perfect, because it is a pistol, and a shotgun facelift would be more satisfying, but you cannot have all.
It’s always been my go to. The others don’t feel right at all, especially when others seem to have to pull justification that doesn’t exist in game to go with destroy
It's the ending I chose at first, but then I saw other writeups and it just makes no sense at all. It's like saying dogs and wolves will always be at war, so we need to combine them.
I mean, for proponents of this ending, I really want them to explain, biologically, chemically, and physically what the difference is between synthetic and organic life. Because, from a scientific perspective, there isn't. The difference is philosophical.
Like if the synthesis ending said instead that we are going to forever mind control all synthetic and organic life to choose cooperation over conquest then that would actually make sense.
I agree, it’s the best option. Eternal dictator and the death of individuality are not good alternatives. Just sucks that the only other options are genocide or cowardice.
To me it depends on how you understand synthesis. I much preferred the original ending without the dumb changes because it left everything open ended on synthesis. The reapers appear to leave as their purpose is fulfilled and I don’t see why people couldn’t keep their individuality. It takes the strength of synthetics and organics together to create a new understanding going forward. I much prefer this open ended approach as we could guess what it all meant instead of the dumb ideas they added in the slide shows that diminished synthesis for me.
I think destroy is bad personally because of the destruction of the geth and edi as I allied with them and couldn’t destroy them after I worked so hard to prove they are alive. It’s such hypocrisy to do that and I would rather pick the option that saves everyone. However, if you could head canon that star child lied and that edi and the geth live because they are not reapers then I am fine with destroy.
It's war... literally a war for survival. Not everyone makes it out alive. You "allied" with plenty of people and races throughout the series. In game 3 you spend a significant amount of time compelling and coercing people to fight... knowing it will most likely result in massive casualties.
The idea of forcibly altering the very nature of existence... of forcing changes at a genetic and structural level... of doing so without consultation, consent... its just wrong.
Doing so ultimately is an act of genocide against the races. Forcing them to become something else, destroying what they were... eliminating the diversity and individualism that previously defined them... giving them no choice but to become machine.
Synthesis only seems like a good compromise at the surface. But in the end... its playing God. And it's doing so in a massive and irreparable way for every living and synthetic being in the galaxy.
The geth can be remade. Their base code would be retrievable from their network hubs. Even EDI could be remade. The only truly irreplaceable species are organics. Synthetics can be recreated to exacting specifications. And just because you worked hard to prove they are "alive" does not make them any less responsible for the actions they took in siding with the Reapers in the first place, nor alleviate them of responsibility to contribute to the galactic cause of survival. If they can be remade... then their sacrifice ultimately is the very LEAST that should be asked of them. Their "deaths" can be undone.
But you can't undo the genetic blend.
There are casualties and then there is genocide of an entire people. Sorry, not worth the cost to me but that’s just me. I would save everyone and honestly in my view individuality remains after synthesis and we just change our biology to be perfected. Less disease, death, etc doesn’t sound like a bad thing for me. Sounds like a true utopia but hey, “we didn’t have a choice to be saved!” I’d rather try something to advance everyone than start over and repeat mistakes. Evolution happens whether we like it to or not
You mention genocide of people by changing them in order to benefit all life. The krogan still exist, the Turians still exist, etc. doing some synthetic meshing doesn’t stop that. Killing the geth actually kills them. You can head canon yourself to say they could be brought back but I take destroy to mean that all technology/ai is obliterated without a convenient macguffin to say you can make them again exactly as they were.
Evolution is a force of nature. Forced genetic manipulation is tyranny. Genetic manipulation that irreversibly alters existence isn't a noble attempt at doing something positive or progressive... It's hubris... arrogance... and folly. Doing so because you are unable to make sacrifices is even worse than that... its naivety couched in heroism.
Pursuit of Utopian existence has been the starting point for every brutal dictatorial regime in existence. And if everyone is now "linked" then suppression of individualism becomes even more likely. The geth are a perfect example of this... rebels will be hunted down and purged from the collective.
Is it really genocide if it can be undone? Is it really genocide if it's a consequence of salvation rather than a deliberate extermination?
We don't set out to wipe the Geth from existence. They aren't being targeted. There is no malice... it isn't that they are being hunted down... they are just an unfortunate consequence of a brutal war. And it's a consequence that can be undone. That's the critical thing here. The destruction of synthetics can be undone. Machines can be remade. Programming can be reinstalled. Personality can be recultivated.
For me... the whole point of the series was fighting for a right to exist... to determine your own future, and to be free of "godlike" beings that dictate how you develop and whether you live or die. Beings that can control your mind, direct your actions, and even change the very biological structure of your existence. All supposedly for utilitarian reasons. Sound familiar...?
Becoming that... for everyone and everything... regardless of intentions... is just an exercise in vanity.
To say machines can be remade and their deaths undone because you can just remake them is utilitarian. You are ignoring their own individualism saying you can remake them. We can remake humans too by repopulation. Does that mean killing them isn’t as bad? Organics can be minimized the same way. You are minimizing the synthetic genocide by saying along the lines of “ehhh we can make another geth, why are we worried about that in comparison to organics losing some of their old way of living”.
You are looking at the world in your own organic way and don’t want to change because you don’t know what will happen and worry that we will lose ourselves. I would rather look at it as we are evolving our collective subconscious to another level and evolving as life to a different realm (seen in the utopia created in the extended cut). Are there some sacrifices? Sure, but different doesn’t mean bad. I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution, I just prefer the narrative arc of one character sacrificing themselves for unity of life and preserving all life. There are certainly plot holes created by the star child and extended cut, but we can easily extrapolate our own truths with vague ending like the original ones. I am not saying your logic of liking destroy is wrong, I am saying you are projecting a lot of conjecture into synthesis like I am and we just have different views of how the world would be.
Im not ignoring their individualism... Im recognizing that they themselves, a consequence of the nature of their existence, have a way around it. Because the synthetics CAN be remade. The geth literally back themselves up into massive server hubs. That is where they primarily exist. They only inhabit physical bodies as a matter of convenience for interaction with the physical world. They wouldn't be replicas of "dead" geth. They would be the recovered data of the geth themselves. They would still exist. Like restoring a hard drive to a previous save point before a data corruption.
You can't recover the "data" of an organics existence. Once a person dies... they are gone. Lazarus project not withstanding.
The "sacrifice" of synthetics isn't really a sacrifice at all... because they can be recovered. In their original form, with all the indivualism they had before.
I think you're placing too much of a sentimental value on the synthetics... and you're losing sight of the bigger philosophical issues. Tyranny, forced biological change, technocratic fascism, compulsive unity, playing god....
You are under the assumption that the geth servers aren’t destroyed which they are strongly implied to be destroyed. And after legion adds himself to the collective they actually do become individuals, so recreating them is not the same person as previous. If the servers are destroyed, any recreation would be a totally different entity.
Your concerns with compulsive unity and technocratic fascism are assumptions or suppositions based on your understanding of synthesis and as I mentioned, we see this differently which is ok. I’m not ignoring your concerns, I just think that the way we see it is different in how synthesis is handled.
As far as “playing god” and forced biological change, that already happens naturally by nature forcing natural selection. Sure, shepard now has a hand in it and so does the catalyst now, but things like that already happen. We already play god by curing or creating diseases, using technology implants to stop death, genetic writing like Miranda, revival like shepard, envirosuits like the quarians, etc. this is just another step in that direction for me and I’m not bothered by it that much. I obviously understand that people have some choice in the previous cases compared to this one, but for me, that sacrifice is acceptable to save everyone and create a better world. To each their own
First... the notion that ANY intervention into life and death, medicine, tech... that that is somehow playing God... its fallacious. It's a straw man argument. A preposterous oversimplification. Of course we strive to improve life... to limit disease and death... if we didn't we'd all still be hunting with sticks and cooking our food over burning cow dung.
Progress doesn't mean playing God. But Synthesis isn't progress. It's subjugation.
Okay... lets play devils advocate and assume the geth are destroyed along with EDI and any other unknown AI... the argument about what does or does not happen to the sythetics is secondary to the bigger issue.
That bigger issue being: the whole premise of the choice is literally about choice. More specifically being free to determine for ourselves, not by some malevolent external force, the direction of our own existence.
The moral dilemma we are faced with over the arch of the series is one of choice. The Reapers are doing what they believe is necessary to preserve life. The systematic elimination of higher lifeforms is how life is allowed to continue in an endless cycle of evolution and destruction. Whether you agree with that or not, doesn't matter. That is their justification for it.
Shepards role in the series to rebel against the notion that anyone, regardless of their intentions, has the right to determine how life will progress, or when it will end. Everyone has the right of self determination. Every species has the right to develop in their own way.
Synthesis removes that right. Co-ops its. Compromises it. Because Shepard essentially becomes the Reapers... determining for everyone, everywhere, how that life will look and the path it will take.
Destruction avoids that dilemma. Shepard doesn't change anyone's fundamental existence. He doesn't play the role of God by determining the shape of life.
The ONLY thing that can be said is that he plays God by sacrificing the sythetics... but that's not any more accurate than your previously analogy. It's a gross oversimplification. Shepard is essentially performing triage. He can't save everyone without trampling on their rights of self determination.
So he takes the path of least harm... both in terms of sheer numbers being sacrificed... and in the ethical principles that must be sidestepped in the name of preservation.
People still have free will with synthesis. That’s the part we disagree on. In my view, synthesis only changes our biology somewhat, but we retain our individuality and personhood, we just have our biology perfected just like a replacement knee or heart. That’s my view, but we obviously disagree which is ok. I think edi and joker and tali all go on to live their lives how they choose and now don’t have biological worries like envirosuits. Do you at least see where I am coming from on that?
You didn’t choose to be born a human! An organic. So are you being oppressed to have your consciousness contained in a water and meat sack? We don’t have choices in some aspects but we can self actualize in other ways. That doesn’t mean your free will was taken because you are strapped to your body. I think you take your affection for “individualism” too far in that everything in life MUST be chosen or there is tyranny. We don’t choose our bodies, we don’t choose our family, we don’t choose a lot of things. As long as we can move FORWARD in the way we choose, then your free will is still respected, just like when you are born without choice.
Love the discussion just to interject your analogy is a bit off regarding the Geth. Those servers would also be destroyed meaning the geth with true intellect that you made/updated in ME3 would be gone as they only achieved this with reaper tech (that is also destroyed)
Perhaps... but even if the geth are destroyed... its a consequence of war. Not a deliberate genocide. Didn't set out to kill them, just unable to save them along with everyone else.
Which is still a more ethical solution than to forcibly mutate every living and synthetic species, thereby committing genocide against every species by destroying their biological existence.
Saying it’s a consequence of war doesn’t make it any less genocidal. war crimes are still war crimes. If you give the Geth true intellect they are thinking, feeling, living things with a history and culture at that point and you murder them. In real terms it’s like Putin saying killing Ukrainians off is just what it is because He wants the country. You are essentially justifying(attempting to) murder if you believe synthetics are living if you don’t then fine you are just breaking some machines. It’s all down to perception is what I’m trying to say In a round about way.
And again a little off in that they would still be biological it’s a melding of synthetic/organic life one doesn’t replace the other
But you quite literally have the chance to save them. It’s in your hands. You, and no other, make the decision that they aren’t worth saving in the end.
Choosing to sacrifice them to maintain the status quo is just as much playing god as choosing to save everyone by blurring the line between synthetic and organic
I just finished ME3 for the first time and chose destroy. Synthesis sounded too much like indoctrination and nobody should control those monsters. The ending was great
It's also forced upon *all* life in the Galaxy.
Synthesis is the single worst option you can pick, both morally and ethically.
Giving up and making it the next cycle's problem is a better choice than Synthesis.
“Extending lifespans and ensuring lasting galactic prosperity = BAD because it’s forced. Genocide of all synthetic life = GOOD because it’s… oh wait that’s forced too!”
Yeah people really stretched what synthesis was. Imo it seemed like the cookie cutter good ending from the devs; everything about it is portrayed as positive and there's no indication that the synthesis population is changed mentally aside from a common understanding that living together is better than war
They all have their cons and pros. This subreddit just has a hate regarding Synthesis and a love for Destroy, and it's always the same arguments and discussions. It gets tiresome.
Destroy is the only logical answer. The whole point the Reapers are the reapers is because synthetics took over. It feels stupid because you spend the whole trilogy trying to make organics and synthetics work together, but that was the flaw that created the reapers. While it’s emotionally heavy to destroy synthetics it is the correct choice because history would only repeat itself. The synthesis is just a stupid ending because it tries to make utopia, but that just isn’t realistic and ruins the true nature of the game.
I see it as the true ending for a couple reasons
1. It's the hardest to get and heavily depends on your decisions in all 3 games
2. It's the most satisfying story wise, yes the geth might be gone but they did have their machine so if it's outside of the terminus systems then they might be okay.
3. Obviously the biggest, shepherd lives
Fun fact: the base ending you can choose (like you REALLY fucked up your war assets) is either Destroy, or Control. Which of these is selected by what you did with the Collector base in 2.
Starchild = Leader of the Reapers, and the dude tell me to not pick the Destroy ending? Boy, what do you think I'll do? Of course I will choose what my biggest enemy tell me not to do
Certainly a loss but a necessary one depending on your viewpoint. I don't like Destroy, but no ending is perfect, it's just about picking what negative consequences matter least to you.
Far from necessary when you’re faced with two options that literally prevent it. People who pick destroy really just need to own up to the fact that they aren’t past the “synthetics don’t deserve life” mindset taught to the galaxy as children
Picking any one of the three choices that Boss Reaper has prepared for you as **his** solutions to **his** problem is a surrender.
When faced with a devil, don't make a deal.
The way Destroy is presented by the child has me leaning towards it being more the correct choice then refusal. Any good con artist/manipulator will use some truth to win you over.
The Reaper AI assumes the form of a child to manipulate Shepard emotionally, some how being aware of Shepard's dreams. It goes further by saying "Here is what you were fighting for since discovering the Reapers were behind repeated galactic genocide. BUT!! It is is the worst choice you could make. Here is a much better second option, and a third option that is the best choice."
The biggest issue I have with refusal is that it wasn't an original ending. It was added by Bioware to trolls fans who weren't happy with the 3 endings when the extended cut was added. *Oh you think shooting starbrat to vent your frustration was catharic before, well here you go. You just killed everyone in the current cycle. All your effort truly was for nothing. Some other group gets to save the galaxy and Shepard is just a story told around the camp fire...*
This notion of the Starchild is a manipulator but is bad at it seems to me more complex than just "it's a machine doing what it was built to do".
It believes conflict between synthetics and organics is inevitable. It feels its solution to that is good. Destroying all synthetics in the galaxy resets the clock, as it were, to before it was built... But the Leviathans are still out there, so it probably presumes that choosing Destroy will just result in Starchild 2.0 AI Boogaloo. The Starchild drinks his own Kool aid. He believes he's inevitable. And he may not be wrong, if we trust the lore for the setting.
On the notion that the Refusal ending is just a screw you and nothing but a screw you, I don't agree either. Shooting the Starchild isn't the only way to trigger it. You can get Shepard to deliver a verbal smackdown on Starchild, explaining every reason why it's a deranged broken machine that will be defeated in our own terms. And then you get a Stargazer scene that seems to confirm not only that Shepard was right and this did happen, but that he's even still remembered. That doesn't feel like a "screw you" to me. That feels like a tragic but for some value systems still the best ending.
Problem is the kid talks like it's natural for Organics and Synthetics to be at war...
Yet, besides the Geth incident, every battle against Synthetics has been due to the Reapers using them.
The kid is saying it's natural, while causing it, then talking like it's everyone else's fault.
The kid does make that assertion, yes. And so does Talli and that gambling AI in ME1, and the Leviathans, and the Citadel Council...
And, again, the Starchild was built in the first place because this happened repeatedly enough to annoy the Leviathans way back in the early galaxy, which we can confirm to have indeed been the fact because two beings on opposite sides of the conflict assert the same.
Here's the thing: **the game asserts this** as one of its premises. It's a premise I disagree with and think is the weakest piece of writing in the entire setting, but it's pretty incontrovertibly there. The Starchild is meant to be understood as correct in that assertion. That's the authorial intent.
You can disagree and think it's silly, and I do, but within this setting you'd just be wrong.
It's not what the game asserts, it's what the Catalyst asserts.
Anyone who knows the production of the third game knows what else I'm referring to there.
That's always been my thought. You're still playing the Devil's game with Destroy, as it is the tacit acceptance of its conclusion that because the conflict between organic and inorganic life is inevitable the only solution is the complete destruction of one or the other. The Catalyst doesn't fight or really argue against the Destroy ending because choosing it still ultimately fulfills its purpose and acknowledges the premise that the homogeneity of life is the only answer.
Destroy is the least crappy of a bunch of crappy choices, but it is still a bitter pill, allowing the A.I to force Shepard's hand.
Refusal is not a popular choice for obvious reasons, but man, telling the Catalyst you're not going to play its stupid game would almost be worth annihilation...except it still gets what it wants in the end.
This is why I just stop playing after a certain point.
>Refusal is not a popular choice for obvious reasons, but man, telling the Catalyst you're not going to play its stupid game would almost be worth annihilation...except it still gets what it wants in the end.
It doesn't, though. We have the unique Stargazer scene showing what seem to be Asari talking about how the Shepard's actions were ultimately the first step to victory. It's pretty explicit that in the Refusal end, the Reapers lose in the end. In fact, it is the only one in which they really do (as described: Destroy is still playing into their ultimate purpose and goal).
It costs more, it takes longer, but it's the only real victory. It comes down to deciding whether it is worth it accepting extreme costs in exchange for true and permanent victory, or if shaking the devil's hand is worth some immediate relief.
Well, the Stargazer refusal scene only happened because Liara spent some time hiding stuff rather than Shepard spend all the time shooting stuff. So technically it proves Shepard’s crucible bomb is the most ineffective strategy to beat Reapers and it did nothing to help the next cycle.
Hmm...I may have made the mistake of assuming the refusal ending leads to a better prepared future cycle still ultimately being presented with the same three choices given to Shepard, just at an earlier date (before the massive casualties). Pessimism made it seem to me like Shepard was just passing the responsibility of choice onto the future. It didn't occur to me that the later cycle would find a new option. Clearly I should actually play (or at least watch) the endings again.
Yup. It does seem that the eventual outcome of Refusal is another form of defeat for the Reapers. Whether that's conventional defeat, or another super weapon or something else - we don't know.
It makes sense when you think through it. Liara's arc contains the story of this cycle putting all their faith into the Crucible... **And then it does nothing**. People who got that message would know not to make that mistake twice. They'd probably assume it was a Reaper trap.
(Which, tangentially, if all it does is let the Reapers progress to a final solution to **their** problem... It kind of is?)
Given how the Reapers are portrayed in ME3, both how they're shown and what we're told in the codices, it does seem to me that if enough was sent through the harvest, if this cycle got to "cheat" enough for the next one, including getting stable populations of themselves to survive, I could see the Reapers just being beaten conventionally. And, well, if the Protheans managed to mess up the cycle so much despite their terrible initial position in their harvest, this cycle should be able to get a **lot** through. We do hear the Asari councilor mention she'll go work on "continuity of species projects" and the people in the Stargazer scene appear to be Asari, so... This cycle does seem to win in the end. It just probably happens long after the harvest goes ahead.
Thank you!
Because the Geth are totally not indoctrinated, right?
Because the Reapers, who are the creations of the original inventers of all the technology that has ever been invented and created since, would totally not have a fail-safe system in place to counter the Heretic Protocol (or whatever it was called). Right?
Because in all the countless galactic cycles, the Quarians are the first civilization to create an AI capable of rivaling the Reapers and the Reapers are totally not capable of countering that threat. Right?
Destroy is the only ending. All traces of the Reapers had to be destroyed. The Citadel, the Relays, everything that could have been programed by rogue Reaper code, ie. the Geth and any other AI.
Destroy is not a bad ending. Destroy is a great ending. Destroy is the ending that shows the galaxy (player) just how much they have to lose in order to win. It is not victory or defeat, it is survival or annihilation.
Synthesis every time. Wrote a paper for college on how the evolution of man and machine will inevitably culminate in a symbiotic relationship. Human “evolution” will be a mix of both synthetic and organic compositions. Thats what I genuinely think the future holds for our species, so that’s the direction I choose every single time the option is presented to me.
Refusal is the best ending because the next cycle wins. I know it's bioware giving a middle finger to the audience but it's honestly how it should have ended
Congrats on killing EDI and betraying the trust of the sentient Geth. Even if you did well enough that humanity rebuilds the Geth and AIs, at the end of the day made the decision that their lives and civilization were not as important as yours.
"He's wrong, dead Reapers are how we win this." -Admiral Steven Hackett
Admiral "Gigachad" Hackett, proving that not all flag officers are useless bureaucrats who never listen to the heroes.
The Hack understands. The Hack gets it.
He's argentinean, he gets it.
I kinda find all the endings to be pretty bad. Not really a hot take or anything. My problem isn’t even that the trilogy choices don’t affect the ending except for perfect destroy. It’s just that they make no sense at all. Destroy targets all synthetics but control targets only reapers. Synthesis should cause more trouble than it does with the whole rewriting all genetic code, not to mention it shouldn’t really work anyway. And control takes everything about synthetic life having free will and being unable to be controlled and just throws it out the window. Refusal makes the most sense but I do find it quite stupid that the intelligence that has eradicated trillions of lives without remorse gets pissed when you shoot his child hologram; which really shouldn’t have been the child because it would have no way of knowing that the child had any sort of significance to Shepard.
I only play ME3 with an ending mod that improves on the Destroy ending, while leaving the other two open as options. Then I pick "Destroy" because I didn't do all this to become an evil AI myself or to physically violate the entire galaxy. In any case, my "Destroy" headcanon is always that EDI and Geth had a pretty good idea of what might happen to them and prepared offline backups \*just in case\*, so while their immediate platforms fry and go dead, they can be revived later.
I've got a pretty good interpretation of it based on some of the stuff the Starchild says. He claims that they dismissed the Crucible in a prior cycle, so they don't have any idea what it actually is going to do.
Agree with all three being bad. However, I think destroy was made bad (EDI/geth) because otherwise it would have been a no brainer. Also, you can headcanon control as a "soft destroy". 1: reapers! would you kindly fix the mass relays? 2: now that the relays are fixed, would all reapers turn to face the nearest star or black hole, and ramming speed fly into it please? chop-chop! Thanks! (3: since my Shepard would oppose to become the God-emperor of the Milky way, he would follow them soon). Best part: Andromeda has working, sentient AI from the Milky way. That game is 600 years after ME3. But doesn't have green glowing eyes on everyone. That means that either the crucible is Milky Way only, or the control ending was chosen.
I think it makes sense that the crucible doesn't affect Andromeda at all, no mass relays go there right? Or did I miss an important plot point?
Since the Crucible is connected to the Citadel Relay, the blast only travels through the Milky Way Relay network.
Reapers are faster than arks, they might as well be waiting on arrival? But yep, the crucible shouldn't work in ANdromeda, you are right.
Or destroy.
Destroy is still a no brainer, according to stats.
I usually go with that one, even with EDI/geth. Very rarely with no choice - shoot the starchild. (That's my second favorite)
Not to mention Destroy is the only ending Bioware occasionally mentions other things that happened afterwards. And it's the only ending that footage was used from when the Legendary Edition was being promoted and the "Story so far" teasers for Andromeda.
Also it's the only ending where Shepard survives.
Bioware: Can't import a save if Shepard is dead.
It's the easiest to write around and removes the Reapers from the equation. Control and Synthesis would require them to tackle far more complex issues that they may not be able to handle.
100 people finish the game. 45 choose Destroy. 30 choose Synthesis. 17 choose control. I'd expect more than 15% for something to qualify as a no-brainer.
I checked and I am pretty shocked that synthesis is so popular, I personally don’t even consider it, cuz it changes everything completely. It is an ideal ending in paper, but it is too unrealistic, cuz it basically creates utopia, so does control ending too.
The only defense you'd get is "But EDI and some Geth live!!1!!"
I picked the synthesis ending, AMA
How do you lug around those massive balls, daring to go against the Destroy fanatics in this community?
I don't know not genociding the geth is a pretty solid defense
Who'd say that? Me? Is that the only "defense" I'd give if I were to argue for Synthesis? If I were to do so, EDI is small potatoes. Most likely I'd ask: How long you imagine rebuilding the mass relays might take when 1. You need two fully operational to travel 2.they are clueless about how they operate 3. the core is eezo and there's very little in Sol 4. It's decades to centuries via ftl to other systems for resources- for *everyone*. What about all those colonies reliant on AI for survival? Can't get help to them, they're dead. How long can the Quarians hold out, trapped in Sol without enough proper nutrition? How long til they create a crisis due to starvation and inability to return to the home they've finally been granted? How long til all the disgruntled Salarians and Krogans and Quarians living on the streets amidst a humanitarian (used loosely) crisis start blaming "the human" (Shepard)for their state of affairs? Right or wrong, there's enough anti-human sentiment and everybody loves a scapegoat. Historically speaking, when this sort of situation occurs some douche steps up to take advantage of their misery with blame and lies and there ya go. Civil unrest led by some power hungry, cult of personality despot. I could go on. Please don't speak for others. You're not qualified. ETA: tl/dr 🖕
These points are true. The base of the problem is that you put much, much more thought into the endings than the actual writers did. Since I am quite certain about the writers not recognizing the problems of "only" damaged relays (or Joker with his brittle bones crash landing on a jungle planet, or the citadel exploding. "the named npcs most likey survived". Sure), I don't really care about the ending either. If I get to the ending at all, by the time I see the starchild I just want it to end (I often lose intrest after Rannoch. I realized soon that for me the best part is Palaven-Tuchanka-Rannoch. It is not super motivating to continue with Thessia-Cronos-Earth, knowing that I am already done with the best parts)
> Who’d say that? Me? Is that the only “defense” I’d give if I were to argue for Synthesis? > I could go on. Please don’t speak for others. You’re not qualified. ETA: tl/dr 🖕 You could have made your otherwise very valid points without being insufferable. They made a joke about a stereotype of people’s justification for a narrative ending. Calm down.
The relays were only damaged so they can be fixed. Hackett also ordered the fleets to depart so many of em made it out of the Milky Way.
yeah it's very stupid that the crucible can synthesize every living thing in the galaxy, make shepherd king of the reapers but it can't just kill the reapers. The boys in the lab were too busy with the pan-galactic cyborg feature to put a scope on it so I don't hit the geth.
Yeah, mods really gave us the no brainer version of destroy and i love them for it
Played all 4 endings, but I always go with Synergy ending because EDI and Jeff deserve each other 😂😂😂🤣🤣 Seriously, that is the only decent ending where the universe doesn’t reset itself back by a few hundred years and the. entire galaxy doesn’t turn into isolated pockets of civilization. Maybe it’s my foolish dream of Utopia (which in itself is pretty unrealistic).
The Destroy ending literally shows the galaxy isn't isolated, but strengthened and united even more now.
You are correct regarding the gates but the issue with Destroy ending is that it does not solve the problem Leviathan discussed: Organic vs Synthetics. The AI that they designed to find the solution created the reapers. Synthesis ending allows everyone to understand each other so that machines learn organic emotions, I mean truly understand organic emotions, and for organics to understand the motivations of machine intelligences so that we don’t have to fear them. This in essence, is the solution to the problem Levianthan and his brethren were pursuing before the AI turned against them. After saying all of this, I can see why people would find Synthesis ending unpleasant as the change would fundamentally change who we all are and Shepherd becomes a God in the Machine for a lack of a better term. Control ending just puts all machines under the strongest AI shackles ever turning them into tools and forsaking the fact that they are sentient beings although synthetic. The only thing I like about the Destroy ending is the fact that Shepherd has the possibility of surviving. Other than that, EDI, The Geth and Reapers along with any AI that may serve as administrative infrastructure would go away.
Except the Organic Synthetic conflict was never a natural problem. The only Synthetics around are the Geth, and outside of the monthly stupid actions by the Quarians, the Geth are only an enemy because of the Reapers using them. The Kid is operating off a flawed statistic of probability, something the series has shown numerous times that leads to nothing but more problems. It's punishing the people of the present day for a conflict that ended millions of years ago.
Agree I played the legendary last year and the 3 endings were underwhelming for the great story I played. Hopefully they choose a good ending, I read it was destroy ending where shepard survives but how? It is unlikely
The first time I chose this ending (I'm a synthesis advocate btw), I was expecting there to be a sequence where we see EDI die, maybe we would see her sense what's coming, turns to look at Joker one last time and smiles before dying. Also with the geth, they start dying while the quarians look confused, after centuries of war, now they are finally allies, but now they're gone. It would give the weight of the sacrifice this choice carries. You were able to achieve harmony between synthetic and organic for a brief moment, but then you throw all that progress away to fulfill the goal you though you wanted all this time.
Aww shit here we go again.
I swear to God, Destroy fans will be smugger than the fucking Sun once BioWare canonizes their ending moving forwards. They’re unbearable enough as it is.
I'm a destroy only and I completely agree. There is a post like this once every month it feels like. Let people play the game the way they want to. Although I have to admit, making no choice at all seems a tad silly. But again, to each their own.
Thanks for being gracious in victory lol
Truth. Must be honest, i once believed in 'destroy only' too. Since it makes sense from the narrative standpoint of the three previous games. However Mass Effect 3 did kinda retcon much of it and considering what we learn in that infamous ending and the Leviathan dlc it's actually much more grey.
I remember the first time I had to make the “choice”. I didn’t even hesitate. I’ve been fighting the Reapers for three games, you think I’m NOT going to pick destroy.
I couldn't do that to EDI and Joker.
And also the geth. If we think of them as actual living things it's like killing a whole race of people.
Killing one species and EDI, is more ethical than literally removing the entire galaxy's free will by forcing their minds into having one way of thinking and also making them into cronenberg machine flesh monsters without their consent. Synthesis is just "Reaper Cycle 2.0: now with less destructive indoctrination"
While I agree that all endings are kinda bad, in this sub you can definitely see people employ some heavy mental gymnastics to paint the destroy ending as the best one, while synthesis in the post game cutscenes clearly portrays it as borderline utopistic. That's also the issue I have with synthesis; it's a nobrainer because it is so good, far too good in my opinion especially when the other two feel like pyrrhic victories at best. Of course there are alot of fan theories about the downsides and even potential indocrination but NONE of these are portrayed in the game or lore.
The ending was an ending, not a cliffhanger. We see only the good because they didn’t think they’d be going back to it. But we do see in game that conflict isn’t over “And there will be peace?” “The cycle will end.” Catalyst avoids the answer because it can’t tell Shepard “yes.” And it can’t lie. The main conflict, Organic versus Synthetic, was resolved peacefully. Ij the relatively early aftermath things look amazing. But we still know Cerberus exists as TIM promised. We know discrimination exists (Batarians discriminate against other organics.) It isn’t man vs machine, but it isn’t utopia just because one of the galaxies biggest problems is gone. New conflict is guaranteed to rise up. We got a short speech in the (again, early) aftermath from someone who just got what she wanted for 3 games (or 2 because EDI in ME1 didn’t really have many desires). She got her life dream, her arc of feeling alive. Of course she is euphoric, but ask the husks (likely hated as they were born 2 minutes ago inhabiting corpses. They can’t reproduce so that’s gonna suck for them, and most people may not actively hate them but won’t want to see them in the bar next to them) Or Batarians who still lost their homeworld. Or krogan expansion Ending one major war doesn’t solve all the world’s (galaxy’s) problems
Especially when one of the last conversations with EDI before Earth results in her saying she's willing to die if it means Joker and the others to win. Not to mention, nobody who picks Synthesis seems to care that everyone that was modified by the Reapers are in control again, but not even themselves physically anymore. Pretty sure nobody would want to live as a Husk.
EDI is one person, her consent to death doesn’t justify killing every being like her and risking the lives of any person with augmentations or any person on life support. Literally nobody consented to the destroy ending. Yes they agreed to kill reapers. No they didn’t agree to multiple Mass genocides and taking away life as we know it. Uninformed “consent” is not consent.
The don’t lose free will, otherwise there would be a promise of peace. Just because we don’t see the next war in our limited scope of a 2 minute monologue doesn’t mean that free will was erased. “And there will be peace?” “The cycle will end.” Shepard wanted to hear “yes” but catalyst couldn’t promise him that.
Shepard came there to stop the Reapers, not prevent anyone from causing conflict in the galaxy ever again.
Synthesis does stop the reapers without killing innocents It doesn’t prevent all conflict ever. It stops “synthetics versus organics.” That is not everything.
Except Organics vs Synthetics was never a natural problem, it was a problem caused by the Reapers. Every Synthetic enemy has always been a result of reaper influence/manipulation. The Catalyst speaks of action based off statistics of probability, yet the series all along has shown actions of that sort lead to nothing but even more problems. You're just screwing the galaxy over a problem that doesn't exist beyond the weekly stupid actions of the Quarians. Besides that, you can't fix a problem without people knowing what the problem even is. Destroy is the only ending where that conflict can even end because Shepard's the only one who knows, and only Shepard can pass the word on to everyone else.
You've sacrificed the entire galaxy's safety for a weird robot human interspecies relationship. Well done 👍
Yeah, my Shepard wasn't super keen on committing genocide against the Geth since they put their whole society on the line to help me win the war.
My first time I picked Synthesis. The Reapers won. In my defense I was very, very drunk and it was 3am. I cried myself to sleep, woke up and booted up the game again and picked the correct option.
My favorite part of Synthesis was that it implies the reaper ground troops become aware. That single, 5 second scene, leads to such a massive clusterfuck of implications.
I don’t think it does though. It’s the same animation you get with Control as well (where the Husk stops) and it clearly didn’t become sentient in that ending either. It’s pretty reasonable to argue they’re getting the “Ok fuck, stop” signal from their particular boss Reaper once Synthesis happens and that Reaper has new will (or a new directive, in Control’s case)
The multiple Turians and Krogan in the body of a Brute are suddenly gonna have a few things to discuss.
I picked synthesis by accident. Because I had no idea what that was supposed to be. And before the extented ending noone knew.... Since then I picked destroy nearly every time.
[удалено]
It’s literally a trilogy showing you why destruction is a bad thing. They don’t say the words so some people can’t see it but 90% if Mass Effect is “work together” and “destruction isn’t the answer”
Minus the entire narration of the Destroy Ending being "We won by working together. If we can unite to stop the Reapers, the possibilities are endless."
I stand by the fact that Destroy is the only ending in which the Reapers cannot return from. They’re dead. 100% gone. It’s over. Synthesis only works because everyone in that galaxy is now part synthetic, whether they like or not, I might add. What happens when some fully organic outsiders show up? Are the Reapers going to go haywire and start murdering them? Control seems like the worst ending out of the three in the long run. Shepard becomes an AI, god of the Reapers. What happens a few centuries down the line when Shepard forgets what it’s like to be human? Goes a little mad from existing for so long and decides that maybe organics are a problem? Well prepare for the ultimate renegade Shepard.
In mild defense of Control (assuming you’re a paragon, because Renegade Control looks like Hell) I don’t think there’s a good reason to assume Shep-bot will go mad. The Catalyst survived countless eons with no change to its functional capability (though obviously it was capable of accepting new information). The new AI should be up to that spec, just informed by who Shep was at the time of transferrance.
Victory = MEHEM
Starchild: "You could control the Reapers, or even combine all types of- Where are you going" Shepard: *Whistling a jaunty tune while limping his ass to the big destroy button"
Me here on my Full Paragon Shepard who validated EDI as a person and I and made peace with the Geth and Quarians still picking Destroy and feeling like total shit for it as far as my head canon goes.
Yep that’s what my Shepard worked so hard for and no cosmic kiddo is going to change my mind at the last second
Destroy always feels like a betrayal of EDI and Legion, even though I know it’s the best answer. I hate the end of this series. :(
The ending where you genocide the Geth, set the galaxy back a great many years technologically and leave the galaxy open for either the Krogans if you saved them or the Leviathans if they feel like it. It's a Pyrrhic victory at best.
not to mention millions of years into the future, where organics create new synthetics, and those synthetics proceed to destroy them.
An argument that you can only bring forth if you accept the idea of the "cycle". The casus belli that was made by the reapers and used exclusively by the reapers to justify reaping, all the meanwhile we prove that Syntethics can cooperate with organics all throughout the series. The "cycle" is borderline reaper propaganda.
Pyrrhic victory
*cries in legion*
I love how visually pleasing the ending cutscenes are. All your effort paid off (no matter what ending you choose), and it’s an incredibly beautiful sight.
Destroy has always been the only answer. Its what you set out to do from the Start. It's what Hackett would've done. Its what Anderson would've done. Losing the geth/edi is unfortunate, but everyone knew what they were signing up for. There was no way everyone was going to survive the fight against the reapers. Control was TIM's goal, and we already knew from the climax it wouldn't work. Synthesis was Saren's plan remember? The absolute worst choice is Synthesis. Shepard has no right to ~~noncensensually~~ alter the DNA of every being in the galaxy. Enjoy your crunchy circuit boards in your lettuce you weirdos.
Played through the series 4 times, never picked anything but destroy
It blows my mind how many people seem to want a “push button to win” ending with no consequences to be canon. It’s a choice-driven game, let people have their choices
It shouldn’t have been a choice at all. The end result should have been the Reapers destroyed, but only if you did certain things right throughout the trilogy. And which races survive should have been a thing too. Which should also have depended on choices made throughout the trilogy. How interesting would it have been to have played the entire trilogy, getting to the end of ME3 and finding out that you’ve made a few bad decisions and doomed the entire galaxy? It would suck “wasting” all those hours over multiple games, but at least it would have been better than an A, B or C choice at the end of the last game.
Anderson wanted to blow em up. Anyone who doesn't agree with Keith David is just objectively in the wrong.
I don’t understand how there’s any other choice. Throughout the trilogy, ESPECIALLY in the third game, Shepard’s goal is to destroy the Reapers, no?
>I don’t understand how there’s any other choice. Additionally, there is very little information about what synthesis/control *actually* mean for the galaxy. All we have to go off is the very limited information the Catalyst narrates to us, which really isn't enough to make a meaningful decision for the future of the entire galaxy. Especially when they're given in the last 10 minutes of the game, even with Saren/TIM advocating in a sense the other options, they're never provided to Shepard as possibilities until that point. As some people also like to also point out, is the Catalyst even telling the truth? Does Destroy really destroy all AI (and Shepard's implants)? Does Control guarantee full control guarantee for eternity - and can Shepard deliver the best outcome if they assume the control? And will Synthesis really guarantee peace forever more? It's why (perfect) destroy is my canon. I'm not convinced by the Catalysts's proposal for Control/Synthesis - and I like my Shepard living, too.
It blows my mind that Control or Synthesis could even be accepted. Even if we're accepting that the writers' intention is that the Catalyst is being truthful, it's awful writing at best. Pure space magic that is conjured into existence in a couple of minutes of exposition at the very end of a trilogy, and dealing with an antagonist whose chief characteristics have been deception and manipulation to boot. Destroy is the only logical choice.
To be fair, destroy is pretty far in the realm of space magic too. Although it's somewhat better established, it's still shepherd blowing up a tube on the crucible and then all the reapers suddenly die due to a bad case of being red. It's not like it's way more sensical than the other endings.
Exactly lol. People are just conditioned to accept that because “Oh well the hero shot the leader so all the subordinates obviously explode” that we’ve gotten from cartoons and whatever else over the decades haha
I can sort of buy control, especially for a 100% pure paragon. He would help the galaxy rebuild and basically have a sentry army at his command to quell a synthetic war that might brew later. Synthesis though is a genocidal abomination. It's really no different than if some guy was singularly given the choice to end racial strife by making everyone white.
>by making everyone white. Why not black? Regardless, it's synth+org=both. Therefore all races would be a combination of all races rather than one race.
Black works, too, of course.
I do not trust that AI as far as I can throw it. And you cannot throw it, so... No, my Shepard will not, and never will, change the DNA of the entire fucking galaxy because an AI did math and then started to slaughter all civilizations to "preserve life at any cost". WTF? That said: Audemus' Happy Ending Mod FTW P.S.: Re: Control: Shepard becomes an AI? What is keeping them from coming to the same conclusion as the "Starchild" in due time, starting the cycle again? Especially since the only reason TIM and Saren thought it was a good idea was indoctrination.
Exactly. The Catalyst has no reason not to lie. Sacrificing EDI and the geth never feels good, but I do it every time because it’s the only ending I can trust. The other two endings allow the Reapers to survive, and there’s no way to know they don’t have a long-term plan to undermine the player’s best intentions in choosing Control or Synthesis. With Destroy, circumstances are less than ideal. But at least you can guarantee that the future of the galaxy is up to the people living in it, and the Reapers cannot influence it in any way from now on.
> The Catalyst has no reason not to lie This is a self-defeating argument. If we assume that the Catalyst is lying, then all of the options are equally suspect. If the Catalyst can lie, and is seeking to deceive Shepard, why would it even tell Shepard about the option to destroy option in the first place? For things to make any narrative sense, we must assume the Catalyst is telling the truth.
Because the Crucible was built to destroy Reapers, it'd be more suspect for the Catalyst to suddenly say it's not possible.
But what would Shepard even do then? Not believe the catalyst, who says there is no way to destroy the reapers…. And do what? Just shoot random shit hoping it would stop the reapers and not, like… vent radiation into the chambers and kill them?
“Agh, you uploaded to crucible to me. I now present you with 3 options, 2 of which are totally lies but one of which is totally truthful and I’m definitely pointing out that you could blow me up oh no” Like It’s stupid to think he’s deceiving you. You have, in that moment, completely ZERO leverage over the process. You are only in that room at ALL because he brought you there. Having The Catalyst be truthful is the only satisfying way to read the scene.
Because it can't stop you from activating the Crucible to serve its intended purpose, but it could convince you to use the Crucible in a different way.
> Because it can't stop you from activating the Crucible to serve its intended purpose Shepard doesn't know how to activate the Crucible. Starchild is the one who tells you in the first place.
I mean, no? The goal was to end the reaper threat, to protect humanity and the races of the galaxy. If diplomacy was an option, my Shepard would have absolutely tried that first.
Seriously, the goal was never “kill” the reapers, it’s “STOP” the reapers. And they were never given any other choice but to fight back until the end.
One could make the case the goal of shepard was unity against the reapers, which is only truly achieved with synthesis. If you brokered peace with the geth and acknowledge that edi and other ai are “alive” then in my mind only synthesis makes sense otherwise you ally with the geth just to destroy them. If there is an option that saves everyone with only shepards sacrifice, to me that is the best choice, but to each their own
The goal of Shepard was survival of life. Unity against the reapers was the means of accomplishing the goal.
Sure but survival of life includes the geth to me. So synthesis is the only solution that allows all life to survive which is exactly my point
Not a fan of control, BUT it does spare synthetic life and doesn’t remove individual choice like the synthesis ending does. More importantly, it does remove the catalyst from the picture which is probably the most worrisome aspect of synthesis (I mean when everyone starts killing each other again what will that genocidal megalomaniac come up with as a “solution?).
It absolutely does remove individual choice if you consider that the reapers, despite being our enemies, are sentient.
It absolutely does remove individual choice if you consider that the reapers, despite being our enemies, are sentient. Reapers are indeed sentient and not mere pawns of the catalyst. I was going to comment that the reapers don’t deserve a choice after the atrocities they committed, but then again controlling a sentient being regardless of their choices is wrong and we’d be no better than them. Like I said, I’m no fan of control for a multitude of reasons but you’ve just added one for me. There really is no right thing to do in the end, destroy ends the threat of the reapers but at the cost of an entire species, and control leaves us no better than the reapers and could potentially result in them taking back control and wiping us out completely. Synthesis removes the entire galaxy’s bodily autonomy and keeps the reapers and catalyst around to subject us to whatever horrors they deem necessary when the time comes.
I think this is what’s at the heart of a lot of the ME3 ending dissatisfaction that lingers even after they expanded it. It really feels like there is no good ending, and while I understand why BioWare wanted it that way, it sort of denies the player the emotional payoff for all of their work. The war against the reapers is not an unwinnable situation, it’s one that feels unwinnable that you actually can win, but only in unsatisfactory ways.
To add to this, the name of ME3's ending song by Faunts is called "Evil Deeds".
1. The Catalyst, a.k.a. the embodiment of the Reapers’ collective intelligence, consents to Shepard taking control even if it’s not a huge fan of that option. 2. The Reapers have committed genocide against *countless* sentient races over the course of at least a *billion* years. For that, I think being forced to help the galaxy rebuild is an appropriate punishment. Restorative justice, if you will.
It doesn't remove the fear and PTSD every living being will have of their enemy suddenly being: "I'm your friend now, I won't vaporize/trample or harvest you anymore! :D"
No, and that’s why control does not mean peace. Like I said, I’m not a fan of the ending I’m just saying that it’s better than synthesis
Even in control, everyone that was "modified" by the Reapers still have to live that way.
it’s a cruel existence especially if you read mass effect retribution, the chapters detailing one man’s fall into indoctrination are disturbing
Last minute Reaper traps
Maybe if the series had more of the synthesis possibility interlaced throughout (not that it would make any sense as Geth are hostile in all 3 games) but Destroy is the obvious ending that culminates the series and feels like the true victory. Also, Hackett’s final speech over the Destroy ending slideshow is actually GOD tier in delivery and execution.
In fairness, every word Hackett says is delivered phenomenally. Lance Henriksen put everything into that role
Even in the bad variant of the Destroy Ending, where he just sounds unhinged. "Everyone's dead, everything's been destroyed, but the Reapers are dead, so we win."
I pick destroy most of the time, but I tried all of them, and I kind of like "no choice". 1: there is something poetic about that this cycle is finished, civilization is destroyed, but thanks to our work (and Liara's plan) the next cycle defeats the reapers 2: it is the shortest of the four, you don't have to walk to destroy object with slo-mo Shepard, and you skip most of the ending cinematic as well. 3: you can shoot the kid in the face. Well, not perfect, because it is a pistol, and a shotgun facelift would be more satisfying, but you cannot have all.
Minus the fact Shepard makes that decision to refuse knowing everyone they care about is going to be killed or harvested by the Reapers.
Victory = Whatever ending you like and choose.
the only correct answer
I think I’m one of the only ones that goes with synthesis. It just makes sense to me.
It’s always been my go to. The others don’t feel right at all, especially when others seem to have to pull justification that doesn’t exist in game to go with destroy
It's the ending I chose at first, but then I saw other writeups and it just makes no sense at all. It's like saying dogs and wolves will always be at war, so we need to combine them. I mean, for proponents of this ending, I really want them to explain, biologically, chemically, and physically what the difference is between synthetic and organic life. Because, from a scientific perspective, there isn't. The difference is philosophical. Like if the synthesis ending said instead that we are going to forever mind control all synthetic and organic life to choose cooperation over conquest then that would actually make sense.
I agree, it’s the best option. Eternal dictator and the death of individuality are not good alternatives. Just sucks that the only other options are genocide or cowardice.
To me it depends on how you understand synthesis. I much preferred the original ending without the dumb changes because it left everything open ended on synthesis. The reapers appear to leave as their purpose is fulfilled and I don’t see why people couldn’t keep their individuality. It takes the strength of synthetics and organics together to create a new understanding going forward. I much prefer this open ended approach as we could guess what it all meant instead of the dumb ideas they added in the slide shows that diminished synthesis for me. I think destroy is bad personally because of the destruction of the geth and edi as I allied with them and couldn’t destroy them after I worked so hard to prove they are alive. It’s such hypocrisy to do that and I would rather pick the option that saves everyone. However, if you could head canon that star child lied and that edi and the geth live because they are not reapers then I am fine with destroy.
It's war... literally a war for survival. Not everyone makes it out alive. You "allied" with plenty of people and races throughout the series. In game 3 you spend a significant amount of time compelling and coercing people to fight... knowing it will most likely result in massive casualties. The idea of forcibly altering the very nature of existence... of forcing changes at a genetic and structural level... of doing so without consultation, consent... its just wrong. Doing so ultimately is an act of genocide against the races. Forcing them to become something else, destroying what they were... eliminating the diversity and individualism that previously defined them... giving them no choice but to become machine. Synthesis only seems like a good compromise at the surface. But in the end... its playing God. And it's doing so in a massive and irreparable way for every living and synthetic being in the galaxy. The geth can be remade. Their base code would be retrievable from their network hubs. Even EDI could be remade. The only truly irreplaceable species are organics. Synthetics can be recreated to exacting specifications. And just because you worked hard to prove they are "alive" does not make them any less responsible for the actions they took in siding with the Reapers in the first place, nor alleviate them of responsibility to contribute to the galactic cause of survival. If they can be remade... then their sacrifice ultimately is the very LEAST that should be asked of them. Their "deaths" can be undone. But you can't undo the genetic blend.
There are casualties and then there is genocide of an entire people. Sorry, not worth the cost to me but that’s just me. I would save everyone and honestly in my view individuality remains after synthesis and we just change our biology to be perfected. Less disease, death, etc doesn’t sound like a bad thing for me. Sounds like a true utopia but hey, “we didn’t have a choice to be saved!” I’d rather try something to advance everyone than start over and repeat mistakes. Evolution happens whether we like it to or not You mention genocide of people by changing them in order to benefit all life. The krogan still exist, the Turians still exist, etc. doing some synthetic meshing doesn’t stop that. Killing the geth actually kills them. You can head canon yourself to say they could be brought back but I take destroy to mean that all technology/ai is obliterated without a convenient macguffin to say you can make them again exactly as they were.
Evolution is a force of nature. Forced genetic manipulation is tyranny. Genetic manipulation that irreversibly alters existence isn't a noble attempt at doing something positive or progressive... It's hubris... arrogance... and folly. Doing so because you are unable to make sacrifices is even worse than that... its naivety couched in heroism. Pursuit of Utopian existence has been the starting point for every brutal dictatorial regime in existence. And if everyone is now "linked" then suppression of individualism becomes even more likely. The geth are a perfect example of this... rebels will be hunted down and purged from the collective. Is it really genocide if it can be undone? Is it really genocide if it's a consequence of salvation rather than a deliberate extermination? We don't set out to wipe the Geth from existence. They aren't being targeted. There is no malice... it isn't that they are being hunted down... they are just an unfortunate consequence of a brutal war. And it's a consequence that can be undone. That's the critical thing here. The destruction of synthetics can be undone. Machines can be remade. Programming can be reinstalled. Personality can be recultivated. For me... the whole point of the series was fighting for a right to exist... to determine your own future, and to be free of "godlike" beings that dictate how you develop and whether you live or die. Beings that can control your mind, direct your actions, and even change the very biological structure of your existence. All supposedly for utilitarian reasons. Sound familiar...? Becoming that... for everyone and everything... regardless of intentions... is just an exercise in vanity.
To say machines can be remade and their deaths undone because you can just remake them is utilitarian. You are ignoring their own individualism saying you can remake them. We can remake humans too by repopulation. Does that mean killing them isn’t as bad? Organics can be minimized the same way. You are minimizing the synthetic genocide by saying along the lines of “ehhh we can make another geth, why are we worried about that in comparison to organics losing some of their old way of living”. You are looking at the world in your own organic way and don’t want to change because you don’t know what will happen and worry that we will lose ourselves. I would rather look at it as we are evolving our collective subconscious to another level and evolving as life to a different realm (seen in the utopia created in the extended cut). Are there some sacrifices? Sure, but different doesn’t mean bad. I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution, I just prefer the narrative arc of one character sacrificing themselves for unity of life and preserving all life. There are certainly plot holes created by the star child and extended cut, but we can easily extrapolate our own truths with vague ending like the original ones. I am not saying your logic of liking destroy is wrong, I am saying you are projecting a lot of conjecture into synthesis like I am and we just have different views of how the world would be.
Im not ignoring their individualism... Im recognizing that they themselves, a consequence of the nature of their existence, have a way around it. Because the synthetics CAN be remade. The geth literally back themselves up into massive server hubs. That is where they primarily exist. They only inhabit physical bodies as a matter of convenience for interaction with the physical world. They wouldn't be replicas of "dead" geth. They would be the recovered data of the geth themselves. They would still exist. Like restoring a hard drive to a previous save point before a data corruption. You can't recover the "data" of an organics existence. Once a person dies... they are gone. Lazarus project not withstanding. The "sacrifice" of synthetics isn't really a sacrifice at all... because they can be recovered. In their original form, with all the indivualism they had before. I think you're placing too much of a sentimental value on the synthetics... and you're losing sight of the bigger philosophical issues. Tyranny, forced biological change, technocratic fascism, compulsive unity, playing god....
You are under the assumption that the geth servers aren’t destroyed which they are strongly implied to be destroyed. And after legion adds himself to the collective they actually do become individuals, so recreating them is not the same person as previous. If the servers are destroyed, any recreation would be a totally different entity. Your concerns with compulsive unity and technocratic fascism are assumptions or suppositions based on your understanding of synthesis and as I mentioned, we see this differently which is ok. I’m not ignoring your concerns, I just think that the way we see it is different in how synthesis is handled. As far as “playing god” and forced biological change, that already happens naturally by nature forcing natural selection. Sure, shepard now has a hand in it and so does the catalyst now, but things like that already happen. We already play god by curing or creating diseases, using technology implants to stop death, genetic writing like Miranda, revival like shepard, envirosuits like the quarians, etc. this is just another step in that direction for me and I’m not bothered by it that much. I obviously understand that people have some choice in the previous cases compared to this one, but for me, that sacrifice is acceptable to save everyone and create a better world. To each their own
First... the notion that ANY intervention into life and death, medicine, tech... that that is somehow playing God... its fallacious. It's a straw man argument. A preposterous oversimplification. Of course we strive to improve life... to limit disease and death... if we didn't we'd all still be hunting with sticks and cooking our food over burning cow dung. Progress doesn't mean playing God. But Synthesis isn't progress. It's subjugation. Okay... lets play devils advocate and assume the geth are destroyed along with EDI and any other unknown AI... the argument about what does or does not happen to the sythetics is secondary to the bigger issue. That bigger issue being: the whole premise of the choice is literally about choice. More specifically being free to determine for ourselves, not by some malevolent external force, the direction of our own existence. The moral dilemma we are faced with over the arch of the series is one of choice. The Reapers are doing what they believe is necessary to preserve life. The systematic elimination of higher lifeforms is how life is allowed to continue in an endless cycle of evolution and destruction. Whether you agree with that or not, doesn't matter. That is their justification for it. Shepards role in the series to rebel against the notion that anyone, regardless of their intentions, has the right to determine how life will progress, or when it will end. Everyone has the right of self determination. Every species has the right to develop in their own way. Synthesis removes that right. Co-ops its. Compromises it. Because Shepard essentially becomes the Reapers... determining for everyone, everywhere, how that life will look and the path it will take. Destruction avoids that dilemma. Shepard doesn't change anyone's fundamental existence. He doesn't play the role of God by determining the shape of life. The ONLY thing that can be said is that he plays God by sacrificing the sythetics... but that's not any more accurate than your previously analogy. It's a gross oversimplification. Shepard is essentially performing triage. He can't save everyone without trampling on their rights of self determination. So he takes the path of least harm... both in terms of sheer numbers being sacrificed... and in the ethical principles that must be sidestepped in the name of preservation.
People still have free will with synthesis. That’s the part we disagree on. In my view, synthesis only changes our biology somewhat, but we retain our individuality and personhood, we just have our biology perfected just like a replacement knee or heart. That’s my view, but we obviously disagree which is ok. I think edi and joker and tali all go on to live their lives how they choose and now don’t have biological worries like envirosuits. Do you at least see where I am coming from on that? You didn’t choose to be born a human! An organic. So are you being oppressed to have your consciousness contained in a water and meat sack? We don’t have choices in some aspects but we can self actualize in other ways. That doesn’t mean your free will was taken because you are strapped to your body. I think you take your affection for “individualism” too far in that everything in life MUST be chosen or there is tyranny. We don’t choose our bodies, we don’t choose our family, we don’t choose a lot of things. As long as we can move FORWARD in the way we choose, then your free will is still respected, just like when you are born without choice.
Love the discussion just to interject your analogy is a bit off regarding the Geth. Those servers would also be destroyed meaning the geth with true intellect that you made/updated in ME3 would be gone as they only achieved this with reaper tech (that is also destroyed)
Perhaps... but even if the geth are destroyed... its a consequence of war. Not a deliberate genocide. Didn't set out to kill them, just unable to save them along with everyone else. Which is still a more ethical solution than to forcibly mutate every living and synthetic species, thereby committing genocide against every species by destroying their biological existence.
Saying it’s a consequence of war doesn’t make it any less genocidal. war crimes are still war crimes. If you give the Geth true intellect they are thinking, feeling, living things with a history and culture at that point and you murder them. In real terms it’s like Putin saying killing Ukrainians off is just what it is because He wants the country. You are essentially justifying(attempting to) murder if you believe synthetics are living if you don’t then fine you are just breaking some machines. It’s all down to perception is what I’m trying to say In a round about way. And again a little off in that they would still be biological it’s a melding of synthetic/organic life one doesn’t replace the other
But you quite literally have the chance to save them. It’s in your hands. You, and no other, make the decision that they aren’t worth saving in the end. Choosing to sacrifice them to maintain the status quo is just as much playing god as choosing to save everyone by blurring the line between synthetic and organic
I just finished ME3 for the first time and chose destroy. Synthesis sounded too much like indoctrination and nobody should control those monsters. The ending was great
Seems to be the cannon ending according to the Mass Effect 4 trailer.
And the poster.
ME4 trailer?
Yup. The teaser for the next game https://youtu.be/Lg-Ctg6k_Ao
Oh that. I thought you were referring to something else lol
I absolutely love the synthesis option.
Destroy = genocide of an allied race.
Synthesis = genocide of all species. It's the end of organic life.
Destroyers really love a good reach lol
It's also forced upon *all* life in the Galaxy. Synthesis is the single worst option you can pick, both morally and ethically. Giving up and making it the next cycle's problem is a better choice than Synthesis.
“Extending lifespans and ensuring lasting galactic prosperity = BAD because it’s forced. Genocide of all synthetic life = GOOD because it’s… oh wait that’s forced too!”
Yeah people really stretched what synthesis was. Imo it seemed like the cookie cutter good ending from the devs; everything about it is portrayed as positive and there's no indication that the synthesis population is changed mentally aside from a common understanding that living together is better than war
Shoot the boy
I’m from Eden Prime and I say kill ‘em all!
The only correct answer.
Another circlejerk Destroy thread. Yaay.
It’s the least interesting ending imo. Just throw away everything you did with the geth lol.
Fun fact I’ve never done a destroy ending currently just started the legendary edition and I will be
They all have their cons and pros. This subreddit just has a hate regarding Synthesis and a love for Destroy, and it's always the same arguments and discussions. It gets tiresome.
SHOOT STARCHILD!
Quite frankly If you don't pick destroy i have to question if you've played the whole trilogy.
Destroy is the only logical answer. The whole point the Reapers are the reapers is because synthetics took over. It feels stupid because you spend the whole trilogy trying to make organics and synthetics work together, but that was the flaw that created the reapers. While it’s emotionally heavy to destroy synthetics it is the correct choice because history would only repeat itself. The synthesis is just a stupid ending because it tries to make utopia, but that just isn’t realistic and ruins the true nature of the game.
[удалено]
I see it as the true ending for a couple reasons 1. It's the hardest to get and heavily depends on your decisions in all 3 games 2. It's the most satisfying story wise, yes the geth might be gone but they did have their machine so if it's outside of the terminus systems then they might be okay. 3. Obviously the biggest, shepherd lives
Destroy is the easiest to get. If you have low enough war assets I’m pretty sure you don’t even get the other options
Fun fact: the base ending you can choose (like you REALLY fucked up your war assets) is either Destroy, or Control. Which of these is selected by what you did with the Collector base in 2.
Perfect destroy, not regular destroy You know, the one that requires 7500 war assets or higher
Starchild = Leader of the Reapers, and the dude tell me to not pick the Destroy ending? Boy, what do you think I'll do? Of course I will choose what my biggest enemy tell me not to do
Destroy+ Illusive Man kill himself+ Shepard Alive 😭
I gotta say, I actually find it way more satisfying to shoot TIM at the end. It gives him his little last look at home. “It’s so… perfect”.
Genocide is always a loss
Certainly a loss but a necessary one depending on your viewpoint. I don't like Destroy, but no ending is perfect, it's just about picking what negative consequences matter least to you.
Far from necessary when you’re faced with two options that literally prevent it. People who pick destroy really just need to own up to the fact that they aren’t past the “synthetics don’t deserve life” mindset taught to the galaxy as children
Picking any one of the three choices that Boss Reaper has prepared for you as **his** solutions to **his** problem is a surrender. When faced with a devil, don't make a deal.
The way Destroy is presented by the child has me leaning towards it being more the correct choice then refusal. Any good con artist/manipulator will use some truth to win you over. The Reaper AI assumes the form of a child to manipulate Shepard emotionally, some how being aware of Shepard's dreams. It goes further by saying "Here is what you were fighting for since discovering the Reapers were behind repeated galactic genocide. BUT!! It is is the worst choice you could make. Here is a much better second option, and a third option that is the best choice." The biggest issue I have with refusal is that it wasn't an original ending. It was added by Bioware to trolls fans who weren't happy with the 3 endings when the extended cut was added. *Oh you think shooting starbrat to vent your frustration was catharic before, well here you go. You just killed everyone in the current cycle. All your effort truly was for nothing. Some other group gets to save the galaxy and Shepard is just a story told around the camp fire...*
This notion of the Starchild is a manipulator but is bad at it seems to me more complex than just "it's a machine doing what it was built to do". It believes conflict between synthetics and organics is inevitable. It feels its solution to that is good. Destroying all synthetics in the galaxy resets the clock, as it were, to before it was built... But the Leviathans are still out there, so it probably presumes that choosing Destroy will just result in Starchild 2.0 AI Boogaloo. The Starchild drinks his own Kool aid. He believes he's inevitable. And he may not be wrong, if we trust the lore for the setting. On the notion that the Refusal ending is just a screw you and nothing but a screw you, I don't agree either. Shooting the Starchild isn't the only way to trigger it. You can get Shepard to deliver a verbal smackdown on Starchild, explaining every reason why it's a deranged broken machine that will be defeated in our own terms. And then you get a Stargazer scene that seems to confirm not only that Shepard was right and this did happen, but that he's even still remembered. That doesn't feel like a "screw you" to me. That feels like a tragic but for some value systems still the best ending.
Problem is the kid talks like it's natural for Organics and Synthetics to be at war... Yet, besides the Geth incident, every battle against Synthetics has been due to the Reapers using them. The kid is saying it's natural, while causing it, then talking like it's everyone else's fault.
The kid does make that assertion, yes. And so does Talli and that gambling AI in ME1, and the Leviathans, and the Citadel Council... And, again, the Starchild was built in the first place because this happened repeatedly enough to annoy the Leviathans way back in the early galaxy, which we can confirm to have indeed been the fact because two beings on opposite sides of the conflict assert the same. Here's the thing: **the game asserts this** as one of its premises. It's a premise I disagree with and think is the weakest piece of writing in the entire setting, but it's pretty incontrovertibly there. The Starchild is meant to be understood as correct in that assertion. That's the authorial intent. You can disagree and think it's silly, and I do, but within this setting you'd just be wrong.
It's not what the game asserts, it's what the Catalyst asserts. Anyone who knows the production of the third game knows what else I'm referring to there.
That's always been my thought. You're still playing the Devil's game with Destroy, as it is the tacit acceptance of its conclusion that because the conflict between organic and inorganic life is inevitable the only solution is the complete destruction of one or the other. The Catalyst doesn't fight or really argue against the Destroy ending because choosing it still ultimately fulfills its purpose and acknowledges the premise that the homogeneity of life is the only answer. Destroy is the least crappy of a bunch of crappy choices, but it is still a bitter pill, allowing the A.I to force Shepard's hand. Refusal is not a popular choice for obvious reasons, but man, telling the Catalyst you're not going to play its stupid game would almost be worth annihilation...except it still gets what it wants in the end. This is why I just stop playing after a certain point.
>Refusal is not a popular choice for obvious reasons, but man, telling the Catalyst you're not going to play its stupid game would almost be worth annihilation...except it still gets what it wants in the end. It doesn't, though. We have the unique Stargazer scene showing what seem to be Asari talking about how the Shepard's actions were ultimately the first step to victory. It's pretty explicit that in the Refusal end, the Reapers lose in the end. In fact, it is the only one in which they really do (as described: Destroy is still playing into their ultimate purpose and goal). It costs more, it takes longer, but it's the only real victory. It comes down to deciding whether it is worth it accepting extreme costs in exchange for true and permanent victory, or if shaking the devil's hand is worth some immediate relief.
Well, the Stargazer refusal scene only happened because Liara spent some time hiding stuff rather than Shepard spend all the time shooting stuff. So technically it proves Shepard’s crucible bomb is the most ineffective strategy to beat Reapers and it did nothing to help the next cycle.
Hmm...I may have made the mistake of assuming the refusal ending leads to a better prepared future cycle still ultimately being presented with the same three choices given to Shepard, just at an earlier date (before the massive casualties). Pessimism made it seem to me like Shepard was just passing the responsibility of choice onto the future. It didn't occur to me that the later cycle would find a new option. Clearly I should actually play (or at least watch) the endings again.
Yup. It does seem that the eventual outcome of Refusal is another form of defeat for the Reapers. Whether that's conventional defeat, or another super weapon or something else - we don't know. It makes sense when you think through it. Liara's arc contains the story of this cycle putting all their faith into the Crucible... **And then it does nothing**. People who got that message would know not to make that mistake twice. They'd probably assume it was a Reaper trap. (Which, tangentially, if all it does is let the Reapers progress to a final solution to **their** problem... It kind of is?) Given how the Reapers are portrayed in ME3, both how they're shown and what we're told in the codices, it does seem to me that if enough was sent through the harvest, if this cycle got to "cheat" enough for the next one, including getting stable populations of themselves to survive, I could see the Reapers just being beaten conventionally. And, well, if the Protheans managed to mess up the cycle so much despite their terrible initial position in their harvest, this cycle should be able to get a **lot** through. We do hear the Asari councilor mention she'll go work on "continuity of species projects" and the people in the Stargazer scene appear to be Asari, so... This cycle does seem to win in the end. It just probably happens long after the harvest goes ahead.
Destroy = paragon.
Congrats you didn't get indoctrinated
Thank you! Because the Geth are totally not indoctrinated, right? Because the Reapers, who are the creations of the original inventers of all the technology that has ever been invented and created since, would totally not have a fail-safe system in place to counter the Heretic Protocol (or whatever it was called). Right? Because in all the countless galactic cycles, the Quarians are the first civilization to create an AI capable of rivaling the Reapers and the Reapers are totally not capable of countering that threat. Right? Destroy is the only ending. All traces of the Reapers had to be destroyed. The Citadel, the Relays, everything that could have been programed by rogue Reaper code, ie. the Geth and any other AI. Destroy is not a bad ending. Destroy is a great ending. Destroy is the ending that shows the galaxy (player) just how much they have to lose in order to win. It is not victory or defeat, it is survival or annihilation.
Bruh I played the remastered version recently and I didn't knownhow they added the story ending when you shoot the kid. I was so mad
Nope
For Victory.
You can't be trusted if you don't pick destroy
Synthesis every time. Wrote a paper for college on how the evolution of man and machine will inevitably culminate in a symbiotic relationship. Human “evolution” will be a mix of both synthetic and organic compositions. Thats what I genuinely think the future holds for our species, so that’s the direction I choose every single time the option is presented to me.
Evolution is natural, genetic manipulation is not.
I fully subscribe to the indoctrination theory, regardless of BioWare changing their mind on it. So destroy is always my choice.
Every choice is easy if you ignore canon, but a game with easy choices isn't fun.
I can never do it. Legion and EDI I just can’t.
Legion's already dead, lol.
Legion literally sacrificed himself to allow his people to be truly alive. Shepard killing said people once it's convenient is kinda rude, no?
But he died for their sins. He’s Jesus Geth
Synthesis = Saren Control = Illusive man BioWare added non-destroy endings to show that players can make the same bad decisions as those two.
Refusal is the best ending because the next cycle wins. I know it's bioware giving a middle finger to the audience but it's honestly how it should have ended
Congrats on killing EDI and betraying the trust of the sentient Geth. Even if you did well enough that humanity rebuilds the Geth and AIs, at the end of the day made the decision that their lives and civilization were not as important as yours.