As much as I'd love to see my friends - Geth and EDI - alive, I would never let the Reapers alive.
They were the enemies since day 1, so no, I will not take any chance with them.
Who knows if indoctrination won't happen in Control or Synthesis - between Reapers/Shepard or Shepard/Galaxy? Nah, friend, Legion gave his life to free the Geth. I will do the same to free the Galaxy.
I valued the lives of the Geth, EDI and other synthetics so highly, that to avoid killing them, I chose to become one of them.
I chose Control the first time i completed it. After the EC I do like the Synthesis ending, although those eyes are more than a little creepy. After seeing how that choice plays out though it seems that's the best one to go for.
Getting sucked in to this "blackhole of nonsense", once again..........
Because, like my 'sig' says, the only way we win this, is dead reapers!
Destroy.
Have absolutely no time for Synthesis.
Control felt too hypocritical given that you'd fought to prevent TIM taking control of the Reapers himself.
Refuse, it's insta-fail in this cycle, but does at least allow for a conventional victory in the next without having to buy into Starjar's twisted logic.
Funny thing about Control..
Even if you play as friendly about it as possible, it really comes down to taking the Catalyst at its word and nodding "Yep! Gonna control you now!", shortly after telling another person not to.
But then you get into the details..
-TIM was blatantly controlled by elsewhere/others, so it makes sense for even Paragon Shepard to expose and oppose that
-Shepard doesn't control the Reapers as a human/transhuman, but as a full-on Reaper entity itself. He had to sacrifice much of himself become more like one of them to 'properly' control them (which is a point that I don't see too many players bring up), and the only way he could do that without being (forget I.T. here) indoctrinated was to replace the top head honcho child ghost god, instead of becoming only a husk.
-Shepard opposed doing bad things in order to come to this conclusion, but those bad things happened anyway (done by others) and there's lots of choices earlier in the story about picking up the results of unethical actions and research and doing something better with them
There's reasons to pick Control. But yeah, is you were a ME2-Paragon plus ME3-Renegade, going Control does sound damn hypocritical. It's much more of an about-face. So I had no problem with a Renegade Controller sounding like more like a dangerous dictator.
So... you're summing up the reapers from creation through millions and millions of years of harvesting galactic civilizations through destruction as some kind of wicked experiment?
To the Leviathan, sure... To the survivors of the harvest, they represent a threat no one will want to see again for a long time.I'd go with misguided rather than wicked, myself. But yeah, that's all they were.
Sort of stated my choice in my 2cts post I just put up, but found this thread highly interesting so I'll try and put my choice into words. I'll be loaning some arguments from earlier posts though as I happen to agree with them.
Control
I think as a Paragon player you can't choose this as basically you would sort of be a god and decide the evolution of the galaxy on your own. Imho, this is outside of Shepards character who is about letting people decide for themselves. For good, or bad. Also this option feels really awkward to me. There you have the reapers, destroyers of countless civilizations and murderers of countless of souls, not to mention the trillions that died in this latest reiteration of the cycle and now we have them roam around like nothing happened?
It would be like defeating Nazi Germany and then letting Hitler, Goering walk free saying as they would say, we have a new leader so all is good now, you can trust us. I simply cannot see it work. As long as the Reapers remain I think most if not all people would NEVER feel save. I suppose one could argue that Sheplyst could make the reapers fall into the nearest black hole, but if he would do that he might as well pick the Destruction option as the result would be the same and as a bonus he would survive.
I would feel a little bad about EDI and the Geth, but I think if given the choice they would sacrifice them for the greater good. Also I wonder if the Geth are still considered synthetic or is having a soul the distinct qualification for life? If the Geth are considered to be alive then the crucible should spare them (that would leave poor EDI (and Joker)). If not, I see nothing that would stop anyone from creating EDI and the Geth again. Granted, both are not simply created but even more so a result of their experiences, but it should be possible to (at least in some extent) to duplicate those experiences and recreate them to the state they were just before the crucible fired.
As a side remark. I haven't got any DLC for ME3, but reading through this thread I read up on the Leviathan one and I might buy this one after all, but for me this is another reason that the Control option is out of the question, because if I read it right the Reapers are actually a VI creation by them which rebelled against them. If one Godlike race failed to foresee their own creation turn against them who is to say it wouldn't happen again with Sheplyst at the helm?
In fact one could also argue that it still would be possible that at some point organics and synthetics will be at each others throats again. After all, Sheplyst only controls the reapers and who knows what synthetics will be created in the future? What would he do then? Whose side would he take? Might it be possible that he comes to conclusion that the harvest is necessary after all? Or should he have chosen for Synthesis after all?
No, all things considered Control is out of the question.
Synthesis
The " Everybody needs to be happy" option and while I do like happy endings overall I felt that this was a cop out. Also again I feel that Shepard would essentially act like god which is outside of his character. This whole synthesis tasted to much like the borg mantra "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own". Mordokai called it rape, and that's exactly what it is.
While in my view of Shepard he will do what needs to be done to defeat the reapers it's an entirely other thing to just merge organics and synthetics. The whole saga was about defeating the reapers, forcing the entire galaxy to some kind of mind/body-meld was not the plan so no. My Shepard will allow the galaxy to make it's own mistakes and if that means that organics will be wiped out and that's on the head of a future generation.
Also the catalyst self said that Synthesis was inevitable. Well, if that's the case I see no reason to hurry. It will come when the time is right and my Shepard will be damned if he forces it on the Galaxy.
Destruction
Imho, the ONLY right choice. When you have the opportunity to end a threat that threatens every advanced civilization in the Galaxy with annihilation, a threat that has annihilated countless civilizations in the past then you END that threat. And while the other 2 endings also will end this threat they both (the refuse option I refuse to discuss (pun intended)) have to much downside to be considered.
And if the Catalyst is right, and he probably is since he is way more intelligent, Synthesis will happen eventually anyway and if that's the case there is no reason to let it come naturally instead of forcing it down everyone's throat.
Of course this option also had the added bonus of Shepard surviving and finally be able to settle down with his love.
Refuse
All the other choices were so f***ing terrible, they may as well start from scratch and try again next cycle.
Maybe next time we'll get better choices or better writers.
I valued the lives of the Geth, EDI and other synthetics so highly, that to avoid killing them, I chose to become one of them.
I have my issues with Control (as stated earlier), but I really dig the structure and sentiment of your post.
Control
I think as a Paragon player you can't choose this as basically you would sort of be a god and decide the evolution of the galaxy on your own. Imho, this is outside of Shepards character who is about letting people decide for themselves. For good, or bad. Also this option feels really awkward to me. There you have the reapers, destroyers of countless civilizations and murderers of countless of souls, not to mention the trillions that died in this latest reiteration of the cycle and now we have them roam around like nothing happened?
It would be like defeating Nazi Germany and then letting Hitler, Goering walk free saying as they would say, we have a new leader so all is good now, you can trust us. I simply cannot see it work. As long as the Reapers remain I think most if not all people would NEVER feel save. I suppose one could argue that Sheplyst could make the reapers fall into the nearest black hole, but if he would do that he might as well pick the Destruction option as the result would be the same and as a bonus he would survive.
I would feel a little bad about EDI and the Geth, but I think if given the choice they would sacrifice them for the greater good. Also I wonder if the Geth are still considered synthetic or is having a soul the distinct qualification for life? If the Geth are considered to be alive then the crucible should spare them (that would leave poor EDI (and Joker)). If not, I see nothing that would stop anyone from creating EDI and the Geth again. Granted, both are not simply created but even more so a result of their experiences, but it should be possible to (at least in some extent) to duplicate those experiences and recreate them to the state they were just before the crucible fired.
As a side remark. I haven't got any DLC for ME3, but reading through this thread I read up on the Leviathan one and I might buy this one after all, but for me this is another reason that the Control option is out of the question, because if I read it right the Reapers are actually a VI creation by them which rebelled against them. If one Godlike race failed to foresee their own creation turn against them who is to say it wouldn't happen again with Sheplyst at the helm?
In fact one could also argue that it still would be possible that at some point organics and synthetics will be at each others throats again. After all, Sheplyst only controls the reapers and who knows what synthetics will be created in the future? What would he do then? Whose side would he take? Might it be possible that he comes to conclusion that the harvest is necessary after all? Or should he have chosen for Synthesis after all?
No, all things considered Control is out of the question.
Where in the epilogue did it say that Shepard would be controlling the evolution of the galaxy? A Renegade Shepard might, based on his dialogue of imposing order and general ''my way or no way'', but what about Paragon Shepard? He's always compromising, diplomatic, etc. While we all know power corrupts, this might not be a problem.
AI Shepard (Paragon) helps the galaxy rebuild to where it was before, then crashes the Reapers into the Sun. He realized, through his memories and experiences, that the Reapers have been nothing but trouble and suffering. The best way for this galaxy to move on is to have a fresh start, and that means no more reapers. You might not live, but you do spare the only AI to have truly cooperated with organics that we know of. The organics vs synthetics conflict has occurred millions of times. We might be able to get some of the Geth and EDI were in a post destroy world, but it won't be the same. The synthetics we create will most certainly end up doing what they always did, rebel against their creators (not to mention when they find out that an organic ''used'' them to fight the Reaper War, only to kill them while there were other choices available.) We might have a unique chance, a special set of variables and events that made this synthetic-organic cooperation possible, and you want to throw perhaps our one chance, our one shot at true peace, just so you can live?
I made my Shepard so he can give the galaxy the best possible shot vs the Reapers and beyond. If that means sacrifice, so be it.
Why not just Refuse, then?
I do. I Refuse to play the ending at all. Their refuse is an immature middle finger to the fans that don't like the other options. "u is to stoopid to gets are jeenyes so scroow u." Instead of listening to criticism, instead of acknowledging that a) they lied all the way up to the release, 
there are significant problems with the ending both from a subjective viewpoint and from an objective storytelling viewpoint (at least as objective as you can be when talking about something like this, such as the use of deus ex machina, for one), and c) people were validly upset over more than just a few minor details; they brushed it all aside, slapped on a hurried cheap slide show and a couple extra lines of dialog which solved nothing, created a "special" ending for those who still weren't satisfied in which they metaphorically killed them all (no doubt a reflection of their real-world feelings on the subject), and then went back to making more multiplayer maps. Because MONEY!
So no, I don't pick the "middle finger" ending. I turn off the game and apply my head canon wherein it was all an indoctrination attempt to try and weaken Shepard's will before they get to the crucible, which is a crucible. A trial by fire wherein you connect to the reaper intelligence through the indoctrination signal, and fight them mentally to destroy them the same way that Sovereign's intelligence was destroyed when you destroy Saran's body that it was inhabiting. That version has you fighting along side the Illusive Man as a squadmate (if you choose), fighting virtual representations of your friends in an attempt to demoralize Shepard; and gives you 9 possible endings, everything from total destruction and becoming a reaper, as well as undoing all the sabotage the Protheans did to give you an advantage, thus restoring the cycle to normal; all the way up to total victory with everyone alive, and even a choice of utter destruction of the reapers, or self-sacrifice to help them restore what they used to be.
One thing I never understood related to the endings: I was on these forums back when BSN was raging battleground after ME3 came out. When people found the endings to be horrible, they immediately demanded change. They wanted to show the finger to the Catalyst, be able to object, and tell him how oh so wrong he was.
The EC released. Bioware listened and decided to include a Refuse ending. Then, I start reading comments that said how the Refuse ending was a slap to the face, how it was disgraceful towards the fans, etc.
What exactly did you expect? The fact you were going to lose was obvious. I understand those who would've liked to see the forces fighting in vain, giving out one last hurrah, seeing it fleshed out a bit more, but then again Bioware didn't care to give new fighting cutscenes to the other endings. This was free DLC. They decided to focus on preserving what was there. That's their choice. For them to cave in on fan demand for a Refuse ending must have been a big deal for them.
Besides, everybody who wanted to Refuse wanted to do it for different reasons. Some wanted to shove it to the Catalyst's logic, others refused to choose, etc. Others might also have wanted the scenes to be different. Some might have wanted to show the fleets do one last stand, together. Others might have wanted to see the final hours of the Normandy and it's crew. Or maybe have Joker narrate the final days of the galaxy, going over what happened just before his own end.
With all these possibilities, Bioware did the next best thing instead of spending lots of time and money doing something that might not even have fixed the problem for some fans. They left it open ended, and while I know it was ''Speculations for everyone!'' that started this whole issue for the fans, in this case I feel it is acceptable, and Bioware should be thanked for listening to the fans on this fans on this one, to have given them their final option of saying no. Whether or not the endings are bad or not (BSN representation not accurate of entire fanbase), it took guts to put an option that says ''You know what, our ending was horrible. Here's an alternative''
We should be grateful for a dev that was willing to do this for us, instead of calling an abomination.
I refuse to be "grateful"to the developers for declaring "Rocks fall, everyone dies" in response to negative backlash about the endings.
I refuse to be "grateful"to the developers for declaring "Rocks fall, everyone dies" in response to negative backlash about the endings.
People wanted a Refuse ending. Bioware gave it to them. Like I said, they couldn't really do anything more than a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" ending without risking upsetting a portion of the fanbase, as if they needed to do so any more after what had happened. It also helped address the false advertising of ME3, since it was originally promised that the Reapers could win.
They gave us that choice. It's what we were complaining about all along, wasn't it? The lack of choices. They addressed that. Whether we like it or not isn't a reason to be ungrateful of the time and effort they put into the EC. For free. We wanted fixes, they did them. Was it to the liking of the entire fanbase? Absolutely not, and no ending for Mass Effect 3 ever could've been. Did it patch things up, improve them slightly, and allow everyone to move on from that fiasco? Yes.
Hi, I know this has been discussed zillion of times, but since I finished the game just yesterday... I tried all three endings and I chose the organics-syntetics-happy-live-together one. Except for creepy green glowing eyes and some facial marks... I think this is the best ending in the game. As Catalyst points out "ultimate solution". And the destruction of Reapers is the worst except that is the only ending where you keep Shepard alive in his own body. All endings are good endings. One will make you "ascend" but loose your body. The other will make you die but unite organics and syntetics. The third one will kill syntetics and leave you alive in your body. My reasons is that one life is worth sacrificing against billions even if it's your life. Controlling option was second best. I think that the middle one is the best choice. Except for glowing green eyes... I don't think those would be really necessary in real life
This game is so good you can build a psychological profile of someone play the game based on choices he makes.
Which ending did you choose and why?
I chose the synthesis ending too, that should be the perfect ending, that Shepard goes out with a bang and saves the universe.
Whether you control or destroy the Reapers, the Catalyst already explained that organics and synthetics will always end up fighting each other. This cannot be avoided and he has seen it a zillion times. So even without the Reapers, there will still be a terrible war. Stopping the reapers only results in a temporary peace, though at least Shepard gets to enjoy peace in his lifetime.
Synthesis is the only solution that achieves ultimate peace, and is the perfect ending for me.
Edit: I am actually pleased with the endings and I do not feel like outraged. Maybe the extended DLC helped, but overall I agree with the endings presented.
One thing I never understood related to the endings: I was on these forums back when BSN was raging battleground after ME3 came out. When people found the endings to be horrible, they immediately demanded change. They wanted to show the finger to the Catalyst, be able to object, and tell him how oh so wrong he was.
The EC released. Bioware listened and decided to include a Refuse ending. Then, I start reading comments that said how the Refuse ending was a slap to the face, how it was disgraceful towards the fans, etc.
What exactly did you expect? The fact you were going to lose was obvious. I understand those who would've liked to see the forces fighting in vain, giving out one last hurrah, seeing it fleshed out a bit more, but then again Bioware didn't care to give new fighting cutscenes to the other endings. This was free DLC. They decided to focus on preserving what was there. That's their choice. For them to cave in on fan demand for a Refuse ending must have been a big deal for them.
Besides, everybody who wanted to Refuse wanted to do it for different reasons. Some wanted to shove it to the Catalyst's logic, others refused to choose, etc. Others might also have wanted the scenes to be different. Some might have wanted to show the fleets do one last stand, together. Others might have wanted to see the final hours of the Normandy and it's crew. Or maybe have Joker narrate the final days of the galaxy, going over what happened just before his own end.
With all these possibilities, Bioware did the next best thing instead of spending lots of time and money doing something that might not even have fixed the problem for some fans. They left it open ended, and while I know it was ''Speculations for everyone!'' that started this whole issue for the fans, in this case I feel it is acceptable, and Bioware should be thanked for listening to the fans on this fans on this one, to have given them their final option of saying no. Whether or not the endings are bad or not (BSN representation not accurate of entire fanbase), it took guts to put an option that says ''You know what, our ending was horrible. Here's an alternative''
We should be grateful for a dev that was willing to do this for us, instead of calling an abomination.
To be fair I think there were other, if not more, complaints about wanting the whole thing to make sense, have better story telling, not flip themes at the last second, etc.
People wanted a Refuse ending. Bioware gave it to them. Like I said, they couldn't really do anything more than a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" ending without risking upsetting a portion of the fanbase, as if they needed to do so any more after what had happened. It also helped address the false advertising of ME3, since it was originally promised that the Reapers could win.
They gave us that choice. It's what we were complaining about all along, wasn't it? The lack of choices. They addressed that. Whether we like it or not isn't a reason to be ungrateful of the time and effort they put into the EC. For free. We wanted fixes, they did them. Was it to the liking of the entire fanbase? Absolutely not, and no ending for Mass Effect 3 ever could've been. Did it patch things up, improve them slightly, and allow everyone to move on from that fiasco? Yes.
The extended cut fix the problem? No. It was the same crappy endings with a sugar coating. It got rid of the "wasteland" feel but that was it. It still left me with an empty feeling. Did it allow people to move on from the fiasco? Well people did anyway. Halo 4 came out, and most of the people who bought ME3 were playing something else by that time.
We might have a unique chance, a special set of variables and events that made this synthetic-organic cooperation possible, and you want to throw perhaps our one chance, our one shot at true peace, just so you can live?
Eh, I'm of the mindset that something like "true peace" is a myth, at least so long as civilizations exist, regardless of whether or not it's kept under the thumb of a machine god, benevolent or no.
Eh, I'm of the mindset that something like "true peace" is a myth, at least so long as civilizations exist, regardless of whether or not it's kept under the thumb of a machine god, benevolent or no.
This machine god has seen eons worth of civilizations, seen the Reaping numerous times, has tried to find numerous solutions to the synthetics wiping out all organics which kept happening over and over again despite their best efforts to solve it.
Pretty sure the Catalyst has more insight to the universe than someone whose lifespan is only about 80 years. So if the Catalyst says the synthesis is the ultimate solution to true peace, I think no one else can prove him wrong.
This machine god has seen eons worth of civilizations, seen the Reaping numerous times, has tried to find numerous solutions to the synthetics wiping out all organics which kept happening over and over again despite their best efforts to solve it.
Pretty sure the Catalyst has more insight to the universe than someone whose lifespan is only about 80 years. So if the Catalyst says the synthesis is the ultimate solution to true peace, I think no one else can prove him wrong.
The Catalyst also thinks Reaper slushy is preserving life, so I think it's views on things don't necessarily match up with a human's views.
Plus, why would Synthesis ever lead to something like true peace? People will still have differing views which will inevitably lead to conflict.
The Catalyst also thinks Reaper slushy is preserving life, so I think it's views on things don't necessarily match up with a human's views.
Plus, why would Synthesis ever lead to something like true peace? People will still have differing views which will inevitably lead to conflict.
It would stop the one thing that kept happening; synthetics wiping out organics. That is the one thing that always happened eventually, and the reason why Reapers had to be created because no other solution to this problem could be found.
The Synthesis allowed both organics and synthetics to understand each other and so prevent that war from happening, thus true peace. Maybe there will still be conflicts, but the big one that wipes out all organics would not happen.
If Shepard destroyed or controlled the Reapers, then the cycle will just keep repeating.
This machine god has seen eons worth of civilizations, seen the Reaping numerous times, has tried to find numerous solutions to the synthetics wiping out all organics which kept happening over and over again despite their best efforts to solve it.
Pretty sure the Catalyst has more insight to the universe than someone whose lifespan is only about 80 years. So if the Catalyst says the synthesis is the ultimate solution to true peace, I think no one else can prove him wrong.
From [Shepard's] our perspective, we don't know what those solutions entailed. We have no details, thus I have no reason to care. But anyway, that's besides the point. Its eons worth of observation are not really the issue, but rather that its definition of what's "optimal" may not be aligned with my own. After all, it considered its harvesting to be some sort of "ascension", whereas I see people being sent off to death camps awaiting a screaming death in a reaper processing plant, because something something machine logic the best solution something something. In any case, the appeal to the Catalyst's age is not something I find particularly compelling. This argument is brought up quite a lot, and I've yet to really see any reason for concern, especially considering the idea that the Catalyst itself could very well have screwed the variables up itself over many cycles through its instigation, like how Sovereign tapped the geth to help attack everyone else in the galaxy. I don't care if the Catalyst was birthed in the big bang. It's no less fallible an entity because of it.
If the Catalyst says that Synthesis is the ultimate solution, there is nothing to prove or disprove, because it's all framed within a prediction. That's like me predicting that you will die slipping on a bar of soap in the shower, based solely on statistical data regarding household accidents. The only way to prove my prediction wrong is to live out your life and die some other way. Similarly, the galaxy could live and die in heat death before new synthetics wipe out everything.
And really, what is "true peace" anyway? Like, do differences of opinion just go away? Resources become infinite? Do we become lobotomized? Do cats and dogs finally shake paws and part ways? This is a rather vague idea that I'd rather not indulge.
It's like saying "Take this pill. It will make you feel better.....forever."
Plus, why would Synthesis ever lead to something like true peace? People will still have differing views which will inevitably lead to conflict.
Retour en haut
