Agreed, I heard people talking about destroying but Hacket and Anderson are most foccused on gallactic survival by any means neccesary more or less. That could go either way destroy, make peace, or even just forceing a retreat(highly unlikely as it is).
Well, I'm sure they put galactic survival as the very top priority. To be fair they were actually two of the npc's with the "dead Reapers win this" mentality.
So there you have it. According to the devs, Synthesis is the "Best Choice", while Control is the "Good Platform" and Destroy is the "Bad Platform". I hope that clears things up and will settle these disputes for good now?
Ah, who am I kidding.
Just goes to show how badly Bioware misread their audience.
A pity they were too proud to admit that.
I think the big problem with that intent is that the idea that Reaper technology per se is bad was never widely accepted in the first place. Giving up the capabilities of the relays and mass effect drives is like giving up on atomic energy because of Hiroshima.
I'd have happily brought down the entire relay network if it meant no synthetic holocaust.
Haha, I hate to disagree with you guys and to pure oil into the fire but it s very clear what the best ending is. The developers themselves made it very clear. One need only to take a look at the game files with ME3Explorer's sequence editor:
This is a screenshot of the sequence that sets up the platforms that rise when certain endings become available. I color coded and encircled the important part (the names of the actual platforms) for your convenience but you can check it out in BioA_End002_Space.pcc.
So there you have it. According to the devs, Synthesis is the "Best Choice", while Control is the "Good Platform" and Destroy is the "Bad Platform". I hope that clears things up and will settle these disputes for good now?
Ah, who am I kidding.
O.o
Was not Control on the left and Destroy on the right?
Well, I'm sure they put galactic survival as the very top priority. To be fair they were actually two of the npc's with the "dead Reapers win this" mentality.
Hmm, well I've only played ME1 since I beat new game + of ME3 so not really all that surprised I'm half wrong.
Well, well... this is quite interesting, MrFob. Thanks for posting this. I think it's not surprising to see that the ME team intended it this way. Given the prominence of the sacrifice theme, it's only natural that the best outcome would be bought with the hero's most complete sacrifice. However, I maintain that the story did not naturally lead the player to that conclusion because it - almost everywhere except in the ending sequence - promoted a reactionary ideology, where "organic purity" is a concern, where you destroy what you don't understand, where emotion is more important than reason, where military leaders are competent while political leaders are idiots, and where radical advancement is associated with evil. Which means that while I was convinced that Synthesis was a good ending, I felt I had to fight the writers of the story that came before - as opposed to the writers of the ending itself - for that interpretation.
And of course the pseudo-mystical elements did not help...
Was not Control on the left and Destroy on the right?
I don't recall "destroying Reapers" ever being declared as our original mission. I've heard squadmates and other npc's throughout the series talk of blowing them back to hell. But if I'm not mistaken, the goal was always stated as "stopping the Reapers". It was rather broad. Fans just went ahead and assumed destruction was the only way that would happen.
There's nothing "objective" about it. And in regards to the Reaper War, the results of a victory aren't necessarily better than a stalemate. Simply stopping them (no matter how it's achieved) may even be seen as a victory by some.
The only way to guarantee that the galaxy will be safe from the Reapers, for all time, is to destroy them. Control & Synthesis gamble with the galaxy's future. Synthesis is arguably the worst of the lot, not just in the way it alters the nature of life, but in that it leaves the original Catalyst functional and still in command of a fully intact Reaper fleet.
Destroy is also the only ending to accomplish the mission not just by being the only outcome that guarantees the continuance of galactic civilization, but in that it is the only one to conclude the Reaper War in a victory. In Control & Synthesis the Reapers haven't been defeated in the field, they've just come to a truce with the Council races. It is a stalemate at best. Shepard failing to win the war is failing his mission.
The only way to guarantee that the galaxy will be safe from the Reapers, for all time, is to destroy them. Control & Synthesis gamble with the galaxy's future. Synthesis is arguably the worst of the lot, not just in the way it alters the nature of life, but in that it leaves the original Catalyst functional and still in command of a fully intact Reaper fleet.
Destroy is also the only ending to accomplish the mission not just by being the only outcome that guarantees the continuance of galactic civilization, but in that it is the only one to conclude the Reaper War in a victory. In Control & Synthesis the Reapers haven't been defeated in the field, they've just come to a truce with the Council races. It is a stalemate at best. Shepard failing to win the war is failing his mission.
Safe from the Reapers doesn't mean safer. Destroy gambles with the galaxy's future with the rise of new AI in the absence of the Reapers. Destroy is arguably the worst of the lot.
Destroy doesn't guarantee the continuance of galactic civilization in any way whatsoever. It's quite possibly even less of a guarantee than the other choices. Again, you assume the only means of victory is the eradication of our foe. Many civilizations have been victorious in war through the concession of their enemies. Which is exactly what happens. The Catalyst literally concedes. It acknowledges that Shepard has rendered it obsolete and allows him to choose. That is victory. Not a stalemate.
To say any ending is "objectively" better than the others is simply and completely false
Safe from the Reapers doesn't mean safer. Destroy gambles with the galaxy's future with the rise of new AI in the absence of the Reapers. Destroy is arguably the worst of the lot.
There are zero synthetics in existence in the immediate aftermath of Destroy. Following Control and Synthesis some version of the Catalyst still exists, as does a Reaper fleet perhaps numbering in the thousands. Something that doesn't exist can't be more dangerous than something that does exist. It is mathematically impossible for synthetics to pose a greater threat to the galaxy post-Destroy than the Reapers pose to the post-Control or post-Synthesis galaxies. In comparing Destroy to Control and Synthesis you are comparing a hypothetical and still non-existent threat to an existing threat, which has demonstrated a desire and an ability to destroy civilizations in the past.
Destroy doesn't guarantee the continuance of galactic civilization. It's quite possibly even less of a guarantee. Again, you assume the only means of victory is the eradication of our foe. Many civilizations have been victorious in war through the concession of their enemies. Which is exactly what happens. The Catalyst literally concedes. It acknowledges that Shepard has rendered it obsolete and allows him to choose. That is victory. Not a stalemate.
It is a stalemate. There is no victory in the field and the war ends in a truce. In fact with Synthesis the war ends with a return to the status quo ante bellum. The Reapers continue to exist and the original Catalyst continues to control that Reaper fleet and monitor it's galactic ant farm.
Control & Synthesis pose greater risks to the future of galactic civilization because they rely solely on trusting the goodwill of an A.I. overlord in command of a Reaper fleet. Shepard is betting that galactic civilization will continue to exist because the A.I. overlord will permit it. Synthesis again is the worst of the lot, in that the entity controlling the Reaper fleet is the same A.I. overlord responsible for countless mass extinction cycles. With Destroy there is no roll of the dice. The A.I. overlord is gone and so is its Reaper fleet
In terms of guaranteeing peace and security in the immediate aftermath of the Reaper War, Destroy is objectively the best ending.
There are zero synthetics in existence in the immediate aftermath of Destroy. Following Control and Synthesis some version of the Catalyst still exists, as does a Reaper fleet perhaps numbering in the thousands. Something that doesn't exist can't be more dangerous than something that does exist. It is mathematically impossible for synthetics to pose a greater threat to the galaxy post-Destroy than the Reapers pose to the post-Control or post-Synthesis galaxies. In comparing Destroy to Control and Synthesis you are comparing a hypothetical and still non-existent threat to an existing threat, which has demonstrated a desire and an ability to destroy civilizations in the past.
It is a stalemate. There is no victory in the field and the war ends in a truce. In fact with Synthesis the war ends with a return to the status quo ante bellum. The Reapers continue to exist and the original Catalyst continues to control that Reaper fleet and monitor it's galactic ant farm.
Control & Synthesis pose greater risks to the future of galactic civilization because they rely solely on trusting the goodwill of an A.I. overlord in command of a Reaper fleet. Shepard is betting that galactic civilization will continue to exist because the A.I. overlord will permit it. Synthesis again is the worst of the lot, in that the entity controlling the Reaper fleet is the same A.I. overlord responsible for countless mass extinction cycles. With Destroy there is no roll of the dice. The A.I. overlord is gone and so is its Reaper fleet
In terms of guaranteeing peace and security in the immediate aftermath of the Reaper War, Destroy is objectively the best ending.
You base your entire hypothesis on your distrust for the Catalyst and Leviathan and disbelief in the clockwork-like occurrence of the organic-synthetic problem. I.e. your entire perspective is subjective. That is: not objective.
Synthesis is anything but the status quo. We're all on the same playing field now (Reapers included). And as the epilogue clearly states, they help the galaxy rebuild and share the knowledge of all past civilizations whilst ushering in a galactic golden age.
Destroy poses the greatest risk to the future of all life as it relies solely on the assumption that the Catalyst and Leviathan were both lying to you when they had absolutely no reason to. Shepard is betting galactic civilization will continue to exist because the inherent organic/synthetic conflict either doesn't exist OR that the species of the galaxy can survive it without the existence and proactivity of the Reapers. It is the ultimate roll of the dice.
In terms of guaranteeing peace and security in the immediate or long-term future of the galaxy, destroy is the worst ending. There will be a longer rebuilding period (if ever). Discord will run rampant in a decimated galaxy. Soon our children will create synthetics and the chaos will return. With no Reapers, all life is threatened. Not just the advanced civilizations.
The most interesting decision bioware made was not to expand the breath scene in the EC. Would be interesting to know why but I suspect we never will.
Mike Gamble or Chris Priestly (can't remember which one) did a poll on the RetakeME3 homepage within a month prior to the Extended Cut being released in June of 2012. The question posed was "Do you believe in Indoctrination Theory, Yes or No?". 80% voted yes.
Now, my theory is that they had an 'extended' breathe scene (presumably with Shep standing up out of the rubble) ready to be included in the EC, but as a result of this poll they decided to scrap it so that they didn't trash the ITers preferred interpretation of the ending whilst pissing off another portion of the fanbase all over again. Of course, I never thought for a second that 80% of the people actually believed in IT. They just thought that it'd get them a new/different ending. Hell, I was one of them.
This is just my own theory. I have no proof of it. I just can't think of any other reason why a Bioware higher up would pose such a question to the Retake movement mere weeks before the EC was released.
You base your entire hypothesis on your distrust for the Catalyst and Leviathan and disbelief in the clockwork-like occurrence of the organic-synthetic problem. I.e. your entire perspective is subjective. That is: not objective.
I'm basing it on mathematics.
Even assuming that the Catalyst is correct in stating that synthetics pose a risk to the survival of galactic civilization, there are zero of them in existence in the immediate aftermath of Destroy. The Catalyst may not even be entirely correct in its assumptions about the risks synthetics pose, but just for the sake of discussion I'm going to assume that it is.
Meanwhile the Reapers, which have a history of annihilating civilizations and must be considered at the very least a serious potential threat, continue to exist in Control and Synthesis by their hundreds or thousands. How many Reapers are there? 500? 1000? 10,000? In any case it is many more than zero. That does objectively make Destroy the best ending, as it is the only choice which can guarantee the galaxy's security. Even accepting the Catalyst's assertion that synthetics and organics can't coexist, Destroy ends with zero surviving threats. Control & Synthesis can't claim the same.
Synthesis is anything but the status quo. We're all on the same playing field now (Reapers included). And as the epilogue clearly states, they help the galaxy rebuild and share the knowledge of all past civilizations whilst ushering in a galactic golden age.
Mcfly616, on 11 Apr 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:
Destroy poses the greatest risk to the future of all life as it relies solely on the assumption that the Catalyst and Leviathan were both lying to you when they had absolutely no reason to. Shepard is betting galactic civilization will continue to exist because the inherent organic/synthetic conflict either doesn't exist OR that the species of the galaxy can survive it without the existence and proactivity of the Reapers. It is the ultimate roll of the dice.
From a player's perspective perspective of course Bioware isn't going to troll fans who chose Synthesis, by having their choice result the Reapers turning on them and annihilating the galaxy. If Bioware ever crafts a sequel from ME3 it likely either roll with a sole canon ending or find a way to mash them all the ending choices into a single sequel.
But from Shepard's perspective Control & Synthesis are much bigger roles of the dice than Destroy. The former requires not only leaving the Reapers and some form of the Catalyst in place, but requires Shepard to kill himself while doing it. And all based on the word of the A.I. responsible for the attempt to annihilate Shepard's species, and countless successful mass extinction cycles. Control & Synthesis requires Shepard to trust that the Reapers will never again return to their mass murdering ways. That's a much bigger gamble than Destroy, which not only annihilates the Reapers but takes out those pesky synthetics that the Catalyst warns against as well.
In terms of guaranteeing peace and security in the immediate or long-term future of the galaxy, destroy is the worst ending. There will be a longer rebuilding period (if ever). Discord will run rampant in a decimated galaxy. Soon our children will create synthetics and the chaos will return. With no Reapers, all life is threatened. Not just the advanced civilizations.
Maybe, but that is all hypothetical. Synthetics do not exist in the aftermath of the Destroy.
Reapers, which are a proven threat, do exist in the aftermath of Control and Synthesis. In comparing the results of the endings it is one hypothetical threat which doesn't presently exist versus a real and proven threat which does.
O.o
Was not Control on the left and Destroy on the right?
A ME3 ending thread.
This brings back good old memories of pitchforks, cup cakes and the desire for Casey & Mac's head on a stick... Good Times. 
Most likely the greatest western movie ever. Of course any western with Clint Eastwood in it is excellent.
Most likely the greatest western movie ever. Of course any western with Clint Eastwood in it is excellent.
Truth has been spoken!
Well, well... this is quite interesting, MrFob. Thanks for posting this. I think it's not surprising to see that the ME team intended it this way. Given the prominence of the sacrifice theme, it's only natural that the best outcome would be bought with the hero's most complete sacrifice. However, I maintain that the story did not naturally lead the player to that conclusion because it - almost everywhere except in the ending sequence - promoted a reactionary ideology, where "organic purity" is a concern, where you destroy what you don't understand, where emotion is more important than reason, where military leaders are competent while political leaders are idiots, and where radical advancement is associated with evil. Which means that while I was convinced that Synthesis was a good ending, I felt I had to fight the writers of the story that came before - as opposed to the writers of the ending itself - for that interpretation.
And of course the pseudo-mystical elements did not help...
I wouldn't say radical advancement is associated with "evil" so much as "shortsightedness" The trilogy beats you over the head with the dangers of letting your reach exceed your grasp. You could have perfectly noble intentions, but pushing ahead too fast without properly understanding what you're doing can be a recipe for disaster.
Also, I'd like to make it clear (just in case it wasn't) that I posted that screen with my tonuge in my cheek. IMO, we don't know if this was labeled just by some level designer or what. IMO, it's pretty clear that the writers did not intend for one ending to be absolutely superior to the others. Given all the influence this took from Deus Ex, I believe they tried go a similar road there as well, that no ending was supposed to be better or "the best", sparking exactly the discussions that have been going on for the past 3 years (and whatever you may say about the ending, that is still an achievement in a way). As we all know, "speculation for everyone" was intended.
Actually, it's pretty clear Synthesis is supposed to be the "best" outcome. There is no Low EMS version, it requires the highest state of galactic readiness to achieve (minus the breath Easter Egg), and you are explicitly told via the Catalyst that it is the "optimal solution".
Plus EDI's speech in EC is so saccharine as to give one diabetes just by listening to it.
Huh, you are right, actually.
I mixed up the triggers. So, Destroy is the "Good Plattform" and Control is "The Bad".
*snip*
Sorry for that. Editing the post on the first page to correct. Thanks for pointing it out.
Also, I'd like to make it clear (just in case it wasn't) that I posted that screen with my tonuge in my cheek. IMO, we don't know if this was labeled just by some level designer or what. IMO, it's pretty clear that the writers did not intend for one ending to be absolutely superior to the others. Given all the influence this took from Deus Ex, I believe they tried go a similar road there as well, that no ending was supposed to be better or "the best", sparking exactly the discussions that have been going on for the past 3 years (and whatever you may say about the ending, that is still an achievement in a way). As we all know, "speculation for everyone" was intended.
Yeah, if I remember right, the image of the Control rods are labeled "bad" in the game files.
I would not read too much into these, though. This would indicate the opinion of the programmers, not necessarily the writers -- in this case, maybe those guys were just none too fond of TIM (except I do think Green was intended to be the "best" ending by those who wrote it).
On my first playthrough (Pre-EC) I chose Synthesis, because I wanted to see how Bioware would tell that story. I didn't have From Ashes, because I thought it was the result of bad business practice and refused to buy it, so the conversation with the Catalyst was lacking some information that might have changed my final choice - which validated my decision not to buy From Ashes, I figured.
Overall, I was reasonably happy with the "ending" I got, although I later learned that so much more could have been done with the Normandy scene than was actually done. Definitely a missed opportunity, but forgiveable. I didn't think the Ending Sequences were supposed to be the real cathartic load-bearers anyway, given the content of the last few hours of gameplay.
For my second playthrough, this time with the benefit of some hated DLC, I picked high-EMS Destroy, and I did it for an unexpected reason. While I was listening to the Catalyst and investigating everything it had to say (Leviathan, etc.), I realized that its logic was internally inconsistent. It didn't see the problems with its perspective on its creators; it couldn't see the possibility of a problem in the first place. It was a precocious child that had resorted to unacceptable cruelty to reconcile the conflicts of a warped perspective, and it had to be destroyed.
The Child wanted Synthesis, which is precisely why I wouldn't allow that - this time.
TL;DR All things considered, I got heaps more meaning out of EC endings plus DLC than I did pre-EC without DLC, which to me says that everyone was very much right to be upset with Biovar.
Plus EDI's speech in EC is so saccharine as to give one diabetes just by listening to it.
I thought about going back through for EC Synthesis, but I may just take your word for it because Minsc said it.
I hope we learn the truth some day. I have a lot of questions.
Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get a real insight into why the writers did what they did, or any of the reasoning behind the last ten minutes of the game. It's just way too sensitive an issue and I guess the developers don't want to ****** people off any more by attempting to explain it further. There were some hints in Geoff Keighley's interviews with Mac and Casey in The Final Hours of ME3 app, but they went completely silent after launch and I don't see that changing any time soon. The Extended Cut was as good an elaboration on the weird ending philosophies as we're ever going to get.
Bioware devs have regularly brushed the questions off by saying they "don't want to ruin each individual player's interpretation of the ending", which is just a terrible cop-out of an approach. If Synthesis was intended to be the best ending, they need to be able to confirm that and justify it - and own up to the ridiculousness if people challenge the space magic stuff, or the enforced homogeneity, or EDI's insanely optimistic galactic utopia.
Casey left, which means he'll probably never be asked about it ever again, and I suspect the next game will have little to nothing to do with ME3's ending, so they can just avoid it entirely. The more time passes from when ME3 launched, the less pressing it is for them to actually explain what they were trying to do.
Well, then never mind. I guess that Control is supposed to be worse than Destroy, despite all the evidence from the the leaked scripts. This also implies further condemnation of the preservation of the Collector Base.
It's astonishing to me that invalidating the entire Rannoch arc is "good".
Just chiming in - first playthrough of ME3, I picked Destroy (I didn't have Synthesis as an option) because it seemed to be the "good choice". I thought this because 1) Hackett says the Illusive Man is wrong..."dead reapers is how we win this"
AND
2) it shows Anderson making that choice in the little preview when the star child is talking about it while the Illusive man makes the control choice (but this may have been part of the extended ending...I never played the original game with original ending cause i came to franchise late.).
So in my mind, knowing nothing about any of the arguments around this and just playing it in my own little bubble,...I thought Destroy was the "good-guy" choice and Control was the "bad-guy" one. Ie, I thought that was what the writers were going for. But it was confusing cause Destroy was the renegade option and it killed the geth (noooooo!!!!!).
Then, after visiting forums and getting all the DLC, etc, I realized there was a 3rd choice I missed cause I didn't get enough points, etc in my first playthrough. I went thru and played for Synthesis ending (which seemed like the "best" choice). I HATED it, for reasons you have all already stated. Then played thru and did the Control choice and felt a little gross about it (not a fan of the whole god-thing) though I did like that I got to save the geth (I love the geth!!).
So, after many PTs, I thought maybe none of the choices are good or bad. That they purposefully made it all morally ambiguous. Which is fine, I reckon.
But seeing the screenshot of the game choices above...I guess I was correct in my first PT. Destroy is considered "good" by the devs. Oh well... 
Retour en haut
